2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Horne: Madame Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce two of your guests today, Mike McSweeney with the Cement Association of Canada and Jonathan Moser with Lafarge. May the House make them welcome.

C. James: I have a constituent of mine in the gallery today. She is an elected school trustee from the board of education in Victoria. Would the House please make Diane McNally very welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: It is a great pleasure to have with us today Mr. Gerald Proctor from Target Canada. After a long and rich history in the United States, they have joined the Canadian marketplace. Earlier this year Target Canada saw the opening of 24 stores in B.C.

[1335]

As the MLA for Richmond Centre, I am so pleased to see Target Canada open one of the 24 stores at Lansdowne mall. Communities stretching across our province, from Prince George to Cranbrook to Nanaimo, can all enjoy the shopping, of course, and the jobs Target Canada brings to B.C. Please join me in welcoming Target Canada to the House and to B.C.

Statements

FIRE AT TUDOR HOUSE PUB
IN ESQUIMALT

M. Karagianis: Today, there was a terrible tragedy in my community. The Tudor House, a local Esquimalt landmark for 110 years, sustained a major fire overnight. Only the outstanding efforts of our Esquimalt fire department kept the blaze contained. Fortunately, there was no loss of life, no injuries and no damage to any surrounding buildings either.

I would hope the House will join me in thanking the firefighters, the Victoria police department, the emergency personnel and first responders for their wonderful hard work in keeping this fire contained.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: Madame Speaker, I just wanted to say it's not only your riding that hosts cement manufacturers in the Lower Mainland, as Delta South is home to Lehigh Cement. I also want to introduce Mike McSweeney and the association.

Hon. A. Virk: I have a guest in the House, a national-level athlete, who has been carded by the Olympic committee, a medallist at the Pan Am Games, three times a Canadian champion and two times a North American champion in karate, representing Canada. Now he's teaching the next generation to rise to the national stage. Could the House welcome Shaun Dhillon, please.

K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce a friend of one of our researchers, Kenn McLaren. Christopher McMillan is here today from Calgary. He's visiting throughout B.C. He works for the NDP in Alberta, and he's here to see how we're doing in B.C. Would you all join me in making him welcome.

Hon. C. Oakes: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House…. While they're not here today, I had the great privilege last evening to meet 27 amazing groups in our community of greater Victoria, of the arts and cultural community, from Ballet Victoria to theatre groups to the Victoria Youth Orchestra.

My office will be open — to 124. If you ever have guests or individuals in the community and you're looking for something amazing to do in greater Victoria, please come to our office. We'll have the brochures and the information there so that you, too, can enjoy the fabulous organizations that we have.

M. Mungall: I'd like the House to please make welcome Norma Strachan and Nolan Eddy. They're both from the organization ASPECT, which is a provincial association of 175 community employment agencies. They do tremendous work on the ground, helping people get jobs every day in British Columbia. Please welcome them.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm pleased to welcome into the gallery today representatives from the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. We have with us Mark Werner, president, from Prince George; Michael Schneider, the vice-president, from Prince George; and Scott Ellis, their executive director, from Surrey. I know they've met with a number of our colleagues, and I'm pleased to welcome them here today. They're a great organization and do great work on behalf of the guide outfitting industry of British Columbia. We're pleased to ask the House to make them welcome today.

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce four lovely ladies from my community. They're here representing the Queen Silver Star Excellence program, an ambassador program. We have Queen Silver Star, Emily Pfannschmidt; and Princess Silver Star, Antonya
[ Page 546 ]
Crosby. They're accompanied by two chaperones, Coleen Noel and Karen Humphreys. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

[1340]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PROTECTION OF SEXUALLY EXPLOITED
AND AT-RISK YOUTH

K. Corrigan: I'm sure all of us have come across those kids that you just know have the odds stacked against them. The stats have proven over and over that we can predict pretty early on who are at risk. For young people there are all too many predators out there who could see the same thing and seek to sexually exploit the most vulnerable girls and boys.

The Burnaby–New Westminster Task Force on Sexually Exploited and At-Risk Youth has been working since 1998 to address the sexual abuse of children and youth in the commercial sex trade. It is a subcommittee of Burnaby council's community policing committee and is a multisectoral coalition, with representatives from a variety of local and provincial government agencies, the RCMP and community-based non-profit agencies.

The task force recently completed its second count of sexually exploited youth and found 217 confirmed or suspected or at risk. These are just the youth that are connected to social services, so the numbers are, in reality, likely much, much higher. Some sobering trends and statistics have emerged from the count. The numbers are up from 146 in 2011. One in three is under 15 years of age, 80 percent are 17 or younger, and 86 percent are girls.

Sexual exploitation is going underground, moving from street exploitation towards internet and pimp or boyfriend exploitation. Surprisingly, 83 percent attend school, and almost two-thirds live at home. These young and vulnerable kids need targeted services, youth outreach, detox and addiction treatment, safe housing and health services.

As a society we have a choice. We can do the wrong thing, which is ignoring or giving up on the problem, or we can do the right thing, which is to wrap a protective net around our young people. If we make that choice, perhaps we won't have 217 sexually exploited young people next time the count is done.

RESTORATION OF HISTORIC
RAILWAY STATION AND MUSEUM
BUILDING IN WHITE ROCK

G. Hogg: One hundred years ago White Rock was a small community of some 400 people, but the construction of a railway route along the shoreline of Semiahmoo Bay soon changed the quiet settlement into a booming nerve centre. The catalyst for this change was the construction of the White Rock railway station, which was completed 100 years ago.

What started as a legal requirement for customs and immigration turned into a centre of activity. Throughout its history, the station has taken on multiple roles in the community. Some would pass through the station during their daily commute to Vancouver, while others would exchange the latest gossip with staff. Trains carried commercial products over the international border daily.

When automobiles became the favoured form of travel, railways increasingly struggled for passengers. The station felt this hit, and by the mid-'70s passenger service from White Rock ended. However, this did not mean the end of the station, simply a transformation into a community arts and cultural centre.

The White Rock Museum was started in 1967 by a group of dedicated women, and it found its home there in 1976. In 2011 an extensive renovation was completed. The restoration returned the building to its original 1913 architecture. A stunning breezeway was restored, allowing for a dramatic entryway, connecting the city to the waterfront and vastly improving public access to the museum. In addition, an expanded exhibit gallery was created, archival vaults were created and improved administrative staff's…. This restoration brought a new vibrancy to this important historic landmark.

The station's life over the past 100 years has certainly not been a simple one. The structure stands as an icon for our community, telling a history that continues to grow and evolve. Indeed, without the station, the city of White Rock would not have become the thriving community it is today.

My thanks to members and staff of the White Rock Museum and Archives Society. They continue to remind us that preserving our past helps to define our present and gives us confidence for our future.

UNIVERSITY NEIGHBOURHOODS
ASSOCIATION IN
VANCOUVER–POINT GREY AREA

D. Eby: One of the unique communities in Vancouver–Point Grey is the collection of neighbourhoods located on the peninsula at the University of British Columbia. Now part of the city of Vancouver, these neighbourhoods are governed directly by the province. To deliver basic services, the province established the University Neighbourhoods Association as well as an advisory committee for the University Endowment Lands.

While the University Neighbourhoods Association, or UNA, started as an administrative vehicle of convenience, it has grown into a vibrant and effective community-building and advocacy group, thanks to the efforts of their volunteer board and countless neighbourhood volunteers.
[ Page 547 ]

[1345]

According to the UNA, the members of the association volunteer over 2,000 hours every year to the community. With a quick glance at the website of the UNA, you'll see the fruits of their labours — cycling resource clinics, family fun days, volunteer workshops, garden parties, midsummer markets. The list is endless.

I attended this year's volunteer-run and -coordinated Canada Day celebration organized by the UNA. It was clear to everyone there that the UNA and their volunteers are the core of a vibrant community spirit in and around the University of British Columbia.

All is not perfect for the UNA. They have to work hard to be properly consulted on roads and traffic in their neighbourhood to ensure safety for school children. They have a significant community mandate but no officially recognized role in planning. And despite a community understanding of the need to increase the role of what is still just a society, they have been told that no governance reform will take place until they reach consensus among the 8,000 residents they serve.

Despite these challenges, the UNA has matured to become an essential part of the community fabric. Few would want to imagine life in UBC's neighbourhoods without them.

Please join me in thanking the board members of the UNA — Richard Alexander, Thomas Beyer, Erica Frank, Charles Menzies, Ian Burgess, Nancy Knight and Caroline Wong — as well as their community volunteers for their efforts to fulfil a provincial responsibility and doing so in a way that builds their community and makes it better every day.

GUIDE-OUTFITTERS

M. Morris: A few moments ago this House warmly greeted the president, vice-president and executive director of the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia. Now I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce this House to the Guide Outfitters Association.

Back in the 1800s people worldwide recognized that B.C. was home to one of North America's most magnificent big-game populations. Local hunters were approached and commenced guiding services to big-game hunters. This can be considered the origin of the provincial adventure tourism industry.

The British Columbia government issued its first guiding licence in 1913, and guiding territories were established in the late 1940s. In 1961 this Legislature provided the guide-outfitting industry with the exclusive rights to guide non-resident big-game hunters in their designated guiding territory.

Today guide-outfitters are still a major component of British Columbia's tourism sector, contributing over $116 million in revenue each year and employing over 2,000 people in rural British Columbia. Guide-outfitters have also contributed nearly a half million pounds of meat to First Nations, community groups and other organizations across British Columbia since 1996.

The daily revenue per client is the highest in all tourism sectors in the province. As conservationists since 1981, guide-outfitters have contributed more than $120 million towards conservation efforts administered by the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation. Over half of these funds were provided by non-resident licences, permits, royalties and fees.

Guide-outfitters have developed an understanding of wildlife habitat within their guiding territories. The success of the exclusive guide territory model in British Columbia was quickly recognized across North America as an effective wildlife management tool and adopted in other areas in Canada.

Big-game populations are healthy and growing in British Columbia, in part due to the conservation efforts of the guide-outfitters and the science-based wildlife management policies developed by government in cooperation with the guide-outfitters.

RESPONSE TO FIRE IN BELLA BELLA

J. Rice: Early this past Friday morning a fire tore through an important building in Bella Bella on the central coast of B.C. Unfortunately, the fire gutted the band store, which is the only grocery store in this remote community in the heart of the Great Bear rainforest. It also gutted the post office, the library, a café, a non-profit society and other services. This building is also an important gathering space and hub of activity for this community of around 1,500 people.

Thankfully, no one was hurt in the fire, but the loss of these services will be felt by the community for a very long time. Interim emergency services have ensured that people have access to food and essentials.

Speaking with Reg Moody on Friday, I was extremely impressed with how quickly the community pulled together, creating a makeshift store inside a church with volunteer labour, and how forward-thinking and positive community members were despite their tragic loss.

The Heiltsuk Tribal Council is accepting monetary donations on behalf of the Bella Bella community through a website called rebuildbellabella.tumblr.com. Funds raised will support immediate assistance for families in need and will help initiate the process of rebuilding. Any assistance is welcome.

[1350]

Another huge loss to the blaze was the Thistalalh Memorial Library, a non-profit community literacy initiative. Jess Housty, a Heiltsuk community leader, tells me today that the library is completely unsalvageable, and they're starting from scratch. Any support would be greatly appreciated. Book donations can dropped off at various locations across the province, including my con-
[ Page 548 ]
stituency office in Prince Rupert.

As Bella Bella recovers from the fire and rebuilds, their first priority for the library will be locating children's literature. Following that, their most beloved sections included indigenous literature, international fiction, eco-literature, natural history and non-fiction. If members in the House or anyone visits bellabellalibrary.com, people can find local contacts around the province who are collecting books. And again, people can help alleviate immediate needs by visiting rebuildbellabella.tumblr.com.

Jess tells me today that the community is shaken but are very committed to rebuilding and are incredibly grateful for the outreach and support.

BURN CAMP FOR CHILDREN
AND B.C. PROFESSIONAL
FIRE FIGHTERS BURN FUND

J. Thornthwaite: Last weekend I had the pleasure of addressing families at the 2013 Burn Camp kickoff. The camp is put on by the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Burn Fund and is designed to help children aged six to 18 who are burn survivors heal their physical and emotional wounds. Healing a burn patient can be a long and painful process, but it is sustained by hope, conviction and unparalleled courage. Confronting the challenges imposed by a lifetime of pain or disfigurement is just the beginning for most survivors, who must also struggle to heal the acute emotional and psychological trauma that can be equally painful.

This year's Burn Camp saw 74 campers take part in a week-long trip to Camp Latona. They are up there now and are joined by nearly 70 counsellors and support staff, many of whom are burn survivors themselves and are working to provide a fun, safe experience that encourages healing, personal growth and empowerment.

The Fire Fighters Burn Fund is supported by our province's firefighter locals, and because of their ongoing commitment, the Burn Camp has been able to help close to 1,000 children since it began nearly 20 years ago. Our government is also very supportive of the Burn Fund. This year alone we've given $120,000 to the organization.

Additionally, North Vancouver firefighters are contributing $50,000 to fund the third-floor garden at the new Burn Fund centre, which will be built by the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Burn Fund in Vancouver. This centre will provide eight short-term-stay units to accommodate burn patients and their caregivers.

I ask the House to join me in thanking our province's firefighters, the Fire Fighter Burn Fund, and all the staff who make Burn Camp possible. The journey from burn patient to survivor can be long and arduous, but they make that journey easier and show survivors that they don't have to do it alone.

Oral Questions

COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING
GOVERNMENT STAFF MEMBER AND
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of International Trade. Yesterday we asked the minister a series of questions about new information in an e-mail fragment related to the government's outreach scandal. Our questions were met with stonewalling. None of them were answered.

The e-mail, what we have of it, reads as follows: "'We will see if we can…find you something else. Can you send your resume? Send it to Brian also.' Assess her response, and advise. Have Harry Bloy meet with her and explain how doing anything would damage the Premier and the party. Have him say how he will try to find her work and get her back involved. Assess her response, and advise. Have Brian meet with her and do the same. Assess her response, and advise. If need be, offer X dollars per month to do non-public work up to the election — developing her database of potential supporters."

Now, the minister has had the opportunity to be fully briefed. Can the minister tell this House what damaging information there was to the Premier and to the Liberal Party that the government officials were attempting to hide?

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you to the member, the Leader of the Opposition, for bringing up this question yesterday and today again. Now that I have had a chance to review the e-mail referred to by the member of the opposition, I can say that the language in the e-mail referred to by the member of the opposition was wrong, just the same as the language in the draft outreach plan was wrong.

[1355]

That's why our Premier tasked her deputy to conduct a thorough, fulsome and exhaustive review of the plan. The government has accepted all of the recommendations. The review showed that there were some individuals who clearly have acted outside of the guidelines for public servants and for political staff. We agree the actions of these individuals were inappropriate.

This e-mail referred to by members of the opposition falls into this category as well. It suggests actions that would be inappropriate, reinforcing the findings of the Dyble report. Despite the allegations brought forward by many members of the opposition yesterday and again by the Leader of the Opposition today, the review team found no evidence — no evidence whatsoever — that the suggestions highlighted were ever considered or acted upon by the government.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.
[ Page 549 ]

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY
INVESTIGATION AND STAFF MEMBER
MENTIONED IN COMMUNICATIONS

A. Dix: Well, the minister refers to a "thorough, fulsome and comprehensive review." Let me ask a very simple question to the minister. Did Mr. Dyble contact and interview the individual who is the target of this e-mail?

Hon. T. Wat: As I said in my earlier answer, the Premier's deputy minister, together with three other deputy ministers — they are the senior deputy ministers in the government — have conducted an exhaustive, thorough and fulsome review of the plan, and they have come up with recommendations. Their findings show that there were some individuals who clearly acted inappropriately, and actions have been taken.

As the Multiculturalism Minister, I and my staff in the Multiculturalism Ministry are engaging and connecting with the rich and talented, diverse community. They are really our competitive edge, and they are our bridge to the Asia-Pacific. We are so fortunate in our province to have such talented and rich, diverse communities. They have close family, cultural, government and business relationships with our priority markets. We are going to leverage this connection for the benefit of British Columbians.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Clearly, this review wasn't exhaustive, thorough or comprehensive. I mean, the answer to the question I just asked the minister is pretty clear. They didn't bother to contact the person. It wasn't thorough. Either the review was conducted by Inspector Clouseau, which clearly isn't the case given the individuals involved, who are very senior people, or they didn't ask the questions. They didn't pursue the e-mail. This happens to be the case.

Since the minister can't answer the question, maybe I'll ask the Deputy Premier this. Have senior members of the Premier's staff contacted or attempted to contact the individual involved since the Dyble report came out?

Hon. T. Wat: May I take the opportunity to remind the Leader of the Opposition that there are 10,000 pages posted on the website? I urge members of the opposition to go on the website and look at the 10,000 pages of materials.

J. Horgan: To the Deputy Premier, on behalf of the absent Premier, did anyone in the Premier's office interview the individual in question — the individual who, according to this e-mail, was offered an inducement to not speak about damaging information that would affect the Premier and the Liberal Party? Did anyone in the Premier's office speak to this individual?

[1400]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: At the risk of being repetitive, this has been a thorough process. As soon as this issue came to light, it was referred to a senior committee of deputies. Four senior deputy ministers did a thorough review in a timely fashion before the election, reviewed 10,000 pages of documents and came to published, written conclusions.

This was a transparent process which showed leadership on this side of the House, which is something that is clearly absent on that side of the House.

Madame Speaker: Members will refrain from commenting on the presence or absence of individuals in the chamber.

J. Horgan: We have a new Deputy Premier, so I'll ask the question again. Did anyone in the Premier's office interview the individual in question as a part of the Dyble report or after the Dyble report?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I've got to say that this side of the House is proud of the process we went through. We initiated a prompt and thorough review of this, and the conclusions of that were made available to the electorate. They passed their judgment on May 14 about the thoroughness of that process.

M. Farnworth: My question is for whichever minister is playing defence today. It's quite straightforward. In the course of Mr. Dyble's interview, did he interview the target of this e-mail — yes or no? It's that simple.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Madame Speaker, I apologize for….

Madame Speaker: Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I first, of course, apologize to the Chair for jumping the gun.

Of course, the next apology is to my friends across the way, who haven't seemed to have read the report, which is thorough in its content, completely covers the issue, reviewed 10,000 pages of material, which was then promptly posted on open government B.C.'s website.

My friends point out that the materials were posted after the election because that was the statutory framework for review of documents. This government and this side of the House follow the law of the province.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.
[ Page 550 ]

M. Farnworth: We still haven't answered the question, which is: did anyone in the Dyble investigation…? Did Mr. Dyble investigate this issue by talking to the recipient of this e-mail, the person named in this e-mail — yes or no? Were they interviewed?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Given that this side of the House has nothing to hide, we are delighted that the members opposite finally got around to reading the 10,000 pages of documents that we posted on the open government website.

Of course, we did that in the interests of transparent government, unlike the members opposite, who may recall, during their term in government, issuing aliases for government ministers as their e-mail addresses; bulk deletions of e-mail, sanctioned by the ministries; and ministers, some of whom are present today, who purported to not know how to use computers.

[1405]

J. Kwan: If the minister truly has nothing to hide, why doesn't he confirm for this House and for all British Columbians that the Dyble report was, in fact, thorough and that the person in question, who was offered hush money by the government, was in fact interviewed by the Dyble investigation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Whether it's through a slip of the tongue or intentionally, I'm pleased that the member opposite recognizes the thoroughness of the Dyble report.

That is the nature of what we do on this side of the House — to engage in processes which are fully disclosing the facts, fully disclosing the key information, unlike the members opposite, who exempted from freedom of information during their term…. They exempted the fast ferries. They exempted forest renewal. They exempted the Millennium SkyTrain line, which made them completely opaque to public scrutiny.

We believe in transparency, and we live that every day.

J. Kwan: Look, what we know is that the Liberal government had a plan to offer hush money to a Liberal staffer to stop the release of damaging information about the Premier and the Liberal Party. The government claims that the Dyble investigation was thorough.

It's a simple question for any member of the government. The individual referred to in the e-mail — was that individual interviewed by the Dyble investigation — yes or no?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, please ensure the Chair hears both the question and the answer.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: At the risk of becoming tedious, I repeat the statement of my colleague the Minister of International Trade, who has already made it clear to this House yesterday and today that the remarks made in this e-mail were inappropriate. They were wrong. They were not acted upon, and there is simply no basis to proceed.

COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY
AND DATABASE OF INFORMATION

M. Elmore: Let's refer back to the e-mail. It says: "If need be, offer X dollars per month to do non-public work…developing her database of public supporters." My question is for the Minister for Multiculturalism. What was the purpose of this database, and what was meant by non-public work?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We have a report here that is 97 pages long, which was produced in record time by four senior civil servants to examine exactly the questions which my friends are now raising for the umpteenth time. The answers in the report are clear. The answers from the Minister of International Trade are clear. Yet the members opposite seem to want to persist in this dead-end line of questioning.

There is no evidence that that statement in the e-mail was acted upon. This is simply an attempt by the members opposite to discredit the senior members of the civil service who produced the report.

M. Elmore: The Minister for Multiculturalism knows that the letter exposed this hush money scandal and was released as part of an investigation into the Liberal government's use of public money to build illegal contact lists for the B.C. Liberal Party. The e-mail refers to "developing her database of potential supporters."

[1410]

Does the Minister for Multiculturalism agree that this indicates that the Liberal government put its plan to use public money to build Liberal Party campaign lists into effect?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite seems to have forgotten that these issues were resolved before the election. Recommendation 6 of the report from the senior civil service stated that "the findings in this report will be referred to the comptroller general to determine if any recovery of expenditures or payments is necessary." That was done, and compensation was made, and the financial aspects of this matter are finished.

S. Hammell: I think the minister should walk the talk. If nothing is hidden, then table the blank document, the blank pages of the document you are holding up.

Attached to the e-mail that outlined the plan to offer hush money that had the potential to embarrass the
[ Page 551 ]
Premier was a document that also outlined a plan to use taxpayers' money to build Liberal Party lists. I quote the e-mail: "ID supporters and potential supporters. Record these on contact lists to be provided to volunteers and added to the database." Further: "MLAs' teams will be able to build on this and develop ethnic outreach teams for their campaign."

My question is to the Minister of International Trade and for Multiculturalism. Is this the database built on the taxpayers' dime for Liberal Party campaign purposes being referred to in the hush money e-mail?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It's comforting that my opponent's question was actually answered by the senior committee of civil servants. Far be it from us, and particularly from me as the minister responsible for freedom of information, to intervene in the statutory regulatory process which was conducted by civil servants and disclosed and redacted 10,000 pages of documents on the open government website.

Of course, this is a bit rich coming from the member opposite, given that she was one of the cabinet ministers in the 1990s who didn't know her alias.

USE OF E-MAIL ACCOUNTS BY
GOVERNMENT STAFF INVOLVED IN
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

H. Bains: These are things that we know. We know that on the same day that the Premier said, "There are absolutely crystal-clear rules around the sharing of that information, and sharing of that information outside of government is not permitted, nor should it be permitted…." We also know that the same day Fiera Lo was frantically sending what the Dyble report called "packages of lists to her personal e-mail account."

Similarly, the director of communication for multiculturalism was caught red-handed, sending more than 1,100 e-mails from his government account to his private account. Does the Minister for Multiculturalism agree with the Premier that Ms. Lo and a director of communication for multiculturalism violated the crystal-clear rules by sending packages of lists to their personal e-mail accounts?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair needs to hear the question and the answer.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is indeed becoming repetitive. The member opposite just basically read out the analysis and conclusions of the report.

Madame Speaker: Member, please do not engage in use of props in the chamber.

[1415]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

We're left with the issue of human resources, employment issues, which have been thoroughly canvassed in this matter. A number of the individuals involved left the civil service, and I must note they left voluntarily, and they left without severance.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

H. Bains: The Dyble report is very clear. Ms. Lo was sending packages of lists to her personal e-mail account during the investigation itself. On the same day Ms. Lo was sending those lists to her personal e-mail account, the Premier said: "Anyone who shared that information would have been violating those rules of the public service. It would have been absolutely wrong for that to happen." Yet the Premier herself just rehired Ms. Lo.

Can the Minister for Multiculturalism confirm that the reason Ms. Lo was rehired was because she was acting with the full knowledge of the B.C. Liberal government and was in fact doing as she was told when she sent those packages of lists to her personal e-mail account?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There's a great irony in this line of questioning, in that the report itself made clear that there were breaches of the standards of conduct by a number of individuals. These become human resources issues, and these people are entitled to the privacy of their disciplinary process within the civil service. That is what happened, and so these individuals are entitled to work and find employment.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister, please take your seat.

CALL FOR INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION INTO MULTICULTURAL
OUTREACH STRATEGY

S. Simpson: For what information is in the Dyble report, just the nature of the mandate of the report ensured that it was inadequate. The Dyble report couldn't investigate the Liberal Party. The Dyble report couldn't investigate the Liberal caucus. As a result, it could not connect the dots between the hush money scandal, the government, the caucus and the Liberal Party.

What we have here is some 10,000 pages, half of which are pretty much blank. What it does tell us is that there was a plan to offer hush money to an individual who had information potentially damaging to the Premier and the B.C. Liberals. Half the e-mail exposing this plan was
[ Page 552 ]
blanked out by the government before its release.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. With this new information, will the Deputy Premier order a full, independent investigation with the power to review all factors, including the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus and this hush money scandal?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As a newcomer to this House, I find it ironic that I am standing here to talk about the divisions between the legislative branch, the executive branch and the government. In fact, what happened here is that the redaction was performed by professional, career civil servants at the highest standards possible anywhere in this country. If my friend has a complaint about that, then he has a complaint about the entire civil service. This is a dead-end line of questioning.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

[1420]

S. Simpson: This member should know that those divisions are no excuse for using taxpayers' money to promote the B.C. Liberal Party.

This government, the B.C. Liberal Party….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

S. Simpson: This government attempts to hide behind a report that by its nature and by its mandate was inadequate. No ability to look at the Liberal Party, which was the beneficiary of taxpayers' money. No ability to look at the conduct of the Liberal caucus. No ability to contact hush money and the moving of taxpayers' dollars to support the Liberal Party — none at all.

But what this new information does do is expose this e-mail. It appears that nowhere in the recommendations of Mr. Dyble's report are there recommendations that deal specifically with this e-mail and with this question of hush money.

British Columbians need closure on this issue. That closure did not come with the election. It will come when somebody answers a clear question. That's what we require.

Again, will the Deputy Premier order an independent investigation of this hush money scandal of the Liberal Party getting taxpayers' dollars funnelled in through this information?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, I must call upon the goodwill and the trust of the members opposite to place their faith in the civil service of British Columbia.

There are at least 28,000 hard-working people in this province, many of whom are unionized, who do an honourable day's work every day, serving the public.

Some of those honourable workers performed the redaction of the e-mail. They collected the information. It was brought to the attention of four of the most senior civil servants in this province with unimpeachable records. And today we find the members opposite attempting to undermine the entire structure of our civil service, which we are proud of.

L. Krog: Never have I heard so much rhetoric in this chamber to avoid answering the most basic of questions. This is a fairly simple proposition. This government set up a process which was inadequate from the start. No power to compel evidence. No power to investigate the Liberal Party. No power to investigate beyond those members of the public service who were identified. We end up with a conclusion that exonerates everyone.

We now have 10,000 pages of documents dumped in the public record long after the election is finished, when the people of British Columbia could have passed a true judgment, not the judgment the government is talking about. We have listened to the rhetoric that talks about the answers being clear. There was no possibility of getting to clear answers because this government knew what was up.

The simple question is this. Given the cloud that has now been created by this scandal — and it is a scandal — will the government do the right thing? Will the Deputy Premier do the correct and appropriate thing, when faced with this kind of issue, and that is to order a true investigation that has power to do the right thing to get to the bottom of this fiasco?

Because British Columbians paid for this, they deserve answers. To the Deputy Premier: will you do the right thing today and order a proper investigation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It can only be said so many times before it becomes repetitive and tedious. An event occurred. It was thoroughly investigated. Inappropriate actions were discovered. They were deemed to be wrong.

This government, the members of this side of the House, owned up to it before the election. The public had their say, and the results of their decision are clear in this room today.

[1425]

It is indeed ironic for the member opposite, a qualified lawyer, to have failed to have read the terms of reference.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

N. Macdonald: I'd like to present a petition with almost 1,000 signatures from residents supporting the reopening and continuing operation of the Invermere
[ Page 553 ]
dialysis unit, which provides life-saving support to the citizens of the upper Columbia Valley.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Energy. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of International Trade continue. And in the Birch Room, Section C, Committee of Supply, the continuation of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, to be followed at some point by the Ministry of Agriculture.

[1430]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $19,219,000.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I will just make a very brief statement. Today I understand that we are doing estimates for the Mines side of this ministry. We have — well, I guess it doesn't matter if I say what amount of time we have set aside for this — a certain amount of time set aside, so I don't want to actually spend a bunch of time with introductory comments.

I'll just say that I've been in this ministry before, and it is a great honour to be the minister responsible for mines in the province. The professional public servants who work in this division of the ministry are not only hard workers and very professional people but good people.

Using that as a bit of a segue, I'm going to introduce my staff who are here to help me this afternoon. My deputy minister, Dave Nikolejsin, for the ministry. My assistant deputy minister, David Morel, who is just taking his seat, is the ADM for mining, and Neilane Mayhew is here on the financial side.

I'm going to spare the opposition from the statement that I've got here. We're actually quite proud of where the industry is going today in B.C. It's the safest heavy industry in Canada. The mining industry employs more aboriginal workers than any other industry in the country. There's obviously a lot of current activity in mining in B.C. right now that helps pay the freight for all the public services that we enjoy in this province.

[1435]

Mining is certainly an important component of our government's vision to grow the economy and increase the number of jobs. There are a number of projects that have just gotten going in the last two years, and there are a number of projects that are going to get going in the next two years, one of which, of course, is the Red Chris project in the northwest, once it has electricity.

So I'll let the opposition critic take the discussion where he wants to take it, and we'll do our best to answer the questions and get through as much as we possibly can in the time allotted.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for truncating his opening remarks. I just want to add to his comments.

Some of the individuals who have came in with him I used to work with. I won't name them for fear of retribution, but I know full well — and I support the minister's assertion — that the people, particularly on the mineral side, the mining side as well as throughout the Ministry of Energy, are outstanding individuals, working hard to grow the economy in British Columbia, to provide jobs and to provide opportunity in every corner.

One of the things I'm sure the minister would have touched upon is that quite often when we talk about mining…. My colleague, the critic from Alberni–Pacific Rim, will be going into detail on this. For many people when they think of mining, they think of far-flung communities. But in fact, the density of mining companies in downtown Vancouver is quite staggering. I know the minister would have said that, had we not had a short period of time to make statements such as this.

Since I don't, as House Leader, get an opportunity to get up very often, I thought I would avail myself of this chance as critic for this file and, again, give my absolute sincere thanks to the people in the ministry for the work that they've been doing for many, many years.

I know it's difficult. I recall the minister some years ago, when he was in this file before, lamenting the absence of financial resources for the work that needs to be done on the land base so that we can actually realize the tremendous potential we have here in British Columbia.

With that brief remark, I'll take my seat and give way to the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and his staff for being here today and making themselves available for this important part of the budget process.

I want to also acknowledge the vast amount of knowledge and integrity of staff who are accompanied with the minister, and also acknowledge the minister's past experience in this file.

I have less experience in this file, so I appreciate you having some patience with me as I work my way through some of the questions here. They might seem a little academic to begin with. I hope you can get through that with me.

I do want to acknowledge the safety record of the industry — no more important legacy, really, of any in-
[ Page 554 ]
dustry in the province, as having such a strong safety record here.

With that, I've got about two hours, just so you know, to deal with this. There'll be a few other questions from other members, I'm sure. If I could begin with the financial end of things.

Again, for the record, the former Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas has been changed. We have a new ministry. I always get confused when that happens, because the numbers kind of change because the ministries get split and the responsibilities get split also.

For the record, I have that the previous ministry — the Energy, Mines and Natural Gas Ministry — had a budget of $425 million. Now, with that split in two, the budget just for the Energy, Mines section that we're dealing with today is $24.249 million. So it does represent a bit of a cut, I think, on the file — on the portion dealing with mines and energy. Is that correct?

[1440]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry that I took a minute there. I want to get this right. I maybe won't take quite as long with questions that are actually about mining projects as I will about the financial aspects of the ministry.

The member asks one of the first questions that I asked when I was named minister. There is a decrease, and it's a decrease that has been in the three-year budget plan, so it's not a surprise.

If you look back at last year's budget and the year before, you'll see that there was a decrease projected. That decrease is made up largely of two things. One is roughly a $15 million reduction for the LiveSmart program. The program has not ended. It is still being delivered with assistance through B.C. Hydro. But there's $15 million not coming out of this ministry for LiveSmart, so that's the biggest portion of the decrease.

There's also a significant portion of the decrease that's made up by a $9.9 million decrease in the innovative clean energy fund. So when you total up the roughly $15 million from LiveSmart and the roughly $10 million from the innovative clean energy fund, that accounts for the vast majority of what you see as a decrease in the ministry's budget.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That's jiving with my calculation. The two new ministries combined, the total budget is about $26 million less than the previous Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas.

I guess my question on that…. With B.C. Hydro still involved with the LiveSmart program — and I don't know if the minister has this information, or his staff — is B.C. Hydro, in its budget, making up any or all of that portion, that $15 million that was cut?

Hon. B. Bennett: The LiveSmart program is being delivered through B.C. Hydro, with assistance from our ministry. I can't say to the member that the $15 million is in the B.C. Hydro budget, because I don't know specifically what their budget is for the LiveSmart program.

I will say that, to their credit, Hydro has come up with some innovative ways to allow ratepayers to take action towards conservation measures, other ways of using less energy, and then having at least a portion of the cost of that repaid through their actual monthly bill. It's kind of a novel approach to allowing ratepayers to amortize the cost of doing these conservation or saving measures. I think that will help deliver the overall objectives of the LiveSmart program.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That's good news.

I guess it's fortuitous. I don't know if it's appropriate, but the minister is also the Minister Responsible for Core Review. Are we anticipating further changes proposed in the three-year fiscal plan? Is it too early to say that? Is that something that's being looked at?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think I'm doing estimates on Core Review later this week or possibly Monday. No, I think it's later this week, probably tomorrow — or later today, perhaps.

[1445]

What I can say to the member is that every ministry will be subject to the core review process. We'll be looking, certainly, for ways that government can spend less money and deliver at least as high a level of service. But our expectations…. I'll get into this more when I speak with the critic responsible for Core Review, but generally speaking, our main focus is not on cutting expenses, necessarily, counting dollars or even counting regulations. Our focus, really, is on finding ways to do things better.

To answer the member's question, if we can find ways to do things better and that happens to save us some money, my hope would be — having a dual responsibility here, in charge of the core review but also Minister of Energy and Mines — that we could take that money that we find and apply it to productive things within the ministry.

I think, with the size of the budget, I don't anticipate large dollars being involved in terms of what we are able to turn up with a core review process in this ministry.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

The issue of permitting, for instance. Is that no longer within the purview of your ministry? Is that handled through the larger Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry? Do they have the lead on that now?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I've been in the job for about 30 days. I have to make sure that I've caught up with the new world in terms of the creation of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the impact that the cre-
[ Page 555 ]
ation of that ministry has had on the other so-called dirt ministries like this one.

My understanding, my advice, is that permitting is actually now a shared responsibility. FLNRO, if I can refer to it by its acronym, does the First Nations consultation and the intake on permitting information. The permits actually come from this ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

For example, in a place that I'm reasonably familiar with, Cranbrook, you would find a Ministry of Energy and Mines employee sitting in a big office with a number of FLNRO employees, and with Ministry of Environment probably not far away either — the idea being that we're trying to integrate everything that happens around a mining project so that we can do it more effectively, faster, for less money.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I don't disagree that siloing of ministries can be somewhat inefficient. Certainly, finding efficiencies there…. Maybe that's something that happens through part of the core review also.

I guess a more specific question on that is related to the budget. What's budgeted through this ministry for permitting? And if you could, if it's possible, provide numbers of full-time-equivalents, that sort of thing, within the ministry.

I'd like, just so you know, to be able to compare that to who in Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations also has responsibility and how that plays in — and, actually, for that matter, Environment too.

Hon. B. Bennett: The mines and mineral resources division has a budget of $11.171 million. There are roughly 45 people who work within the mines permitting part of the ministry.

We don't really break that $11 million number down between permitting and other things that are done within mines and mineral resources, so I can't tell the member specifically what goes to permitting. There are a lot of people in the ministry who do not just do permitting; they do other things as well. It's pretty hard to segment that particular activity, but the total budget for this side of the ministry is about $11 million.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Does the minister know what that compares to, say, with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations?

[1450]

Their role in permitting when it comes to mines…. I'm just wondering how this works. Arguably, some say there are unacceptable backlogs in the permitting process. I guess I'm trying to probe that, just so the minister knows where I'm trying to go with this. I believe I've heard comments from the minister earlier saying that he agreed with that.

As there is more than one ministry responsible, directly, for permitting, I'm trying to figure out how it actually works within the ministries and how they conduct, you know, cooperatively with each other.

Hon. B. Bennett: I wanted to find the note. I knew I had a note on the progress that we're making with the permitting backlog. The member has given me an opportunity to speak to that. I'll go to the first part of his question first, though.

In terms of the comparison between what this ministry spends on permitting and what FLNRO spends on permitting, I don't have that, and I doubt very much my staff will have that information. Certainly, it's something that FLNRO should be able to provide, although they'll be in the same situation that we're in — that a lot of people do different things. They don't just do permitting. So it's hard to actually target how much is being spent on permitting specifically.

With regard to backlogs, there was an issue. I think it's fair to say that there's a continuing issue in terms of how long it takes to deal with permit applications, but the issue has been largely dealt with over the past year, year and a half.

It's my advice that the current average turnaround time for all notices of work — that's the main permit that exploration companies are looking for — is 65 days as of June 1, 2013, which is a reduction from 110 days in 2011. So, you know, the ministry has made pretty good headway in terms of reducing the time that it takes to get a notice of work.

In terms of mineral and coal exploration notices of work, it's 68 days as of 2013. I'm distinguishing between notices of work for placer, aggregate and exploration, which is taking an average of 65 days, and notices of work for mineral and coal exploration, which is an average of 68 days — both considerable improvements over what we had in 2011.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. For clarification, the $11 million…. What I have down for the Ministry of Mines, mineral resources division — the budget is $11.056 million. So that total budget, that's the 45 full-time-equivalents? Because I asked about that for permitting, and that was the budget that I got for permitting. That's the larger budget. So permitting is within that? Just for clarification.

Hon. B. Bennett: Actually, my staff just pointed out the number that I gave you, $11.171 million, was the number from '12-13. The member is correct. The number for '13-14 is actually $11.056 million.

So that is the correct number, and the answer is yes to the member's question as to whether that figure represents an aggregate of all of the things that the mines and mineral resources division does. Yes, that's correct. That's
[ Page 556 ]
the total budget for that division.

[1455]

S. Fraser: On the revenue side for the ministry, taxation…. The revenues that are retrieved from mining, whether it's through…. Let's try it first with the permitting process. I'm sure there's a fee to cover costs. What would that revenue stream look like in this year, this fiscal?

Hon. B. Bennett: I can give the member the hard numbers that I have for the mineral tax revenues from coal and metal mines and then give him, also, the forecast for the hard numbers that we don't have yet.

I can tell the member that mineral tax revenues from coal and metal mines grew from $44 million in 2001 to over $350 million in 2010 and 2011. The current mineral tax forecast for this fiscal year is approximately $200 million. I can break that down a little bit further for the member by saying that $165 million will come from coal mines; $35 million will come from metal mines. Those forecasts were made in June of 2013, and we would expect updated forecasts by January 2014.

There are other rents and permit fees and so forth that we collect in addition to those mineral tax revenues, consisting of, I understand, around $20 million. I should say that these numbers by no means represent the financial benefit that flows to the provincial government and into the economy generally.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I get that. I'm trying to figure out how costs can be offset by the ministry when they retrieve fees for permitting and such. I'd like to probe that more, but I don't know that I have enough time.

Is it a 13 percent net revenue tax on minerals? I'm not sure. I think I need some clarification on what's derived through royalties or anything other than the mineral tax itself.

I know the tax is…. There are less expenses. I realize that it's not, the 13 percent…. There are certainly write-offs allowing for a host of expenses to be covered. But is that correct? Of the taxation part, is that part of the number that you just said — the $200 million this fiscal? Does that include the revenue from taxation on minerals?

Hon. B. Bennett: The mineral tax is a profit-based tax payable by the mines and the quarries that operate here in B.C. It was a tax that was enacted in 1990. There are two tiers to this mineral tax, and I can provide this in writing to the member later if he wants it.

The first tier, the lower tier, is called the net current proceeds tax, and it's calculated at 2 percent of operating cash flows. That tax is paid before recovery of all operating and capital costs and other deductions. Then the second tier, the higher tier, is called the net revenue tax, and that's the 13 percent tax that the member made reference to. It's 13 percent of profits over the life of the mine. The higher net revenue tax is only paid after recovery of all operating and capital costs and other deductions.

[1500]

So two different ways to charge tax, one of which is after the recovery of operating and capital costs by the company. One, the lesser one…. The 2 percent tax that's calculated first goes ahead of recovery.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I guess the government revenues for…. Minerals in British Columbia are a public resource, so there's a price to pay for that. I'm just trying to figure out…. There's an export value. So in 2011-2012 the total exports were $3.5 billion, but the minerals and metal revenue that's come back was about $60 million.

Now, I understand that it's a bigger picture, as the minister said. I mean, there's employment. There's taxation. There's a whole host of things that are benefits to the province for having mining activity. My rough calculation shows that we're getting about 1.7 percent of the export value coming back directly to the ministry.

Is this comparable to other jurisdictions? Are we, the people of British Columbia, getting our fair share back for this public resource? Is it comparable to other jurisdictions, I guess?

Hon. B. Bennett: What the member has suggested by way of a ratio between the value of exports and the provincial taxes collected is a novel idea. It's not an idea that I've come across before. It's not something that…. It really goes to tax policy.

It might be a question to ask the Minister of Finance, whether the tax policy I just read out that applies to minerals and coal is an appropriate tax. But I don't think that anyone does a comparison of the value of exports versus how much provincial tax is collected — not to say that that isn't a useful ratio to ponder.

I do want to say one other thing. That is that if you look at the work that's been done over the years by the Mining Association of B.C. or by the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C., you'll see that when you factor all of the benefits together from mining and you start to calculate the amount of corporate tax, for example, that's paid by some of the bigger operating mining companies, especially, and you start to look at the income tax that's paid by people who work in these mines….

I have five operating coal mines where I live, and there's a workforce there in excess of 4,000 people. The average wage is north of $100,000 a year. It's more in the $110,000 to $115,000 a year average wage. So there's a tremendous level of personal income taxes being paid both to the federal and provincial governments, a tremendous level of corporate taxes being paid. You've got all the multiplier impacts of that money being generated
[ Page 557 ]
in the communities that surround mines.

It is a significant benefit. I think, with all due respect to the member's novel perspective on the ratio between total exports and total provincial taxes collected, it's probably not a very accurate way to characterize the overall benefits that British Columbians get from the mining industry.

S. Fraser: The minister may be right. Certainly, I'm new at this, so I do look at things a little differently. But the numbers are quite staggering. I agree that they may not be what the expectation is for LNG, but mining is still a significant player in the economy of British Columbia. The total export numbers are staggering — in the billions.

Again, what we retrieve…. Yeah, I understand the spinoffs, and there are all kinds of secondary benefits to the economy. I don't dismiss that here, and I'm not picking a fight on this. I'm just curious if we derive a similar amount, percentage-wise — I don't know how else to say it — as other jurisdictions. Do we get our fair share from our resource? Because it is our resource.

[1505]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think one way to answer the question about whether we're comparable to other jurisdictions, although I can't address that particular ratio that the member refers to…. I can say, I think with considerable confidence, that if our tax regime in B.C. was not competitive with even the rest of Canada, let alone the rest of the world….

Mining companies, as we all know — there are about 650 of them based in Vancouver — go where they have the likeliest chance of developing a good resource. That could be in Chile, or it could be in B.C., or it could be in Quebec or Manitoba. If our tax regime was not competitive, they wouldn't be here.

You look at a company like Teck Resources, for example, which has five big mines in the Elk Valley — coal mines. They own the Highland Valley Copper mine at Kamloops. They just were given a mines permit for another coal mine in the northeast at Tumbler Ridge. They're the big example, but there are other companies like Taseko Mines and others who operate in this province and who would not operate here if our tax regime was not competitive, certainly, with the rest of Canada.

I think another piece of evidence that, in fact, we are competitive is the extent to which exploration companies have continued to invest in our province. I'm not going to be able to get the number right off the top of my head, but I know when I was first elected that there was about $25 million being spent in B.C. on mineral exploration. That was in 2000-2001.

I believe that last year the investment in exploration was in the order of $600 million to $700 million. Again, you wouldn't see that phenomenal growth in exploration investment or that phenomenal growth in confidence, frankly, if you didn't have a competitive tax regime.

S. Fraser: Well, thanks to the minister for that. It's not a question of being competitive. I wasn't getting there. I mean, we have to be competitive. I agree with that.

We have the natural resources here. They are sought after by companies for the right reasons — that they can make a profit. If they can make a profit, then they're likely going to be here. If the commodity prices are sufficient to make that and the world economy is sufficient to provide that profit…. And that varies. That's a cyclical thing. It's beyond me how that works.

I don't really want to spend time maybe jockeying with the minister on this. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't have a competitive tax regime here. I'm just suggesting that it can still be competitive and there may be, potentially, more derived for the ministry and for the province. Finding that balance is, again, probably beyond me, but my questions are designed to try to figure out if we're getting that balance or not.

I'm just going to move right on, then, because we are running out of time. It's going way too quick here.

There was an announcement that there would be eight new mines in the province by 2015. We're well over the halfway mark in 2013. Just for the record, how many of the promised eight new mines are operating now?

Hon. B. Bennett: We had a suspicion on this side that the member might ask that question, but I couldn't lay my hand on the paper immediately.

Since the jobs plan was released, we have one new mine that's in operation, the New Afton Mine near Kamloops. We have five more that are under construction or have been permitted. Those five are the Mount Milligan copper-goldmine near Prince George. We're expecting them to begin production, actually, this year — probably in the second half of 2013.

There's the Red Chris copper-goldmine near Dease Lake that we have discussed here in the House during question period and so forth. That's moving forward with construction. I saw a picture the other day of the Red Chris site. Actually, I met the CEO at a breakfast of the Mining Association. He showed me a picture of concrete and rebar in the ground, and he said it was a baby picture. So that mine is starting to go up.

[1510]

I know most people think of mines as a hole underground, but there's a lot more to them than that. They're constructing the mill right now.

There is also, thirdly, the Bonanza Ledge goldmine near Barkerville, which was permitted in December 2011. There's the Treasure Mountain silver mine near Hope, which was permitted in May of 2012. Recently the ministry permitted the Quintette coal mine near Tumbler Ridge that I referenced a few minutes ago. So it's five that are getting close; one that's operating.
[ Page 558 ]

S. Fraser: There are two parts to the equation, though. By 2015 will that be met? With Red Chris, the northwest transmission line is a requirement, I believe, for that mine to go ahead and actually open and begin production.

I mean, there's one operating out of the eight that were promised, and it's less than two years till the deadline. So are we on track? Are we anticipating Red Chris being open and producing by 2015? Is that the anticipation here?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's absolutely the government's expectation that Red Chris will be operating by 2015.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

Morrison mine was rejected, and I get the reasons. That's fair enough. But when it was shut down, when the mine approval was shut down, what was the rationale for that? Was it the endangerment to the Skeena system? Certainly, that was highlighted in the press, and I heard that from First Nations and others. Just how did that unfold? A Coles Notes version would be fine.

Hon. B. Bennett: To answer the question about the decision by the environmental assessment office and the responsible ministers on the Morrison mine, it's important to just…. I don't want to spend a bunch of the member's time providing context, but the environmental assessment process in that office is, of course, associated with the Ministry of Environment, not with our ministry. They do their work, and they make a recommendation to two ministers.

In this case, when it's a mine, the Mines Minister is required to help make the decision along with the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Environment and the Minister of Mines in this case decided that they could not sign off on a permit, a certificate, for this particular mine. I wasn't there, and I was not part of the process.

Frankly, I can't provide the member with any details as to why they made their decision, except that I am quite confident that they made their decision in the best interests of British Columbians.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

The follow-up question, then, is: if a proposal is rejected fairly far down the line, for the right reasons, how does the ministry work with the companies to ensure that they don't go that far down the line, shall we say, before having a rejection? What role does the ministry play in trying to mitigate wasted time, energy and expense by companies?

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, the member used the language "fairly far down the road" in process. And you know, that's accurate, in the sense that any mining project takes, typically, years and years — from the time that the prospector kicks the rock over and decides there might be something there, to the years and years and the dollars that are spent on all the drill projects to define the resource and determine whether there's going to be a mine there, and then the years and years it takes to raise the money to do anything about it.

Then eventually they get to the point where they think they have a project, and they approach the environmental assessment office.

[1515]

They work with the environmental assessment office, sometimes for years, until they get to the point where the environmental assessment office says to the proponent: "We think you've got an application here. If you want to bring it in the door, we'll start this 180-day clock, and we'll assess the application." Sometimes proponents want to go in that door and start that 180-day clock before the staff at the environmental assessment office think they should. But that's the way, essentially, the process works.

In this case, the application for a certificate was denied for, I'm sure, sufficient grounds. That matter is actually before the courts right now, so I'm not going to say anything about that.

But I will tell the member that it is the practice of the environmental assessment office to work with proponents not only during the assessment stage but after the assessment stage, if they have been unsuccessful. And in this case, the EAO staff met with this company and offered to work with the company to try to help them go through the process again and see if there were more satisfactory ways to mitigate the environmental impacts that were identified in the process. Obviously, the company decided they didn't want to do that.

That's very typical of the practice that the EAO takes. If you fail the first time, it doesn't mean you can't go back and try again, and they will attempt to help you provide the right and necessary information.

S. Fraser: I know the EAO is not our topic right now, but it has come up, so I'll touch on it. I mean, there have only been two turndowns through the provincial environmental assessment process for mining operations that I'm aware of. So it's generally considered to be a…. While it might be a timely process, it's not one that's likely to fail.

Case in point, even if the federal process has a scathing review, as in the Prosperity proposal at Fish Lake…. That first proposal went forward. The provincial process gave it two thumbs up, and the federal process gave it two thumbs down. So, I mean, there are issues.

There are separate issues with the environmental assessment process, and I know we're not going to get into that here, because it's a different ministry. But I guess the ministry itself, the ministry responsible for mining…. Is there no way to…?

Do you ever flag…? Is there anyone in the ministry
[ Page 559 ]
that flags bad proposals, ones that are not likely to have any support from the public, from the region, from First Nations for environmental reasons or for other reasons, to save everyone a lot of time and grief and to not pit industry against communities, First Nations, that sort of thing? Is there a way of culling applications so they don't go in? Or is every application just accepted willy-nilly?

Hon. B. Bennett: There is a lot of information that…. Perhaps the member and I can go get a cup of coffee sometime and go through it in more detail. Again, I don't want to use more of his time than I have to, to answer his question.

But I will say this. There is a process in place where staff from the EAO do liaise with staff from the Ministry of Mines to, well, assess a mining project. In terms of whether this ministry somehow or other can pick the winning projects from the losing projects — we are not in the business of deciding which business case is stronger.

What we can do as a government — and, I think, what any government does — is we have a process in place that is, I think, quite transparent and is rigorous. The mining company comes to us, to this ministry, and applies for permits to go on the land and perhaps do some drilling, in some cases to take bulk samples.

[1520]

That goes back to my comment earlier about notices of work. So they get those notices of work from this ministry, and they do not get those notices of work unless they comply with the stringent regulations and standards that we have.

I don't want to…. I'll leave the discussion about the environmental assessment office to the Minister of Environment. Just let me say that I have heard the B.C. environmental assessment process referred to and characterized in the way that the member just characterized it.

I don't attribute any negative motive to the member, but I think that, many times, people miss the point about how that process actually works. You know, you don't have a proponent go in at the one end of that process and never talk to anybody within the process, and it's like a crap shoot; they throw the dice, and at the end of the process they either succeed or fail.

Before they go into the process, there is an enormous amount of work that's done with our ministry and with the Ministry of Environment to get that proponent to the point where they have an application that can then be assessed in the 180 days. It really is not…. The process does not lend itself to proponents that aren't ready to be assessed. You have to be pretty much ready to go into that process before you can get into it.

It's only natural, I think…. Given the way the process is structured, by the time you get to — you know, after 20 years of work — the environmental assessment process, I think it's quite understandable that most projects are going to get the certificate. They have done the work with the Ministry of Environment and with the Ministry of Mines to determine what the environmental risk is and to propose methods of mitigation of those environmental risks that are acceptable to government.

In the case of the mining project that the member raised, clearly, they didn't provide enough assurance around the mitigation of environmental risk to satisfy the ministers or the office.

S. Fraser: Sure. I don't disagree that the proposal was lacking. It was lacking very late in the game, and it was very expensive.

Again, the issue is around whether or not the ministry is maybe wasting its own resources by accepting applications that are going to be costly to a company too, because they are bad applications. They are not appropriate for the location. They're not compatible with the location. When I say "bad," I don't mean an evil bad. I'm just saying one that's likely to be so controversial.

The Raven coal mine just north of my constituency on Vancouver Island — the proposal there has been…. I mean, serious concerns have been raised by every community. By resolution, formally, every community — Comox, Courtenay, Qualicum Beach, the regional districts in the region, the Islands Trust, all local governments, who I have great respect for — has raised serious alarm bells about this.

Not to mention the University of Victoria environmental law clinic and independent groups too. And the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association, which would probably have the most to lose because of a project that could be located in an area very, very close to — just upstream of, if you will — the largest shellfish-growing industry in the province.

With all that in place and this thing is still…. Of course, the application has been returned, because it was woefully lacking. The company has said that they were going to come back and try to fix the failures there. But it is potentially causing major rifts between a company and all of the communities that would be potentially affected, and all of the hundreds of jobs associated with the shellfish industry, tourism, and the growth strategies of all the communities in the region, on the central Island.

[1525]

So if this is known ahead of time, is there no warning that comes up? Or does the ministry accept every application that comes in? What's the criteria for saying at the get-go…? I asked this earlier. Is the ministry getting a substantial amount of money for an application? Is that the rationale for just saying: "Yes, we accept every application"?

Hon. B. Bennett: The question that the member asked, I think, if I get it accurately, is: can government, whether it's this ministry or some other ministry, assess the likelihood that a project will (a) be successful and (b) be so
[ Page 560 ]
controversial that they should just tell the proponent to go away?

What I would say, if I've understood the supposition, is that any company that does business in British Columbia or any individual who does business in British Columbia is owed due process. Whether you're building an unpopular ski resort or an unpopular coal mine or an unpopular coal bed gas well or an unpopular anything, you have to have rules in place that investors can rely upon.

If you don't like your rules, if the public is saying that your rules are no good, you can always change your rules. But I think that in terms of encouraging investment, whether it's mining or any other form of business endeavour, you have to have rules that are transparent, that are understandable and that are adhered to by the province.

We have many areas of the province that are protected, where you can't stake a claim or develop a mine or drill a hole. We have lots of areas that are off-limits for a variety of reasons. Where it is legal to go and stake a claim and try to develop a mine, that particular entity, individual or company has the right to go through the process, and government is obligated to treat that proponent fairly, in accordance with its own process.

S. Fraser: Sort of a circuitous answer. I'm not sure I got a straight one there. Could I get more specific? As I asked before, what do you get for a permit? If an initial permit is accepted by the ministry, there must be a fee. I've sort of asked that, I think, several times now. What is the amount of that permitting fee, if it's accepted?

Hon. B. Bennett: I hope that I answer properly or answer adequately here.

There actually is no fee to enter the process in terms of the various kinds of permits that you need to access Crown land to develop a mine. There is a fee, of course, when you stake the claim. There's a fee when you apply for a notice of work. There are other kinds of permits that you have to apply for, and then you do pay a fee. But there's essentially no fee at the front end for a company that has decided it wants to develop a mineral deposit or a coal deposit.

Again, this is really about due process. It's really about government honouring a process that the duly elected government has established for dealing with mining projects or any other kind of business projects.

I know the member hasn't had the opportunity to be in government, but sometimes — in fact, many times — when you adhere to your own process, it's sometimes very uncomfortable and awkward. It's very tempting to give in to pressure from groups that don't want the project to happen, but you have to allow the project to continue to go through the due process and have trust in the civil servants that are directing that process.

[1530]

Ultimately, the best decision will be made, at the end of the day, in accordance with the rules that are in place.

S. Fraser: I do have faith in civil servants. I mean, the job of the opposition…. I don't need to tell this to the minister either. We get an Auditor General's report in this House that says that the environmental assessment process is woefully lacking and lists a whole list of things — no ability, not enough person power to even do any kind of basic monitoring. There's a whole list that came out there.

When we in the opposition push back because we have independent evidence from an officer of the Legislature, an independent office of the Legislature saying that there are flaws in the system that will prevent the civil service from actually being able to adequately do their job and protect the public interest…. When we raise those issues and they're not dealt with by government, then the issue is not about the faith in the civil service at all.

I take some exception. I've never taken that position. My position as a critic is to ask these questions, because I believe that's the check and balance of the parliamentary system. If the government fails to address the concerns raised by independent officers of the Legislature through major reports, then we have a problem.

I'll step away from this issue a bit. But it's related. I mentioned the Raven coal project and the concern for other economic activity that's already existing and planned for and invested in for the future. So a coal mine may not be compatible in certain regions. It may not just be formal parks. There may be other reasons — economic reasons, other jobs that would be adversely affected.

If you went to the Mineral Titles Online last Friday and you got the Raven coal project footprint, you would have found ten or 12 brand-new applications right over and including the Raven site that have been accepted by the ministry. How did that happen? How did ten or 12 applications get accepted by the ministry after the Raven coal project has been going through so much controversy but is still kind of kicking along? How does that work?

The name of the company is FEISA. That's what it says on the site.

Hon. B. Bennett: Two things in response to that question. I think the Raven coal project is actually a very good example of how the process is working, if the member just thinks back to my earlier comments about how our ministry and the environmental assessment office deal with applicants. There is an attempt to work closely with proponents so that when they do get in for their final assessment and the 180-day clock starts to tick, they have a complete application that staff believe is, you know, more or less complete.

In the case of the Raven coal mine, I would advise the member that — maybe he knows this already — on May 17, 2013, the provincial environmental assessment office announced that it could not accept the application from
[ Page 561 ]
Raven coal due to deficiencies in the application. So that project never made it in the door, because it just didn't have a good enough application. I think that's actually an example of how the process works.

With respect to the member's question around mineral tenure claims in the vicinity of the Raven coal project, coal tenures are not on line. Only mineral tenures are on line. I'm unfamiliar with the facts that have been related by the member in terms of this company, which I have not heard of, but I take the member's word for it. If there are those claims that have been registered, they would have to be mineral claims, because, again, coal claims are not registered on line.

[1535]

S. Fraser: I am confused. On the Mineral Titles Online this flurry of applications from…. It's a company out of…. If it's not Far East International Shipping, it sounds like it. It's a similar name anyways. It's a Calgary-Shanghai consortium, I believe. But just last Friday ten different claims came down right on the footprint of and around the Raven coal mine proposal.

I guess this is particularly curious and concerning because my understanding is that Compliance, the company that has the Raven proposal, have the freehold. They own the coal. They own the subsurface. That's what it seems to say in the report.

How can multiple applications from another applicant be put forward on an existing tenure, if you will, that is freehold, where in essence the government doesn't really have say over that? It's actually freehold right now for Compliance.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, again, the Mineral Titles Online program deals with mineral claims, not with coal claims. I think I should look into this and get back to the member with a final answer, but I think I'm on safe ground to say that if there are claims showing up in the vicinity of the Raven coal project on Mineral Titles Online, they're not coal claims. So they wouldn't be an overlap of coal claims. They would be a very separate mineral claim, and that's what I suspect is the situation here.

I don't believe that we put notice of applications for coal licences. The coal part of the industry works differently than the mineral part of the industry in terms of initial claims. On the mineral side you go on Mineral Titles Online, and you stake a claim. On the coal side you apply to government for a coal licence.

I don't believe that the member would have seen notice of applications for coal licences, but I could be wrong about that. My suspicion is that the member is referring to mineral claims here.

S. Fraser: The coal tenures are on line and are searchable through the Mineral Titles Online. There are at least, I think, ten or 12. I have them here. Coal — they're listed.

More concerning…. This is an anomaly here, because they don't see these kinds of numbers of claims coming in on the ministry website. As of Monday, which is three days after Friday, there were another at least ten claims just north of there on Vancouver Island from Golden River Resource Inc.

I'm not familiar with Golden River Resource Inc., but there's a flurry of applications that have been accepted by the ministry. Many of them — this is coal — are on top of freehold coal which is owned by Compliance.

Again, I've got the experts here. I'd like to know how this can be happening. I'm sure the ministry staff can just check that out. It's on the Mineral Titles Online, and you would confirm that these are coal applications that have been accepted by outside interests. They're planted right on top of freehold coal interests that are there already.

Hon. B. Bennett: My advice from my senior staff is that Mineral Titles Online does not deal with coal claims. They are separate applications for coal licences, and they are not listed on Mineral Titles Online. But there may be some reference on the ministry website to applications.

I can assure the member that there have been no coal licences granted in the vicinity of the Raven coal mine. I'm happy to spend as much time on this as the member wants to, but I think we're likely at odds over language and process. I'm not sure I fully understand where the member is getting this information.

[1540]

If possible, I would suggest that we get together after, and we find out what the member is referring to, and we'll get some accurate information to the member.

S. Fraser: Okay. Well, I will take the minister up on the offer. But I just want, for clarity, because we're on record here…. These are applications for coal claims. They are not in the vicinity of the Raven project. Their applications are for exactly the same coal, but it's freehold coal. Again, if somebody wants to…. I'm sure somebody has got this site on speed dial for the ministry. Because I'd sure like….

The reason that I would have liked to get some kind of an answer and confirmation is because it's not just happening on Vancouver Island. I'm not raising this just because that's near my turf, if you will. In Princeton there have been 13 or 14.

Again, the same just north on Vancouver Island, the Golden River Resource. They have, on the site for coal applications that have been accepted…. We've got 13 or 14 new applications that have just come up, like just within the last week, which completely surround the town of Princeton. Some of that is also on freehold coal. It's privately owned. They have the subsurface rights already.

How does the ministry accept applications for coal applications on land that is already freehold? It's not even accessible. Again, how much resources get wasted when
[ Page 562 ]
this sort of thing happens, and what's the cost of that to the company, to the public? I mean, does Princeton know about this? Do those that have freehold — privately owned coal, if you will — know that an application has been accepted on top of their own freehold coal?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it's hard for me to respond to the member's questions on this matter, because I really think…. I mean, the member uses the term "coal claim," and that's not actually a term that you'll find in any of the legislation. So I'm not quite sure what he's referring to. But once again — and this is the third or fourth time I've said this — anyone who wants to get permission to explore for coal comes to the provincial government and makes an application for a coal licence.

Now, it may be — and I haven't seen the documents — that the ministry has put notice of applications up on their website in the interest of transparency and letting the public know what's happening. But the ministry can't stop somebody from sending in an application. I think that the most important point here is that the ministry hasn't acted on those applications, and there have been no coal licences issued.

Even with our improved process, given the recent nature of these applications that the member has referred to, the staff would not even have had time to even look at them. So the fact that somebody has dropped a manila envelope off at a mines office someplace and that somebody has said "Okay, there's an application for a coal licence," just means there's been an application for a coal licence. I don't know what else we can say about that.

S. Fraser: Okay. Well, I'm baffled by an application actually…. It's an application for a coal tenure. It's on line. They're on line. There's a flurry of them — more than two dozen that I've mentioned in the last week, in two different areas, including areas that are freehold right now.

The company, Compliance, the consortium that's doing Raven — or trying to do Raven — have freehold rights to the coal in the ground. So how does an application for a coal tenure get as far as being put on line — somebody has to do that — superimposed on top of a freehold existing coal tenure?

[1545]

Isn't that a waste of time and resources and maybe a problem for a company that actually gets this put up on a website? We have had too many incidents of compensation having to be paid back to companies by the taxpayer for maybe taking the company down the wrong direction.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member seems to be assuming that somehow or other the ministry goes out and solicits these applications, or the ministry actually submits the applications themselves. That's not how it works. The business community, the mining industry, decides whether they're going to submit an application. In this case, it's a coal licence, and they're not listed on Mineral Titles Online. We've confirmed that absolutely.

What the member might be looking at is…. Part of the website that the ministry has available to the public is a series of maps that show coal licence applications. So if somebody has dropped off some applications for coal licences on Vancouver Island and staff has had the time to put them up on the website, they could indeed be up on the website. But again, it's due process.

If you want to put an application in for something that you wish to do — even, I suppose, if you ought to know better, even if you have no chance of being awarded a positive response — there's no way to stop somebody at the door and say: "Wait a minute. You can't put an application in."

It sounds like that's what's happening in this case — that some applications for coal licences have been received; the notice of those applications has been put up in the form of maps. Those applications will be dealt with under the due process that we have in place.

S. Fraser: Maybe that's a place we can go with the core review, when the minister does that. I mean, for instance, if a company put an application in for a coal tenure in a national park that is off-limits for such operations, I'm hoping that the ministry wouldn't post that application on line, because, well, it would cause a lot of people sleepless nights at the very least, but it would be inappropriate.

If there is already existing freehold tenure owned — like, freehold — shouldn't somebody in the ministry maybe tell the applicant that this is not an appropriate application because it is on freehold tenure that exists already, or in a national park? Surely, in cases like that that are so obvious, they shouldn't even get through the front door with an application like that, and in this case they have.

Would such an application be posted on the map, on the site, if it were in the middle of a national park? Would that not get stopped?

Hon. B. Bennett: A clear answer to the member's question is no. There are coal reserves over all the protected areas and parks in the province, so those ones, those applications, would not be posted. I don't know what else to say to the member on this one.

S. Fraser: That's enough. I'm happy with that response — to some extent.

Does freehold coal pay production taxes? I mean, coal in the ground — if you're putting an application in for a tenure on Crown land, obviously there are fees derived from that. There's revenue stream that derives from that if that becomes an active mine and there's economic activity, which we've canvassed earlier.

With freehold coal, what's the dividend, if you will, that's paid back to the government, to the taxpayer? I'm
[ Page 563 ]
unclear of the difference. I've actually gotten different answers depending on who I've talked to.

[1550]

Hon. B. Bennett: That's an interesting question. Where I come from, we have a fair bit of undersurface rights that are owned outright, for the same reason, I think, that there are some of those kinds of rights that exist on Vancouver Island — the old days of the railway being given not only the surface rights but the undersurface rights. We've done some work recently on this matter because of some large blocks of land that the federal government owns in the province, and in that case the undersurface rights are also owned.

What I would say to the member is that at the present time our view is that mineral tax or royalties would be payable on the production of that coal, even though it's owned and is a different circumstance than the coal that's mined by most companies in the province where they have a provincial tenure.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Just so I'm clear, is it the same amount? Is it the same rate that's levied on the resource then? Freehold? What's the difference between freehold and non-freehold coal, if you will? What's the difference in the revenue derived back to the province, to the taxpayer? What is the difference between…? There must be some difference between freehold…. I realize it seems to be a bit of a grey area, but if you could clarify: is it a lesser amount when it's freehold back to the province? Are production taxes, export taxes, less? Something like that?

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, it's an interesting question. We don't have full confidence. We think we know the answer to that. It's an occurrence that I'm not sure is happening anywhere in the province right now. We think the answer is yes, but we would rather find out for sure and let the member know, if that is acceptable to the member.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that offer. It's one that's come up. Again, because it's on Vancouver Island, there are questions about that. There have been statements made both ways, that there was nothing required and there is everything required. I know it can't be both.

I assumed there would probably have been some precedent-setting examples within the province already, dealing with freehold-something, that would maybe give more clarity to that. But if the minister can get back to me and give me some clarification on that, I would very much appreciate that.

If I could touch on another issue. There was a court decision December 27, the Yukon Court of Appeal decision, the Dena decision. This one caught my attention. I was the Aboriginal Affairs critic at the time, so it had a link there. But what I did learn and I didn't know is the Appeal Court in the Yukon is staffed by judges from the…. The Appeal Court judges are from B.C. They are British Columbia judges. Members of the industry have claimed that this could be a problem for them and/or this could require changes, depending on what your perspective is, that may be addressing a flaw in the system now.

I guess I'm going to be talking…. I'm going, not exclusively, to First Nations rights and title. Does the minister see this Yukon Appeal Court case as, potentially, a hurdle for the ministry in the future? In your future?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I appreciate that question. I am aware of the judgment, and I think the general answer is that we're not sure yet how this decision will — and whether it will — impact B.C. However, we are advised that there are some unique conditions that exist in B.C. that do not exist in the Yukon.

[1555]

So while the judges, as the member states, come from our B.C. Court of Appeal, they were in a different jurisdiction with different rules and a different situation in the Yukon. So we're thinking that the ruling will not apply, but we're still doing additional work on that as to whether or not it will.

S. Fraser: There are many in the province that see the free-entry system as somewhat archaic. I know Alberta has done away with their free-entry system. Other jurisdictions have certainly amended it strongly. Might this not be a wake-up call?

I foresee litigation, and that's not in everyone's interest. If we're dealing with archaic systems that maybe do not meet the test of court decisions around First Nations rights and title, wouldn't it be appropriate to try to head that off and address those failures right now, rather than wait for this to become a lot more messy?

I'll touch on a specific issue. On-line claims are quite controversial. That's not exclusively quite controversial with First Nations and aboriginal people in the province. That's controversial across the province in a much broader sense. Has there been any discussion — I know he's new, back in this job as the minister responsible — about how, maybe, to modernize the act? Maybe it's overdue.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the element of our system that is constituted by this on-line staking is relatively new. I know it was developed in my time as an MLA. I think it came around roughly around the time that I was minister responsible for mines in 2005 or thereabouts.

It's universally applauded, certainly by the mining industry, as a very convenient, effective way to deal with mineral tenures. So I think that part of it, from a business point of view, from a point of view of the province being competitive and being able to attract mining investment, is a pretty good process. We would be reluctant to undermine the success of that process.
[ Page 564 ]

Having said that, I have considered…. I haven't had time in this recent iteration of being minister responsible for mines — I've been too busy with B.C. Hydro — but I have considered looking at the Mineral Tenure Act from the point of view of whether it is up to date in terms of today's values and so forth and expectations on the part of the public. There are some aspects of it that may deserve to be changed, and I'd be happy to talk to the member about that and get the member's advice on that.

But again, as to the on-line staking part of it, that's a very successful part of what we do here in B.C., and it's something that other jurisdictions have emulated. So if we were to change how we do things to reflect some of the considerations that the member mentioned around First Nations and so forth, we would have to find a way to do it that doesn't reduce or remove the competitiveness of our industry.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the minister's comments, but with all due respect to the system as it stands, it's causing chaos in parts of the provinces. The member for Saanich North and the Islands has reminded me that there was a flurry of recent staking on North and South Pender islands, and that's created a fury if you were the Islands Trust representative — a fury of angry and worried calls. Not surprisingly, the Islands Trust representatives are busy fielding those calls, and they're not too happy about it.

[1600]

The free-entry system seems to be, maybe not exclusively but in some cases — in this case, maybe — seen as an end run around private property rights. The minister, I think, respects private property rights.

Again, there can be a good thing, or there can be too much of a good thing. Surely, the minister has heard complaints — certainly, from the local government representatives on the islands — about this sort of thing. Has the ministry offered any support or any way of mitigating this for those residents and those elected representatives that are fielding these angry calls?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, there are certainly private property rights that apply to the surface of the land, and I think that's what the member was referring to. But there are also private property rights that apply to the subsurface and the mineral and coal values that are there. So they're both private property rights.

There is a long, long history in our common law, coming out of England from 1,000 years ago, that supports the distinction between private property rights on the surface and private property rights on the undersurface. There has always been a balance in the common law as to how the owner of the subsurface rights can access those values while entering onto the surface of the land, which is a separate holding.

I take the member's point about, perhaps, it's time to review that interplay of the two sets of property owners — the ones that own the surface rights and the ones that own the subsurface rights. I'll certainly take that under advisement. As I have time to look at the Mineral Tenure Act, I'll consider whether there is some modernization that should be done.

Again, I'm very happy to hear from the member on this if he has some ideas or his colleagues in opposition have ideas on how we could modernize that.

I was informed by my staff that our ministry folks did go out to Pender Island and meet with the folks that live out there and explain kind of the implications, really, of an on-line staking. So hopefully, the chaos that the member describes has subsided somewhat on Pender Island. Certainly, I think it was good of our staff to go out there and make that effort to explain how the process actually works.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I'm glad to hear that. I believe that's a good and strong role for the ministry staff to play when this sort of thing happens.

I guess, first, I just want to ask for clarification. I have heard that Islands Trust has asked for an exemption from these rules. Is that correct, and is that being contemplated?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm going to answer the question, but I would like to go back to a topic that I wasn't able to provide an answer to the member on — at least, an unequivocal answer. That is the question of whether privately owned coal or freehold title coal, if you want to refer to it that way — whether taxes are paid on the production of that coal.

We just received advice from the ministry staff that it is. The tax is the same. Mineral taxes would be payable on that type of coal as coal that's under provincial tenure. So we can clear that one off the books, I guess, for this afternoon.

I'm going to have to just think for a second on what the actual question was.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Yeah, Pender Island. We're not certain over here whether or not we have had a formal request to do what would be known as a coal reserve or a staking reserve on Pender Island. That can be done. There are places in the province that have coal reserves or staking reserves. You go on line, and you can't stake a claim there because there's obviously a reserve there.

If we have received that kind of request formally from the Islands Trust, we'll certainly look at it.

[1605]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that offer, and thanks to the minister for the answer to that mystery
[ Page 565 ]
question on freehold or private coal. I appreciate that.

Just rounding off this topic, mindful of the time. The way it stands now, here, under the claim system that we have, on-line claims: "Claims can be staked on private lands without the consent of the landowner, granting the claim holder the rights to occupy the land for exploration and development purposes. Compensation and minimal notice are required before mining activities can occur on private property, but landowners do not actually have the right to refuse mining on their land."

Is that an accurate statement?

Hon. B. Bennett: There is a process spelled out in the Mineral Tenure Act for how disputes between a surface rights holder and a subsurface rights holder can be resolved. There's actually a board called the surface rights board that comes together to help resolve disputes.

Most circumstances involving undersurface rights and an explorationist wanting to access the land are resolved in a businesslike way between the two property owners — the subsurface rights owner and the surface rights owner. There is clearly an obligation on the part of the subsurface rights holder to provide compensation for any negative impact or cost to the surface rights holder.

I think I'd have to have the member read that paragraph out again to be absolutely certain, but it sounded to me like it was a little narrow in its definition of what the actual rights are. There are obligations on the part of the mining tenure holder as they are entering onto privately held land to deal with the property owner — and again, to deal with compensation, if that's required.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that, and I won't go over that, but the compensation is a subjective issue. If you are living somewhere for quality of life, that might not be an option, to be adequately compensated.

I would just note — the minister said if I have any suggestions — that Ontario, which had a similar system as we do now, has taken significant steps to modernize the law — and actually in some similarities too. Within the last decade, protecting in cottage country…. There were protests in cottage country in Ontario, which is a fairly powerful lobby, actually, in Ontario. Cottage country has led to some of these changes, and certainly First Nations rights and title issues and constitutional challenges have led to some changes.

Ontario is now reforming its legal system in the area of mineral tenure and private property rights, including automatically withdrawing mining rights from some lands. So they have made some decisions on exemptions in Ontario already to address some of that.

I have heard…. I mean, I'm not the spokesperson for First Nations on mining issues, certainly, nor should I be, but in my discussions from my lengthy time as Aboriginal Affairs critic, I have heard suggestions that requiring companies to do impact-and-benefits agreements as part of the application process — as a requirement, maybe early on — might be a way to make sure that conflict and controversy do not occur and not waste everyone's time and significant money and land everybody in court.

That might be a way of freeing up mineral resources in the province without the controversy and conflict that sometimes is associated with that.

[1610]

Since we're on record here, those are my dime-store suggestions for the minister — that there are things being done elsewhere and that we may not need to reinvent the wheel to modernize our tenure system and our system of making claims within the province of British Columbia when it comes to mining.

I would just like to touch on…. I have another member here who wants to ask a few questions, which I want to hear also and be mindful of the time.

I have a request. I've met with the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations. That's the traditional territory that Tofino is on. It's in Clayoquot Sound. It's regarding the Fandora gold mine proposal by Imperial Metals. There is significant concern from the Tla-o-qui-aht regarding this project. I would note that the concern is shared by local governments, even chambers of commerce and other groups — like Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Greenpeace, ForestEthics, the Wilderness Committee, of course, and Sierra Club.

I would wonder if the minister, while we're on record here, would be willing to have a meeting — maybe him and a senior staff — with Chief Moses Martin and some of his staff to discuss their concerns and what they're hoping to achieve within their traditional territories.

They're making great strides on a number of issues. I think it would be a benefit to all parties if that meeting could happen. Would the minister be willing to take part in such a meeting with the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a useful discussion that I would be happy to carry on with the critic and anybody else on either side of the House about when mining activity gets to the point where you can justify the kind of in-depth consultation that absolutely needs to take place with First Nations. We don't have enough time to really canvass that whole issue here.

Certainly, the ministry has taken the position for many, many years, longer than this government has been in place, that when somebody files a mineral claim — nowadays it would be on line — or when somebody applies for a coal licence, the duty to consult commences when a particular level of activity or intrusion on the land takes place. That's what's interesting about the discussion as to what level of activity on the land would justify and create the need for that consultation.

With respect to this particular project, I don't know a lot about the project. I know they have a permit to drill
[ Page 566 ]
some holes. If the member is wondering whether or not I would be willing to meet with the First Nations from that area — absolutely. Absolutely happy to meet with them, and it would be even nice if I could go to the site and meet with them there. I'd like to do that if we can do that. Maybe the member can help set that up.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, and I'll pass that on. Chief Moses Martin might be watching this now, so he'll be happy with that response, and I thank you. Actually, he'll be even happier with the opportunity to maybe show you around a bit. If you haven't been there, it's magnificent territory and there's a lot to offer. So thank you very much for that.

I'm going to turn this over — for as long as he needs, because we're getting close here — to my colleague, who's actually more knowledgable on mining than I have ever been. I note the minister has comments to make, so I will sit down.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me suggest, just so the members are aware…. I think we are doing Core Review next. I think Core Review is supposed to start at about 4:30. This obviously is between the members and their House Leader, but it's going to be interesting to see how we use two hours on Core Review, given where we're at right now with the core review.

[1615]

There may be other time left for mining later. I'll just make that comment.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the critic for allowing me to ask a few questions and to the minister and the staff for being here today.

I have a couple of questions associated with Red Chris, which the minister has referred to previously.

My understanding as of July is that there's one provincial permit required by Red Chris Mine for its tailing facility to operate — just one left. Could the minister advise on the nature of that permit?

Hon. B. Bennett: The permits that are outstanding for the Red Chris project, as I understand it, are a Mines Act permit, which would come from our ministry, and a permit or permits from the Ministry of Environment that are based on the Environmental Management Act, which would go more to the treatment of water and the construction and operation of dams and tailings ponds. So those permits have not yet been granted.

I just took a little extra time with my staff because I'm familiar with some of the public criticism around this part of this project. My staff inform me that the proponent would not get a permit under the Environmental Management Act unless they could show that the dam and the tailings pond would contain the water in such a way as to not have a significant negative impact on the surrounding watershed — which I believe was the focus of, certainly, the story that I read somewhere recently about this.

I'm maybe assuming too much about the member's question, but I thought I'd try to get to that point. I'll let the member ask further questions about it, and we'll sort it out.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer.

Yes, it wasn't a story. It was an independently commissioned report by Imperial Metals and at the urging of the Tahltan around water studies associated with the tailings impoundment. The report concluded that "studies completed to date are not sufficiently detailed to fully assess or monitor potential environmental impacts due to seepage from the tailings storage facility on the downstream aquatic environment." That's a quote from the report.

[1620]

My question then is: did the permits that the minister refers to, which are part of his ministry's purview, relate to this issue, and will it address this issue — an issue that has also been highlighted by Tahltan Central Council president Annita McPhee in feeling that these permits really were issued, some of them, without due regard to the water issue?

Hon. B. Bennett: This particular issue, I think, is a good way to maybe illustrate the difference between the environmental assessment process and the process that happens after a certificate is awarded. The member who is asking the question, his colleague and I had an exchange about the environmental assessment process and the Mines Act process and the Environmental Management Act process.

The assessment certificate is not given except where the ministry or the environmental assessment office and the ministers are satisfied that all of the environmental risk has been identified and that there have been satisfactory mitigation measures proposed by the proponent. If those mitigation measures are satisfactory, all things being equal, they get their certificate.

But the actual implementation of those mitigation measures actually, typically, comes through the next part of the process, when you're building a mine. It comes through the Mines Act permit. It comes through the Environmental Management Act permit.

So the permits that we're discussing right now are the permits, and that is the process that will ensure that dams that are constructed, tailings ponds that are constructed, are able to adequately contain water and prevent the kind of leaching into the water table that this report raised concerns about.

D. Donaldson: Once again, thank you for that answer. I would submit that there are some people, experts, who analyze the environmental assessment process and point
[ Page 567 ]
to what the minister has described just now as a flaw, in that the permitting…. Generally overall, the project, as it goes now, is given an approval under the EA process, and then it's up to the permitting on the site specifics, where the mitigative measures are assessed whether they are fully able to address the long-term impacts. In some cases, people point out that this is too far down the road in certain project proposals. But that's a discussion for the Ministry of Environment, I think, and I would love to be able to engage in that discussion at the Ministry of Environment level.

Getting back to Red Chris.There is an extension from the mine to the proposed northern transmission line substation, which is Bob Quinn. Could the minister advise: is B.C. Hydro responsible for building and the costs of the line from the mine to the northern transmission line substation?

[1625]

Hon. B. Bennett: The northern transmission line, the northwest transmission line, is fully permitted and under construction. B.C. Hydro is estimating it will enter service in summer 2014. That's certainly the in-service date that everyone is working towards.

I should say to the member that Imperial Metals has created at least one subsidiary company to be involved in the extension, the Iskut extension line. So there may even be two subsidiary companies that have been created. When I say Imperial Metals I'm referring to whatever companies they have incorporated to actually do the construction. There's a different name for them, but I don't know what they all are, off the top of my head.

The Imperial Metals Corp. requires a minimum of 138 kV transmission line to interconnect to the provincial grid, which would be the NTL. The infrastructure would normally be permitted, constructed and owned by Imperial Metals.

Imperial has been in the process of securing the Crown permits for this extension line. I'm not sure of the status of those permit applications, but I think they may have just recently been granted. That's for access to the actual land to build that extension line.

I don't seem to have…. I probably do, actually. My staff probably has it here for me, but I can't lay my hands on the details of the extension line. I can tell the member that Imperial has assumed the risk for constructing the line. There's a distinction between the line and some other elements of the transmission system, some of which B.C. Hydro is still responsible for.

But the line itself — my understanding is that Imperial's subsidiary has assumed responsibility to build that. They are investing — and I'll get the numbers for the member — a certain amount of money in that line. When the line is up and operating, and is deemed to have been constructed properly and all things are in place, the line gets turned over to B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro will actually own the extension line.

I'd rather not take any more time up, but let the member just tell us specifically what information he would like on the Iskut extension line, and we'll get it for him. If I can't give it to you right now, we'll get it to you as soon as possible.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. Yes. Well, what I would like to ask the minister is…. The line — from what I understand of his answer — is being built by Imperial Metals or subsidiaries that are taking control of that and then, once complete and fully functioning, it will be turned over to B.C. Hydro.

So what are the arrangements of that deal? What are the considerations that are being given to Imperial Metals for turning over that line, and does B.C. Hydro then assume full liability for any future deficiencies that might play out along the line?

Hon. B. Bennett: My apologies to the member. I have actually seen the briefing note on this that spells out the arrangement between B.C. Hydro and Imperial. But I've got my mining binder here today, not my B.C. Hydro binder.

[1630]

I think there will be opportunity, certainly, for the Energy critic, when he asks his questions, to bring this information out. We do have it. Happy to share it. We can either do it that way, or if the member would prefer, we can just do it up in a memo and provide it to the member. I know we have the information. Again, we're not trying to keep the member from having it. I just don't have it handy here in this particular briefing book.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I believe the Energy critic will be canvassing with you, so no need for the written response at this point. I'll turn it back to the critic.

S. Fraser: I note that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings is going to take up the next part of this. Our two hours are up. I think I've got about one minute left.

An issue came across my desk, actually, just a few days ago — the Arctos anthracite project, formerly known as the Mount Klappan anthracite metallurgical coal project. Looking on my map on the wall there, that looks like it's right in the middle of what is known as the Sacred Headwaters. I think it's the confluence of four different rivers. Can the minister comment? Is this moving through the system? Surely he realizes this has some controversy associated with it.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: The member no doubt is aware of the commitment that we made in our election campaign platform to consult with all those people interested in
[ Page 568 ]
the Klappan area and endeavour to determine whether or not there is some level of protection that could be imposed on that area.

It's a big question. It's a big area — the three major rivers, as the member is aware. I have a reasonable idea, I think, as to which of those rivers is actually impacted by this project, but I'm not confident enough in my knowledge to express that opinion here on the record. But as we go along here, I think we'll figure out exactly which of the three rivers are in the watersheds of that project.

I can assure the member that we have already started to discuss how we can meet our commitment in our campaign platform. I've had meetings with the Minister of Environment, who has formal responsibility for this platform commitment, and also with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations — actually numerous discussions already. We will do what we said we would do.

S. Fraser: With that, I'll just acknowledge that we may be coming back on this as that project unfolds, if questions arise from that.

I'm not sure of the wording on this, because I'm not entirely sure that we're not actually shutting down the entire estimates here, so I'm going to sit down. I have no more questions. I will pass this on to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: I don't know whether the minister has some staff changes. We're going to talk about core review for the rest of the day, and I don't know whether the minister requires some staff changes to do that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I have a deputy minister who works with me on Core Review who is on her way. My suggestion is that we get started, and when she arrives, I'll introduce her. In the meantime, the staff who are here on the mining side of the estimates, I think, are going to leave. So we just have a minute for them to clear out.

[1635]

S. Simpson: We're going to spend a little bit of time talking about the other significant project, other than energy, that rests in the minister's portfolio, and that is the core review process.

The first question I'd like to ask relates to the timing around the terms of reference, and then we'll talk a little bit more about some of the scope of that in a little more detail and then move from there into some specific questions. I understand, though, that it's very early in the process, and I'm sure that the work is being done now, heading up to getting a terms of reference that will be approved through the cabinet process.

My first question relates to the terms of reference. It's my understanding that the terms of reference, from the mandate letter, are to be developed in a plan to the priorities and planning committee by the 30th of August of 2013.

Could the minister tell us: is there any intention of making a draft of any of those public prior to that? If not, the core review plan, as it's called in the mandate letter to the minister — will it be released following, presumably, approval by the priorities and planning committee of cabinet? Is it the intention to make it a public document after cabinet has approved it through that committee?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's our intention to make public the terms of reference after they are approved by cabinet.

S. Simpson: The other question around the timing is…. If I look at point 4 around the core review, it says: "Complete the core review process by December 31, 2014." I believe I heard the minister in the media say it was his hope that maybe that work would be completed earlier than that date, that he was totally confident it would be completed by that date. And that's great.

Could the minister, though, tell the House: is it his expectation that…? We're going to have another budget year in between there, coming next February-March. Is it the minister's expectation that there are aspects of the core review that will be implemented prior to December 31, 2014, or is it that there will be a complete plan at that place that will then be implemented?

Hon. B. Bennett: It is certainly my hope as chair of the core review process that we can identify areas of government that can be improved and that, in fact, we can take steps to implement that improvement prior to the end of December 2014. I would say that I'm quite sure that we are not going to wait until December 2014 to then take a large report of recommendations to cabinet and not accomplish anything between now and then. I really want to accomplish some positive things between now and December 2014.

I hope that's a clear enough answer for the member. We do hope to identify opportunities along the way and not just have one of those kinds of processes where you meet for a year and a half and then end up with a report at the end of the year and a half where you actually haven't accomplished much except for create some recommendations.

S. Simpson: Just to follow up on that a little bit. I understand that these things work differently. It's the minister's hope that after August 30 or so…. The minister will present sometime, by August 30, a plan to the priorities and planning committee of cabinet. We'll get some sign-off from those folks who have to sign off on this, and then we'll begin action on that plan, presumably.

[1640]

We should expect, then, or it's the minister's hope…. I won't say we should expect. Is it the minister's hope that we may see some of those changes, the things that
[ Page 569 ]
will come from the core review, reflected in the budget of 2014-2015, next February-March — whenever that budget's introduced? Is that fair?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is, I think quite understandably, focusing on the budget. Not to put words in his mouth, but it seems from his question that there's an assumption that the recommendations we make and the changes that are implemented will all be related to the budget. In fact, it's my plan that this committee address the mandate of every ministry and the mandate of the Crowns and go more to how things are done, how services are delivered.

The cost of how services are delivered is obviously a factor for any government. It certainly is uppermost in our minds these days, as we try to balance the budget. I do have a fiscal target of $50 million in the next fiscal year and $50 million the year after, of which I know the member is aware.

Having said that, the focus of the committee will not be primarily on dollars and cents and cutting costs. It will be more around how a ministry delivers the services that it is responsible to deliver, how a Crown delivers the services that it is responsible to deliver. Are there better ways to deliver those services?

It may be that if we discover what those better ways are and we make a recommendation, money can be saved. That will be a by-product of the process that I envision.

If money is identified, is saved, from a recommendation that is ultimately adopted by cabinet, certainly we have an obligation to find the $50 million in the next fiscal year. Over and above that, it is my plan that we include in our recommendation places for the money we may find to be spent — either in those ministries where it comes from or someplace else in government.

There is an element of reprioritizing resources that's included in this core review process. But again, I would say to the member that the real, most important focus of this core review process is examining the mandates of all the ministries and trying to find ways to do things smarter, better, more efficiently.

S. Simpson: I'm sure the minister has looked at this. I was back taking a look at the last core review, which was 2001, the documentation around that, the guidelines for the core services review and the letter that was sent, I believe, at that point to the people responsible — I think it was a deputy who was responsible for leading that; Ms. Eaton, I believe — that laid out the objectives of the review.

Is the expectation of the minister that the kind of plan we might see might be — not in terms of specific content but in terms of how the guideline for core services review, which I'm sure the minister has looked at and probably knows much better than I do…? Is that what we should be looking for, something that looks kind of like this, when we look at a plan post–August 30th? Is that what we should be looking for in a plan?

Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, there is, I think, an important distinction to be made between the circumstances that the B.C. government finds itself in today, in 2013, and the circumstances that it found itself in, in 2001. I am going to deliberately avoid partisan comments about the circumstances we found ourselves in, in 2001, but they were quite different.

Over the last 12 years we have implemented a number of processes, which have allowed us to, for example, create the leanest, most efficient public service in the country. That's, I think, an important accomplishment of our government.

We've also reduced regulations by 41 or 42 percent, in terms of counting regulations. I think that's an important accomplishment.

[1645]

We've had ongoing processes around the Crowns. B.C. Hydro, for example, has had a review. ICBC has had a review. Many ministries — not all, but many — have internal reviews of the whole ministry or some aspect of the ministry happening.

So we find ourselves in 2013, I think, really not having the same low-hanging fruit that was available to the core review exercise in 2001-2002. That will obviously impact the end of our work, the result of our work in December 2014. It is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that we will be able to report that we have found $1 billion in cost savings, which is what was found in the 2001-2002 core review process.

We will look for every dollar that we can that doesn't need to be spent in order to maintain the high quality of public services that British Columbians are accustomed to receiving. But again, because the circumstances are so different this time around, we would expect not to find as many dollars and cents. That's one of the reasons, one of the main reasons, why, as I said a minute ago, we're going to focus more on the mandates and how things are done. Cost is part of it, but not the main focus.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I agree with the minister. We're not going to get into a debate here so much about budget, so I'm not going to talk about the current budget that we're in the process of and whether it's balanced or not. We don't have an agreement on that.

The minister will know that the reality is, you know, the government has had fiscal challenges. When I look back over the last four years, the government has run about $5 billion in deficit, a cumulative deficit for the last four years — about $5 billion in that period. Obviously, there's significant deficit there, and I would agree with the minister that probably the cuts that were made in '01 with the core review then and with the things that have happened since then, there's not a heck of a lot of low-
[ Page 570 ]
hanging fruit. I would agree with that.

That raises some questions about where these savings might actually come from. With that question, the minister talked about saying, "Well, we won't find $1 billion," and I think he's probably right. But he also said, and as I understand from the budget, the intention or the desire is $30 million this year, $50 million and $50 million, for a total of about $130 million, give or take.

Could the minister tell us: is that amount the floor, the minimum that the minister's mandate is to find? That's the minimum? Or has he been told: "If you find that, then the objective is met and we can move on"?

Hon. B. Bennett: My instructions are to work with the core review committee to identify $50 million in savings from the fiscal year 2014-15 and then $50 million the next fiscal year. The $30 million that the member quite accurately refers to is not part of the core review committee's mandate. It is part of what government overall will have to do this fiscal year.

S. Simpson: So the $50 million and $50 million for the next two fiscal years — the minister, as he said, the identification…. The minister has received the direction, which the minister has received from the Premier, to find $50 million and $50 million.

Again, is that the floor? Is the minister telling us that "if I find $50 million, I'm finding $50 million; if I find $100 million, well, then I'm finding $100 million"?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it's fair to say that the work that we will be doing, as I've described already, around examining the mandate and how services are delivered in the province will lead us, I have no doubt, to finding some ways to save money. Well, maybe "save money" is not even the right way to put it — find money that's being spent currently that could be spent in some different way by that ministry or a different ministry.

[1650]

I would be pleased if we could identify more than $50 million in the next two fiscal years. That, I think, would be certainly something that we would consider to be a success.

Again, what's driving the creation of this committee by the Premier and what's driving us as a committee in the throes of creating our terms of reference is not so much finding as much money as we possibly can, which I think was probably a focus in 2001-2002; it is trying to examine mandates so that we can make recommendations to cabinet about how things can be done differently, better.

S. Simpson: I want to follow up on that particular conversation. Because the reality is — and I think the minister has made comment about this when he's talked about low-hanging fruit in the past — sometimes finding money is an easier thing to do than determining whether there's a better way to do something.

If the intention of the core review is to look at practices — how ministries and how others do their work — and say: "Is there another way for you to do this that might be as effective but more efficient in terms of resource requirements…?"

The question that I have for the minister around that is: how does the minister envision that that moves forward? Is it value-for-money audits within ministries? Is it requiring ministries to set up internal committees that, in fact, will do some kind of internal audit process, which will then provide that information back to the minister and his team so that they can then make an assessment? What's the process in a ministry to take that look for value for money?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, to some extent, we haven't arrived yet at the place where I can fully answer the member's question.

There are some parts of our process that I think I know how it's going to evolve into the final approach. For example, how are we going to deal with external so-called stakeholders — the non-profits, the business organizations? How are we going to get their ideas into our process? We don't actually know that yet.

We do know that we'll be providing, this fall, letters of instruction to ministries. Certainly, business case analysis by those ministries will be important.

We also plan to find some way for all members of this House to bring us their ideas, including opposition. Everyone who's here meets with constituents on a regular basis. There may be some good ideas that can bubble up from constituency offices.

We know that in terms of finding better ways to do things, you're not always going to find those better ways by asking the people that are doing the things.

To the member's point, I think he's correct to say that it's easier to find money sometimes than it is to actually find and then fix what can be done better.

My overall approach to this is to work with as many different people and sectors and organizations over the next year and a half to identify opportunities for improvement, to make recommendations to cabinet to implement those ideas for improvement. Then, of course, it'll be out of our hands, and cabinet will decide which of those ideas they're going to go with and which they won't.

S. Simpson: Just to continue with that conversation for a little bit there.

So ministry X is going to take a look. They're obviously going to do some work and provide some advice to the minister and his team and the committee about where they think they might find some saving or whatever, or how they might be more efficient in doing what they do in terms of their practice.

Is it the expectation, then, that those ministries will
[ Page 571 ]
make a determination about how they expend money internally to do that assessment? We know these assessments aren't free; they cost money. Sometimes you've got to spend some money to save some money.

[1655]

Is it going to be the expectation that every ministry will have to create its own line item or budget to do the review, the internal reviews that they do, in order to be able to report out to the minister and his committee on core review matters?

Hon. B. Bennett: I really do want to provide as much information and detail to the critic as I possibly can, but we don't even have our terms of reference approved yet. The gist of the questions that the member is asking — I really don't have hard and fast answers for him at this stage. I don't want to give the member information that turns out to be incorrect by the end of August, when we're going to know exactly what our plan is and what our terms of reference are.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I appreciate it's early in the process. The t's have not all been crossed, and the i's haven't all been dotted, and clearly cabinet hasn't signed off on the minister's plan yet, so it's still very much a work in progress. I respect that, and I respect the fact that some of these answers can't be as definitive as I might like. I understand that they haven't been properly formulated yet. They still have some work to be done.

Maybe just to get to the basic question, though. There's going to be a cost related to the minister's work in the core review. What is the expectation about where the budgetary costs of the work of the core review are going to come from? I didn't see a line item — now, maybe I missed it — in the budget for core review that says the core review has X budget for this year. What is the projected cost for the next year in this budget, and how is it getting paid?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are two ways to answer this question. Both, I think, complement each other.

Number 1, if the member refers to the Minister of Finance's mandate letter, he will see that the Premier has advised the Minister of Finance that the Ministry of Finance will finance the cost of the core review process — so in the sense that the Ministry of Finance will provide the analysts and other staff that we need, in addition to Kim Henderson, the deputy minister from the Premier's office, who is in charge of the core review process and who's sitting beside me here now.

That's one part of the answer. But there is another part of the answer, and that is that we need to do this process in a way that is respectful of the taxpayers' contributions to our provincial treasury. We're going to be asking each ministry to absorb what I think will be relatively minor costs associated with the work that they're going to do to analyze business cases and the things that we're asking them to do in our letter of instructions to them.

Those are the two ways, essentially, that we will fund this process. I suppose my deputy minister, sitting to my left, might wince at this, but obviously with me being responsible for the process, the Ministry of Energy and Mines is probably in it for some measure of support as well.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister. That was helpful. That does provide a little bit more insight. I understand it's not complete at this time.

So Finance is essentially underwriting the project, with support from the Premier's office, as he's pointed out. Ms. Henderson is playing a key role as the deputy with a responsibility for this. Other than the deputy…. I believe, when I read the minister's mandate letter, it says to "work with my office and the Minister of Finance to identify a core team to undertake the core review work." Has that team been identified, and if so, who are those people?

[1700]

Hon. B. Bennett: Just to clarify, I want to make sure that the exchange on where the funding is coming from was…. I want to make sure that the member remembers what I just said, because what he reflected back to me wasn't quite complete.

The funding for this process, yes, will come from the Premier's office in terms of the deputy minister. Yes, it will come from the Ministry of Finance with regard to the staff that we'll need from the Ministry of Finance to do the analysis and so forth. But I would urge the member not to forget that we're also going to have individual ministries and Crowns that will also absorb some of the costs of this. I wanted to clarify that.

In terms of the team, the member is certainly looking at the core of the Core Review team here today. Having said that, we have already utilized staff from the Ministry of Finance. My advice is that — in fact, the advice comes from the Minister of Finance — whatever we need, we will get. So I'm quite confident that as we have needs for staff and resources, we will get that from the Ministry of Finance. I'm not really worried about that.

I should also say on the record that I'm very, very happy to also have a parliamentary secretary, Dan Ashton from Penticton, the former mayor of Penticton, who has actually been through two core review exercises himself — one as a mayor and one as a chair of a regional district. Very successful exercises, and I think that if….

I'm sorry. I'm not supposed to use the MLA's name here. I apologize for that, hon. Chair.

The MLA for Penticton has made some important learnings. He has described to me his own skepticism in terms of one of the reviews that was done and that as the review carried on, he realized there was a great opportunity to actually find better ways to do things. So we
[ Page 572 ]
have the benefit of that experience as part of our Core Review team. The MLA, who shall not be mentioned again by name, will be a very busy MLA over the next year and a half.

S. Simpson: The minister talked about the understanding. Clearly, I would agree, it was my understanding that in terms of the costs of any given entity of government — ministry, Crown or whatever — if they have costs, those costs will be expected to be absorbed by that entity itself. That really raises the next question.

We know that the review looks to include all of the ministries, presumably, and I'll wait for the minister to confirm that — all the ministries, the Crowns. Could the minister tell us, just give a sense here, of who all is captured under this umbrella? The ministries, the Crowns. Who else might be captured by the core review?

Hon. B. Bennett: The truth is, I cannot say here on the record what the scope of the committee will be. I know what I think it will be, but until the terms of reference are approved, I can't say for certain. I can assure the member that at a minimum it certainly will include all ministries. Above and beyond that, we'll have to wait until we announce the terms of reference. I do have some sense of it, but we don't have approval yet, so I'd rather not say.

S. Simpson: One of the reasons I ask is, and I'll follow this up a little bit…. The minister had spoken about his parliamentary secretary, the member for Penticton, who's had some experience. I read a comment that may or may not have been accurate, a media comment, where he spoke about looking at regional parts of government as well. I have no sense as to what that meant, and I'm good with that.

My question, then, is: in the consideration of the scope here, are things like health authorities a consideration? Are school districts a consideration?

[1705]

Other entities that might be broader than ministries — are they all on the table, at least for consideration until, obviously, the minister finalizes these terms of reference?

Hon. B. Bennett: I can appreciate the question. I can appreciate that the member would like to know, and I'd like to tell the member. I don't have approval for a terms of reference yet. Again, it will be all of the ministries of government, and how wide the net will be cast from there in terms of what's within the government reporting entity we will know soon. We'll announce the terms of reference. I should say we'll be announcing the terms of reference, I hope, long before the end of August, so the member won't have to wait too long to get the scope that he's asking about.

The Chair: Member, before we proceed, I'll remind that the rules of the committee don't allow for the questions that involve speculation on behalf of the minister. If the member will continue.

S. Simpson: I will continue. I respect the Chair's position. I don't know if it's speculative until he tells me it's speculative. I'm fishing, but it's the minister who'll come up and say: "I can't answer on speculation, so I'm not answering." But I don't know what's speculative and what's not at the moment, so we'll give it a try and try not to breach the rules of the House.

The minister talks about it not being just about costs. I appreciate that, and I'm glad to hear that. I know I heard the minister talking in the media, saying — and I also appreciate this — that he has no mandate, has no job, is in no position to be suggesting additional spending in any particular area of this. His job is to create efficiencies.

He's clarified that some today, about it not necessarily being about money but about how you do business and looking for savings there. I very much appreciate that, and I appreciate that he's not in a position to be saying ministry X or ministry Y maybe could actually use a little more money for program X or Y after what we've learned.

As this work gets done and the ministries, or whatever, do the work that the minister requires in order to be able to make an assessment and then move forward and make some recommendations to his colleagues on executive council about what should or shouldn't be done, does the minister anticipate that what he's going to get here is a set of recommendations from a ministry about how they might improve efficiencies? And then his team will need to make a determination about whether that makes sense or not and make recommendations from that?

Is he looking, is he expecting to get some kind of report from each ministry or Crown or entity, after it's determined who is in play here, and then make a determination about what he gets told by them before he makes his recommendations to his colleagues on executive council? Is that the thinking about how this might work? Maybe we're not that far along.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll give the member as much as I possibly can without getting myself into speculation, given the terms of reference are not approved yet. Certainly, whichever of the entities within government, including ministries, are involved in this process and subject to the core review process, they will be asked to participate. They will no doubt be given some specific questions, some specific requests, and they will no doubt be given an opportunity to come in with some of their own thoughts and ideas.

[1710]

Yes, there will be some type of analysis of how they have answered and what they have brought into the committee — if I'm getting to the member's question. I just can't tell the member exactly how that process is going
[ Page 573 ]
to work and what the terms of reference will be that will guide the committee's approach to the information that's brought to them by the ministries.

S. Simpson: That was helpful. So the expectation here of the minister is that somewhere through this process there is…. I don't know. I don't want to call it a workbook — whatever. There's some kind of piece of work here. The preparation by the minister, what his committee will do that will give to whatever ministry: "Here are the 20 things or the 30 things that we want to know about. Here are some questions to drive you to analysis, and we're expecting some kind of response back that deals with these questions that we're looking at."

Is that what the minister is getting at when he says that there will be questions to ask? I understand that this might not be locked down, and I wouldn't expect it to be. But there's going to be some kind of workbook or set of questions or something that the ministries are all going to be asked — or the Crowns, if its Crowns are included — and then given back to the minister with supporting documentation so that he can make an assessment.

Hon. B. Bennett: The easy answer to that one is yes, I think. The answer is yes to that.

S. Simpson: There was nothing speculative about that at all. It was all good. Thank you. I'm glad I didn't have to speculate.

The minister spoke earlier about wanting to engage broader than the government itself. The minister talked about stakeholders, about others who presumably engage with government, have interests in what government does, whether it's the business community or other stakeholders, I'm assuming. Could the minister speak a little bit about what his thinking is on what that stakeholder group looks like and how they're going to play a role in this process?

Hon. B. Bennett: It really would be speculative of me to guess at how that process of consulting with the so-called stakeholders in the province will unfold. I can say that we are committed to finding a way to do it. I don't know for sure how we're going to do it, given the circumstances of our committee. I don't see us doing significant travelling around the province and that sort of thing.

We do have to find a way to make sure that this review is done in such a way that it isn't purely elected people on this side of the House and public servants doing the review, providing the ideas in the review.

We need to make sure that we go outside of this place — the Beltway, so to speak. We'll use all the ideas that are in the Beltway, because my experience is that the public servants I've worked with over the years have really good ideas, but we need to go outside. I don't know how we're going to do that, but we are committed to doing it, and we'll find a way.

S. Simpson: I understand that the minister doesn't know what that process looks like yet, and that it's not locked down. I'm good with that. I understand there's still a little bit more work to do, to get there on that.

The minister now has talked about ministries and maybe Crowns or other entities included. It's still to be determined as to who is under the umbrella of the review.

[1715]

He's talked about the requirement for those ministries to come back and respond to a number of questions and, hopefully, provide back a body of information that the minister and his colleagues can look at to make a determination about where efficiencies might exist there; or certainly, to open up that discussion about efficiencies in any given ministry, presumably with his colleagues, who are the ministers responsible for those areas; and while not exactly clear about what the process for outside input is, the desire to have broader input than simply this place and the public service.

If that's the case, I guess the question is…. I know the minister said he's hoping to release terms of reference before the 30th of August and get that out there for everybody to see. Is it the minister's expectation that the documentation from these ministries, this input from outside sources and that, will become part of the public realm so that we'll all be able to see what kind of advice the ministry received or the minister and his colleagues received that drove their determination?

Hon. B. Bennett: There will be, I'm sure, a lot of documents in this process over the next year and a half that are subject to cabinet confidentiality.

Having said that, I do want to develop a very effective engagement and communications process so that the public has an opportunity to understand what it is we're doing. Having said that, this is the kind of process that can make people who are involved — people with perhaps vested interests, people who have been involved with the program and maybe have created the way of delivering that particular public service…. I want people to feel really comfortable in suggesting ideas.

I want this process to be apolitical. I don't want the process to be ideological, particularly, or partisan. So I think there will be limits on the documents that you could categorize as being subject to cabinet privilege. We will share our direction and what we're doing as often as we possibly can, because I want the public to actually understand that this is a useful process, and not only a useful process but an opportunity, given this government's recent election, to really take a step back and examine how we do things.

We've been here for 12 years. The last core review exercise was 11 years ago, so the opportunity for us is to look at everything. In order to have the kind of comfort and
[ Page 574 ]
freedom for people to operate within that kind of a process, not everything will be shared publicly.

S. Simpson: I understand cabinet documents. I guess what I would encourage the minister…. This is a process that, I think, there's a fair amount of uncertainty about. As we know, there's uncertainty on the part of the minister right now about what it looks like. I'm sure that uncertainty will start to get cleared up when he has a set of terms of reference that has been signed off on.

As we have heard in this conversation, we know that there's a level of uncertainty there now, and that uncertainty, I think, is shared by people in the public. I don't think there are a heck of a lot of them yet, but it's shared by people who are looking at the core review and not entirely certain what to expect from it.

The only touchstone that some of them have…. Some of them might have been involved in municipal core reviews, but that's a little bit different. I've talked to people around municipal core reviews. They are somewhat different, but they are what they are.

Of course, the only other touchstone people would have for a core review in this province would probably be 2001. If they were around then, they would have seen what happened then.

The minister has assured people, as has the Premier, that the expectation is that this review is going to be different than that. It has different objectives. It doesn't anticipate being as radical, if I can use that word, in terms of the depth of the cuts that occurred. It is more about efficiencies than that.

[1720]

I do hope, that being the case, the minister will try to get as much information out there to people who are outside of this place — although we'll be happy to have it on this side, too, to the extent that we can get it — and have information available to people that allows them to understand better what it is that the minister wants to achieve here and what advice he's getting around this.

I look at the Core Review committee — which is the minister, obviously, and the parliamentary secretary, and then, I guess, the ministers of the three largest ministries in terms of spending. I think it's Health, Education and Social Development. Children and Families? I can't remember which one, but the big ministries there. I have some understanding that that committee will do its work, and they'll all be part of this conversation moving on.

My question to the minister is…. Maybe this is not clear at all yet either, and that's fine. What's the role of the relationship with other ministries? Is the minister going to be in a position to direct ministry A to remove $2 million from whatever after this finding? Or is it, "Here's my best advice," and at some point Treasury Board or somebody will say: "Okay, this is all going to get dealt with through Treasury Board"?

I'm trying to figure out how a decision gets made here that, in fact, might be an obligation of one of his colleagues in a ministry. How does that work?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's difficult to answer that question. I think I know what the answer is, but I obviously can't guess at what the answer is. So if the member can find a way to be a little bit more specific, I'll do my best to provide an answer.

S. Simpson: Okay, let me try this one. It's my understanding — and the minister can correct me on this — that when ministries are coming forward with budget items or things they want to do, they take that through the Treasury Board process. Somewhere at the Treasury Board process a determination is made about yea or nay around those expenditures within the broader context of the government mandate.

As somebody said to me on this process, how's this process different than what Treasury Board probably does all the time when they assess the value of programs? So that's how that process works. Presumably, the Finance Minister, the chair of Treasury Board and the Treasury Board members make decisions about things that are brought forward by their colleagues, which may or may not be programs, to go forward or say to their colleagues, "You've got to bring forward some savings, and we're going to make determinations," and it gets decided there.

How does what the minister will do in the core review process differ from that? Or is it the minister and his committee, the Core Review committee of his colleagues and that…? Is there going to be an exercise where that committee starts reviewing things, maybe not in a duplication of Treasury Board but in a similar kind of fashion to Treasury Board?

Hon. B. Bennett: The Core Review doesn't have the authority to direct a ministry to do anything. Our job is to make recommendations. In terms of the difference between our process and cabinet and Treasury Board, we are a committee of cabinet. So we do our work, and we make recommendations to cabinet, and cabinet decides which of those recommendations will be implemented and which won't and variations thereof.

We're not duplicating what Treasury Board does. Very specifically and very carefully, we don't. We have no mandate to do what Treasury Board does, so I think it's quite distinct.

[1725]

The part of the member's question that…. I'll do my best to answer it. It relates to how will the core review…? I think the member used the word "direct." We're not going to direct anybody to do anything. But how will we deal with ministers — ministers who sit on the committee, for example, or other ministers? How will we do a core review of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, for
[ Page 575 ]
example? A fair question.

Staff in my ministry will be required to come forward and respond to the letter of instructions and to go through the process, whatever the process looks like at the time. The same thing will be true of all of the ministries, and if a minister happens to sit on the Core Review committee, they'll still have to come through the committee as any other minister of government would.

Again, we're not going to totally rely on the ministries for all of our ideas or anything, but I think what's most important in response to the last couple of questions by the member is that (a) we don't have the authority to direct anybody to do anything, but we're going to make recommendations; and (b) we're not duplicating cabinet, and we're not duplicating Treasury Board, and we don't have the authority to trump either of those committees.

S. Simpson: Thanks for the answer. Where we are in this process — I think that's pretty good clarity for what the minister is and isn't doing here.

Is it the expectation that individual ministries will be given an amount that is an objective for them to look at saving? Or will it be more of an open page, for them to say, "Okay, we're looking for efficiencies wherever you are. Come and tell us what you can and can't do and explain why when you answer the 20 questions" or whatever it is? Or is it: "We expect $2 million here or $5 million there. Come back and tell us whether you can do it and how you're going to do it, or if you can't, explain that to us"?

Hon. B. Bennett: We have no plans to impose financial targets on those who will be reviewed by the core review process. We do have to meet our target at a minimum of $50 million in the next fiscal year and the same in the next fiscal. As I said earlier, we think we can achieve those targets by working with ministries and any other entities we work with to examine their mandate and find ways to do things differently.

But again, we're not planning on this process being the same. There will be some similarities, no doubt, but not exactly the same as the process that took place in 2001-02 because of the very different circumstances that we find ourselves in, No. 1. And No. 2, as the member, I think, said himself early on, it may be easier to find money than to actually get people to change how they do things.

If you start focusing too strongly on just finding money — "We're going to get 20 percent from you; we're going to get 35 percent from you; we're going to get 50 percent from you" — then the whole exercise becomes trying to find ways to identify that money, and that is really not what the Premier has asked me to do.

S. Simpson: One of the things, when I look, again, at the minister's mandate letter…. Point 3: "Provide core review updates to cabinet on a monthly basis identifying opportunities for savings or redeployment and their associated cost benefits." So there will be an ongoing process that presumably will start some time after they sign off on the terms of reference and the practical work begins on this.

Is there any expectation that there will be any public reporting or interim reporting through this process by the minister as he moves forward with this? There will be the monthly reporting to cabinet. I understand those are cabinet conversations. But is the expectation that there will be some kind of public reporting about how this is all going?

[1730]

Hon. B. Bennett: All I can say to the member in response to that question is that I believe in communicating often with the public on what I'm doing as a minister and as an MLA, and I believe that government should communicate often and effectively. So in general, I'm going to try very hard to make sure that the public is as engaged in this exercise as is possible.

I can't give the member details on exactly how often we'll report, how often we'll talk to the public about the core review process and what will be contained in that talk, what sort of level of detail. But I will make a commitment to the member that I will endeavour to engage the public in this process as much as I possibly can.

S. Simpson: One of the other…. It falls under the area of the responsibility for the core review, and it's in the mandate letter, point 5, which is: "Make recommendations to cabinet on how to improve our regulatory reform and red-tape-reduction initiatives."

As part of that process, could the minister maybe tell us a little bit about what the expectation is on what work he will need to do here to be able to fulfil that part of the mandate letter and get back to cabinet on that?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member, with the member's question, raises an important piece of this discussion. I'm glad that he actually asked the question.

There are a number of processes taking place in government already that will complement what we're going to do in the core review process. I think the minister of state who works with the Minister of Jobs has the responsibility for working with the red-tape-reduction process that our government has underway, so we will work closely with her. She's doing her work. We will work closely with her.

Again, we don't know the details, but we can, I think, envision some type of interaction where that minister will come and report on what she has accomplished. We will, perhaps, be able to assist and add some value to her process.

There are other processes ongoing in government that we think will complement what we're doing. We would like to make sure that there is some interaction between
[ Page 576 ]
all of those processes and the core review process to ensure that we don't duplicate work and that we learn from what each other is doing in our analysis.

I'll make one final comment with regard to red tape and regulation. The initial attempt by this government to reduce regulation was, in my view, extremely successful, but we're not done. The initial attempt to reduce regulation by this government I think focused on bulk as opposed to quality. Although we did get rid of a lot of regulations, there are still some that we need to fix.

I say that because one of the focuses of this committee will be to identify not just regulations but policies that stand in the way of investment in the province, of job creation. Obviously, I say that knowing that there are environmental standards, that there are public safety standards that absolutely must be adhered to. They will not be reduced, certainly, by the process that I am involved in.

The point I am trying to make is that the approach will be different. We're not necessarily looking for quantum in terms of the number of regulations that we can reduce and take it from 42 percent to 48 percent. That's not as important to us as finding those few regulations and those few policies that really are in the way. Perhaps there's some difficulty in confronting them and changing them, but those are the ones that we're going to identify and try to make recommendations on.

[1735]

S. Simpson: Following on those discussions around that piece so that I can be clear, is the minister, then, essentially the hub providing the coordination, the oversight for regulatory review, red-tape review, that's going on in government? Is that all now going to flow back through the minister as the cornerstone of that?

Hon. B. Bennett: The minister responsible for regulatory reform and red-tape-reduction reports to the Minister of Jobs. If you look at the mandate letter, you'll see that the job of the committee is to improve that process. Back to my comments about interacting with that process, we don't want to duplicate what the minister is doing, but we want to make sure that we have the opportunity to add value to that and to learn from what that minister is learning herself. Our job is to improve a process that is already underway and, in fact, has been underway for 12 years.

S. Simpson: I read the mandate letter, and it says: "Make recommendations to cabinet on how to improve our regulatory reform and red-tape-reduction initiatives." Again, I guess I'm going to ask the minister. The minister says that the other minister, the minister responsible for jobs, is the minister who actually applies that, particularly when it comes to economic investment opportunities and that. It's the Jobs Minister's job to do that.

Fair enough. Could the minister tell us what exactly he is to do here, around recommendations to cabinet on how to improve those things, that is different and distinct from the minister who actually has the file to reduce red tape and regulatory issues.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the effective words are "to improve." The process that's in place right now has worked quite well over the past 12 years. I think it's been somewhat energized and renewed over the past two years, and now we have a minister who's specifically responsible for the initiative.

There are champions in every ministry whose accountabilities include the regulatory reform initiative, identifying things that we can do, that we don't need to do or do differently, particularly as it relates to regulation. Our job on the core review committee will be to work with that minister and to see whether we can make recommendations to cabinet that would improve the initiative. That's our job. It's pretty straightforward, actually.

S. Simpson: Not having been involved directly in that process, I have some perceptions about how that might work, and that. To understand better how that works, could the minister give us an example of the kind of recommendations for improvement that he might see his committee doing? That would then, presumably, if it goes to cabinet…. There's a recommendation to cabinet, and then cabinet maybe directs the Jobs Minister to take a different approach on things, following on the good advice of this minister when he makes a recommendation.

Could the minister give us some kind of idea of what that looks like, in practical terms, to do the job the minister says the committee has to do?

[1740]

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a very speculative question. However, there is one thing that I can think of off the top of my head that's maybe not quite so speculative, because we have talked about it. That's improving permitting, for example, in the so-called dirt ministries — our Ministry of Mines and Energy, the Natural Gas Ministry, the Forests Ministry — any place where the public interacts with the province in anticipation of a permit to do something, which usually involves investment and job creation.

So we will try to find ways to improve the initiative we have underway right now that will, in turn, improve our capacity to permit. We've been making some headway on that. We've actually reduced the time in this ministry. I know you're here on core review and not on mining, but I mentioned to one of your colleagues earlier that we've taken the permitting time for notices of work in the mining industry, I think, in half or close to half, in terms of the number of days it takes. Those are the kinds of initiatives, by way of example, that we would be interested in.
[ Page 577 ]

S. Simpson: That's an interesting comment. I was going to ask about that, because it does come back to concerns that have been raised. When the Premier announced the core review intention and the plan to move forward with this, I know at that point there was a bit of public discussion around that. You had folks like the Children and Youth Representative saying: "I hope the review will also look at where there are challenges." She identified services to children and identified some challenges. I know the minister has said that he's not about new money but that he is about efficiencies. Maybe he's going to be able to find some there that will support some of her concerns.

I know the minister himself has, in the past, talked about permitting. I believe the minister at one point was quoted in the media as saying that he thought that permitting was a challenge and that it did have to improve — that there was missed opportunity out there because of the amount of time of permitting. I see that the minister has been working on that in his ministry, and he's just talked about that as it relates to mining and doing that.

Is it the expectation, then, that there will be a particular set of objectives that the minister will have that he'll be looking at how to make recommendations for change in terms of regulation and red tape? I know he's keen about improving investment opportunity by shortening that regulatory time or that red-tape time. What might those objectives look like that the minister sees as being important to be able to add value to the questions of regulatory reform and red-tape reduction? What are the things the minister thinks will add value to that?

Hon. B. Bennett: The objectives, obviously, are part of the terms of reference and therefore haven't been approved. Therefore, I'm not going to speculate on what they will end up being. There is one, however, that I can state with confidence will be at the top of the list, and that is to make sure that government is structured in such a way as to be able to achieve its overall goals of having a strong economy and a secure tomorrow. I know that members on both sides of the House are familiar with that expression.

That encapsulates, essentially, what we as a government want to do. We want a strong economy. We want to see whether we can facilitate the growth of jobs while at the same time make sure that we look after people that need our help.

That's the overall goal of the core review committee. It might mean, for example, that we find that some particular method of delivering a service is cumbersome and hasn't been looked at in 20 years and really needs to be changed and can be changed and, actually, that there's less money used to deliver that particular service, so that money can be reapplied someplace else in government.

[1745]

S. Simpson: So I understand that, this process is…. The regulatory review and red-tape-reduction initiatives are an integral part of the core review. To be fair, I think the minister is now clearing that up for me. I viewed it a little bit as an additional piece of work on top of the fundamentals of the core review around efficiencies and dollars and better ways to do things — as a bit of an add-on to that. But I'm now starting to appreciate — and the minister can correct me — that I shouldn't view it that way. I should view them as integral parts of the same process.

If that's the case, maybe the minister could give me a sense here, because we've already said that this core review process is to be complete by December 31, 2014. The minister has indicated previously that he hopes to be able to fulfil the mandate prior to that. This says there'll be a set of recommendations to cabinet on approving regulatory reform and red-tape-reduction initiatives.

Is it the expectation of the minister that that set of recommendations may come quite a bit sooner than the end of 2014? I understand it's up to the cabinet to decide what they do and don't release. Would the minister be hoping to make that public, whatever the recommendations were — after, of course, they've been addressed by cabinet and cabinet has done whatever work it needs to do on this? Would the result of the recommendations to cabinet and cabinet's determination around that become a public document, and if so, would it happen before the end of 2014?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the member will know before too much longer what the terms of reference are. I think that answer should be there in the terms of reference. Certainly, it will be open to the public to see what government decides to do as a result of the core review. There'll be no secrets once our recommendations are taken to cabinet.

The member is correct. We canvassed this part of the process earlier. There may be recommendations going well before December of 2014. We're going to work with cabinet on that, and it's certainly my hope that we can move recommendations in over the period of time that we're responsible to do this exercise and not wait till December 2014 to bring all the recommendations to the cabinet.

With regard to what will be sort of posted, I guess, publicly, I'm sure that cabinet will announce the recommendations from core review that they intend to implement.

S. Simpson: Going back a little bit here on a question now, when we talked about the scope of the review in terms of who is captured by the review, the minister had said, obviously, that the ministries are in play here, and maybe Crowns, maybe others. That wasn't entirely clear. Is the deliberation that's going on about who's in…? We have entities out there which are not direct parts of the
[ Page 578 ]
provincial government. An example would be school districts, which receive the bulk of their money from the provincial government. Essentially, the bills are paid by the provincial government.

Is there any thought whether those groups that are quite different than a health authority, which is much closer linked to government, for sure…? As you start to get farther afield there, is that even a contemplation?

I don't want to have the minister speculate on that. I'm just trying to get an idea of how broad the consideration is about who might be captured here, without trying to tie the minister down. I understand he cannot be tied done right now on who's in and who's out.

[1750]

Those groups are getting pretty far afield, and they've got their own elected representation. They're structured quite differently. Are they in play? Are people who might be that far afield in play? The non-profit sector, some who've received significant resources to deliver public services from government — they're out there. Could they be asked to provide efficiencies as well — those who are out there but might get the bulk of their money from the provincial government through fee-for-service, if not through other sources? I'm trying to get a sense of how far out this net might cast.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I can't speculate on how wide the net will be cast on this. If the member uses his imagination…. I know he's a smart guy, and he might be able to come up with some organization far enough away from government that maybe I would say: "Definitely, we won't be casting the net over them." I don't want to get into that. I don't want to start speculating on which ones we're choosing to put in and which ones are going to be out.

S. Simpson: I won't ask the minister to speculate any more on that.

My question, then, is this. Is it the minister's intention that the terms of reference — which we will see soon, as the minister has told us — will include the scope of who is in so that, at that point, folks will be able to look at the terms of reference, when they are released, and say: "Okay, I know whether I'm in or I'm out"?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a great pleasure to say yes to that question.

S. Simpson: That was great.

I want to come back a little bit. I'm going to bounce a little bit here, because we're not going to be at this for much longer, so just a little bit around the red tape and reviews and recommendations. The minister spoke earlier, when we talked about the core review piece, about his desire to make sure that those who were outside government — outside this place and outside the public service — have a way to be part of that conversation around the core review in some way and to have their input fed into the process and considered by the process.

Is it also the intention of the minister that on any discussions around red tape or regulatory review, those same kinds of entities are going to be asked to provide their input on questions of regulatory review and red tape?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, again, the manner in which we decide to engage with external parties outside government in the core review process will be part of the terms of reference that we'll announce. As I stated earlier, the guiding principle here that is being applied is that myself, as chair, and my committee want to ensure that the public generally and stakeholder groups have that opportunity. We will find a way to make sure they have an opportunity. We just can't say here today exactly what that will look like.

S. Simpson: I certainly wasn't expecting any detail about how that would work, but I'm glad to hear that that process will work.

My sense of the response of the minister to the questions…. He'll correct me, I'm sure, if I have got this wrong.

His committee, the core review committee, is going to look, over some period of time, at a whole bunch of questions around regulatory review and red tape — obviously in consultation with his colleague the Minister of Jobs, who has responsibility to actually apply some of this work maybe in a more hands-on way — and then, based on all of that, get some recommendations back or evolve some recommendations that he and his committee will take to cabinet that may provide some guidance for cabinet to consider about ways to improve the system of regulatory review and red tape.

[1755]

Does the minister envision…? There are those out there who will say that part of the challenge with the processes around regulatory review and red tape is that in those review processes, they haven't been quite as transparent as we might always like all the time. The minister has expressed his own desire to have them be transparent, believing that the best way to have a conversation with people is to engage people in the conversation and that you're better off at the end of the day if you do that. That's what I think I heard the minister say, and I would agree with him on that.

Is it his hope to be able to make recommendations that might also enhance that question? Or is that the kind of matter that might go forward as a recommendation to cabinet around the process of engaging the broader public in a discussion around regulatory review and red tape?

Hon. B. Bennett: I want to make clear that I have a different view of how the regulatory initiative and the
[ Page 579 ]
reduction of red tape has taken place over the past 12 years. I think we actually have made significant efforts to involve the public. I don't know if the member remembers the Waste Buster site that we had. That was just one of the many ways that we tried to engage with the public.

Reduction of regulation is, in fact, often a pretty dry topic for a lot of the public — not that you don't get good ideas from a member of the public who has been observing and experiencing interaction with government. But we think that it is the organizations that have members who are directly involved…. To use an old expression, they have skin in the game. They're dealing with these regulations on a daily basis, and we think they're the most likely groups and individuals to provide us with good ideas on how we could do things differently. And they are members of the public.

To the extent that we can recommend more effective ways to engage the public in the deregulation initiative, certainly, if the member has some ideas on how we could do that better, I'd be happy to hear them. It will be one of the things that we'll discuss at the committee and, perhaps, recommend to cabinet.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the invitation. You never know, I might take the minister up on it.

The minister has talked about people who have skin in the game, and I agree with that. I know, over my few years in this place, that I've periodically heard from people who would suggest they have some skin in the game, and they're not sure that they got consulted as well as they might.

There are some First Nations who might say they didn't get consulted as well as they might over things that may or may not have happened in their territories. There are probably some environmental interests who would say the same thing, probably some others. And then there are people who probably were consulted. I guess the point I would make is that not everybody necessarily gets consulted in the same way, and that may be just the way it is.

If the minister is looking at this, to get some idea of the scope of what this might look like, does the minister have a number on the number of regulatory reviews or red-tape reviews that are currently in progress in government?

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I apologize to the member. Can you repeat that question, please?

S. Simpson: The question was: as he's ramping up his work around regulatory review and red-tape review as the head of the core review process, could the minister tell us how many processes are currently in play around regulatory review or red-tape review through the government?

[1800]

Hon. B. Bennett: Given that my role and the role of the committee is to improve an existing process — and truly, if I had the answer at the tip of my tongue, I would give it to the member — I think what I would recommend is that the member ask or have someone else ask the Minister of Jobs and the minister responsible for this deregulation initiative. I understand there are various initiatives proceeding as we speak, but I'm not familiar with all of what may be happening. I believe that that minister will be.

S. Simpson: Is it the expectation of the minister that at some point here — as this process unfolds, as it becomes a little clearer — the minister is going to need to get that list of all of these things and actually make some determination about what he thinks is and isn't going on and make that part of the body of recommendations?

Is it the intention that the core review committee is, at some point, going to get a list of these reviews that are going on and make some assessment about their effectiveness or non-effectiveness and then make that part of the body of moving forward?

I'm trying to get a sense here. What I've heard from the minister so far is that there is another minister, the Minister of Jobs, who's actually doing the regulatory and red-tape reviews. So be it. That's all good. There are some recommendations from his committee around this. That wasn't exactly clear. I understand there's more work to be done on that.

But I'm still trying to figure out here a little bit about what it is exactly, then, that the minister is going to do around regulatory and red-tape review. Is it going to be to actually do an assessment of existing or ongoing reviews to see how they're going? Is it going to be to set a new standard? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you're doing.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I think it's pretty clear in No. 5 of my mandate letter from the Premier that we're to make recommendations to cabinet on how to improve our regulatory reform and red-tape reduction initiatives. It's pretty clear. We're supposed to find ways to improve an existing process.

In general, to answer the member's specific question, we will be looking to develop recommendations that will improve how government operates and how we deliver services through government, and that could include an unlimited diversity of ideas.

S. Simpson: The plan…. I guess I'd still have to say here that I appreciate the one-sentence mandate the minister has been given. The minister may think it's clear, but I'm sure he would agree that as you dig down, it raises a lot of questions.

Obviously, the key question here is how you get around that and how this ministry and this Minister for Core
[ Page 580 ]
Review is going to interact with the minister who actually does the reviews, which is the Minister of Jobs, and how that relationship is going to work or not work. I assume we're going to have to wait to see how that plays itself out over time.

I just want to come back a little bit to the money again, for the cost of this — just so I'm clear. The Ministry of Finance is going to pay. Well, they will cover the costs of the staffing, with the exception of the deputy, who's coming from the Premier's office. They'll cover the cost of the staffing component of the core review.

Clearly, some of the leadership, in terms of the deputy, is coming out of the Premier's office, and presumably the bill is paid by the Premier's office. Individual ministries or other entities will pay their own expenses as they relate to the core review, in any work they need to do on the core review.

[1805]

The minister has talked about wanting to engage more broadly than that. Can the minister tell us: has he thought about how those bills get paid? Do they get paid by the ministries, by Finance, maybe by his ministry, which has a couple of bucks squirreled away that he hasn't talked about yet? How are you going to pay for that broader discussion with folks about the core review, broadly?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the member may be envisioning a process that's somewhat grander than what we have in mind. I think the member may also not be taking into account the methods that we already have set up within government, within ministries, to interact with stakeholders, for example.

There are many opportunities that exist today, for example, for this ministry to interact with the mining industry or the clean energy industry. I think that principle applies to every single ministry, so I don't really see that there is some huge cost associated with us talking to people. We, as ministers, certainly have people coming into our offices on a daily basis, and our staff meets, on a daily basis all over the province, with the public and with stakeholders.

I don't think there is some huge extra layer of cost associated with doing some consultations through Core Review. I don't accept the member's premise that there will be.

S. Simpson: Well, I guess part of the reason for this is that when I read the Premier's comments made on June 18 when she was in Kamloops and talking about this, it suggested a fairly big plan. She said:

"We're going to go through, line by line, every ministry of government and think about the things that are essential to providing good service to people in a society that's fair, where we care about each other, and then think about the things that we don't need to do anymore.

"I really believe we've got to focus your resources. We only have so much money from the public. I'm determined not to go back and ask for more, so we'd better figure out how we can focus our resources and do things better, which means we need to probably start doing fewer things."

Those are the Premier's comments on June 18 in Kamloops.

The Premier has said there are things that we're not going to do anymore in government. That's pretty significant, because presumably, there are people who rely on those things, wherever they are. So it is a pretty grand plan, or these comments maybe aren't going to bear themselves out over time. I don't know.

If you're going to do, as the Premier has said, a line-by-line review of every ministry in government — and those are the Premier's words — that's a significant piece of work.

I'm trying to get an idea about how that happens when the Premier has made that commitment publicly. How does that happen, and is it going to happen through a questionnaire that the minister has talked about, or is there something more substantive here that's going to occur in order to fulfil the Premier's comments in Kamloops?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I actually appreciate the fact that the member read the Premier's statement into the record. I couldn't agree more with what the Premier said. She's bang on. There will, no doubt, be some things that we'll find that we can do differently, and there's no doubt that we'll find some things that we don't need to be doing anymore.

[1810]

I think that's a proper expectation from this type of exercise — a core review. I'm not sure what the member really is afraid of with the question, what he's worried about. If the member needs some assurance from me, as the Chair of the committee, that we're not out to hurt people, I can certainly provide that assurance to the member.

This is not about cutting services or funding to people in the province who need it the most. I've certainly made that clear through the media. I'll make it clear here today. While the exercise is intended to be comprehensive and while we do expect to go through budgets, through service plans and through the mandates of each of these ministries, we think that that can be done in a sensitive way and an effective way.

To the member's, I think, assertion that somehow or other we don't have the resources to do that effectively, we have 28,000 people who work for the province of British Columbia. Many of them will have an opportunity to help with this. I do think, in fact, that we will show that we've had adequate resources to do a good job here.

S. Simpson: That is part of the question about who will get hurt in this. As the Premier said at the same time: "I do think we're doing too much with the number
[ Page 581 ]
of people that we have, so let's do less. Let's take the same number of people and get them doing things we need to do better, but let's do less."

The Premier has said that we're going to go line by line, and there are going to be things that we don't need to do anymore. That does raise anxieties for folks, and I do hope that the minister is correct when he says people who are vulnerable or people who have issues will not be hurt by this process.

Quite frankly, we will see at the end of the day what, in fact, the recommendations are and what the results of those recommendations are in terms of what programs are cut and what doesn't exist anymore.

If I'm to believe the Premier, she has said that this is a pretty detailed, expansive analysis that's going to be done line by line, ministry by ministry and presumably line by line, Crown by Crown, should they be in. So it is a pretty big deal for those people. Things that the minister or I may or may not think are substantive — there are people who may well think that they're important things for them to be cut or not cut. I do think that there still is a fair amount there.

I do hope that as this process plays out — and we'll get the chance to come back and remind the minister again and again of his comments about not hurting anyone…. The minister has said that nobody will get hurt. We'll see. The minister talked about how ruthless the last process was and that that's not going to happen again. We'll get to see that as this thing plays out over time.

Unfortunately, and as the minister has said…. I appreciate that it's early in the process. We're a ways away from having the kind of detail that it will take to actually tell us what the intentions are. I'm looking forward to the terms of reference that the minister is going to, hopefully, as he has said, be able to release soon. I'm assuming, then, that they're well on their way, and we'll be able to see what those look like as we move forward.

With that, I think I'm going to leave this conversation for now. I had hoped that we would get farther in this, but I do appreciate that the reality is the ministry hasn't come far enough to really be able to deal with substantive questions in this process yet. We'll need to be doing that as we move forward.

I'm going to ask just one last question before I move on, just so we know where we're at.

[1815]

One of the things that happened when the last review was done back in 2001 — I'm looking at the release that was made at that time — was that there were some specific tests that were identified at that time around the public interest, around affordability, around effectiveness and the role of government, around efficiency and around accountability.

Is it the expectation of the minister that he will be developing similar tests for all of the people who will be in play in this process?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's been canvassed, I think, already. I've made clear that there will be instructions to ministries in terms of what they bring back on the first tranche of this exercise. There will be multiple stages within this exercise. We're not just going to meet with ministries one time.

There will be letters of instruction as to what the questions are and what the principles might be. Those will be included in the terms of reference.

J. Horgan: I think that it strikes me, as my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has pointed out…. We had a press statement, a provocative, can-do attitude from the Premier. "We're going to take hold of government, line by line."

Here we are, two months after the election. We've had a minister designated for the task of doing a core review, and here we sit, trying to ask even how many reviews are currently underway within government, and we can't get an answer to that.

I certainly look forward over a number of months to the minister coming forward with some answers to pretty basic questions which my colleague has been putting forward. I appreciate that the minister didn't expect to be in this position. No one did. However, one would expect that if you're going to make it a significant part of your government reboot, you would have more done than you've got for now.

I would suggest that perhaps we move to core ministry activities, if you've got staff available, for the remaining time today.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, this is what I can say in response to the Energy critic's comments. I've been around for 12 years as an MLA, and I have dreamed of getting an opportunity to do what I'm going to get to do with the core review. I think this is a once-in-a-career, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to actually look at how government does business and try to figure out how to do it better.

With all the cynicism and negativity that permeates this place, this is the one opportunity that I have had to take the political lens and leave it outside the room and have a look at how government operates and try to make recommendations to cabinet that we think would improve how government does business.

That opportunity was given to me and to everyone by the Premier. She thought that it was worthwhile to do a core review. She wanted it done in a different way than the way the first core review was done because of the different circumstances and because she has a different style of management and leadership herself.

I take some considerable offence at the statement by the member that somehow or other we haven't accomplished enough in the time that, certainly, I've been minister, which I think is roughly a month. I take offence to any assertion that this is not going to be an important
[ Page 582 ]
process. This process will be as important as we make it, and my intention is to make it a very important process and take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

S. Simpson: Just one question that's been brought to my attention, and maybe the minister can just deal with this. The member for Delta North on June 26, in an interview on the CBC, said:

"Well, I think Minister" — and he names the minister — "should be taking a look at provincial government, of course, but I think maybe his mandate might essentially extend to regional government as well. They are a creature of the province, and I think there are savings and opportunities to be realized at many different levels. You know, government back in 2001, you may recall, was cut somewhat to the bone."

Now, we have the municipal auditor, who's been named by the government, but that's a different job. So I just wonder whether the minister could clarify for us whether his colleague from Delta North is getting somewhere when he talks about regional government or whether the minister might want to set regional and local governments aside as potentially being captured by this. Or are they possibly within that umbrella that hasn't yet been determined?

[1820]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the opposition should get its act together here. Just a few minutes ago the House Leader stood up and said: "We're going to do something else besides core review." Now all of a sudden somebody comes up with a slip of paper, and the critic has got another question. So I'll do my best to answer it.

The answer is the same as it was to many of these types of questions: we haven't gotten approval for our terms of reference, so I can't tell the member what the scope of this committee's work will be. I've said that I don't know how many times, and that applies to this question as well.

S. Simpson: That's all good. I'll ask again. When we talk about local and regional government, we are talking about another level of government. We're not talking about Crown corporations or ministries or government authorities, including things like health authorities. We're talking about another level of government.

So is the minister saying that at this point he is not prepared to exclude that other level of government — local government and regional government — from the core review process that he's undertaking — that he will not exclude them at this point?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I'm not going to speculate on the speculation of the member for Delta North. The member will know soon what the terms of reference of the committee are.

The Chair: Further questions?

J. Horgan: Well, I'd like to ask the minister some questions about his office budget, if he could bring in appropriate staff. Or have we got appropriate staff available now?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think we should utilize this time. I'm not sure whether I have…. Well, there are people at the door, so we'll go ahead. I invite the critic to ask away.

J. Horgan: Thank you.

I would just like to ask the minister if he could tell me…. In light of the fact the gas component of the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is no longer part of this minister's mandate, has that had any impact on the number of full-time-equivalents in his ministerial office, and if so, by how many?

Hon. B. Bennett: A clarification from the member. You said ministerial office. You are referring to…?

J. Horgan: Here — your office.

Hon. B. Bennett: Okay. Thank you.

No fundamental change to the office budget here. We're about $9,000 less this fiscal than we were last fiscal, but that's the only change in terms of financial that I'm aware of.

I actually don't know what the previous Minister of Energy, Mines had for staff. I can find out. I have three, and I have two people who work on the administrative side. I would suspect that's the same as what the previous minister had, but I don't know for sure.

J. Horgan: Some ministries had ministerial assistants upgraded to chief of staff. Did that happen in this minister's office?

Hon. B. Bennett: I do have a chief of staff. I have a ministerial assistant, I have an executive assistant, and I have two people who work in administration.

J. Horgan: For that chief of staff, would the minister be able to provide a job description, terms of employment, salary range? It's not required at this moment, but if he could commit to getting that to me in the next number of days.

[1825]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'd be happy to provide information to the member with respect to the job duties of my current chief of staff. I am not certain that I can provide salary in terms of privacy for that individual, but let me figure that out, and I'll provide as much to the member as I can.

J. Horgan: The minister will note that I'm not inter-
[ Page 583 ]
ested in the name of the individual. There will be a range for that classification, and this information will be available in Public Accounts. I'm just asking, perhaps…. If the minister is being generous and going to provide me with the job description and classification and compensation for the chief of staff, could he perhaps also do that for the other people in his office that are making over $75,000 a year? I believe that's the cutoff for public accounts.

Hon. B. Bennett: Certainly, within the limitations of the privacy legislation in this province, I will provide everything that I can to the member.

J. Horgan: Could the minister provide me with the number of full-time-equivalents in the Ministry of Energy and Mines and what the decline is with the loss of the Oil and Gas Commission and the oil and gas division?

Hon. B. Bennett: We don't have the total number of FTEs in the ministry at the present time. I'm told, actually, that it changes quite regularly. But, again, within the constraints of privacy and what PSAC thinks is appropriate, I will endeavour to get as much information on that for the member as I can.

J. Horgan: Noting the hour, I move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERNATIONAL TRADE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); L. Throness in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $36,135,000 (continued).

B. Ralston: Just before I return to the question of the business case for offices in Singapore and Taiwan, I wanted to just go back to an answer that the minister gave this morning and confirm that it's accurate.

On side number 1100 in the Blues, the minister gave the following answer: "We share an office in Mumbai with the federal government, and we have six contractor staff in the Mumbai office, with a total budget of $740,000." Then I asked, "So that $740,000 is coming out of the voted appropriation entitled 'International trade and investment attraction'?" and the minister answered: "Yes, that's correct."

Later on, when we discussed the doubling, the political direction to double the number of staff and the fact that that cost $11 million, the minister did say that most of that money came from contingency rather than from the voted appropriation. I just wanted to clarify that the minister wasn't misadvised earlier on in the proceedings, because that answer seems to be at variance with what came later in terms of the response about the source of those funds. I just wanted to give the opportunity to the minister to clarify that if it needs to be.

[1435]

Hon. T. Wat: To the hon. member: yes, you're right. All our international offices are funded by both our contingency and our base budget in the ministry.

B. Ralston: I earlier asked for a fuller report, which I understand the minister will be providing in writing.

Can the minister confirm, then, the division of funds between contingency and the ministerial budget? I appreciate this is a very unusual, unorthodox method of funding the ministry, which I'm sure the Auditor General will be interested in. Can the minister confirm how much of the $11 million is coming from contingency, and how much is in the minister's budget?

Certainly, this is not contingency as one would ordin-
[ Page 584 ]
arily interpret it. It is not something unpredicted or unexpected. This is the ongoing ministry operations that, for reasons best known to themselves — doubtlessly, the political direction of the Premier's office — is being funded from a contingency rather than being funded in the minister's budget.

It probably takes it outside the control of the minister, because the budgetary authority then rests outside of the ministry. Can the minister, then, confirm how much of the $11 million is coming from contingency and how much is to be located in Vote 29, the first subvote of $15.065 million.

[1440-1445]

Hon. T. Wat: The base budget for doubling our overseas presence is $8.5 million. This is more than just an overseas office cost. It also includes marketing activities, staff for overseeing the offices as well as export and development activities. Our total approval for doubling our overseas office contingency for this fiscal year is $14.5 million, approximately.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. I have a question to clarify that.

In Vote 29 the voted appropriation for international trade and investment attraction would appear to include the international representative offices. It says here: "The operation of the province's international network of trade and investment representatives and offices." It's mentioned in that particular subvote. Is the minister then saying that this entire budget that she's just spoken of — I think it was $13 million — is then not in this voted appropriation? It's all coming from contingency. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. T. Wat: In our Vote 29 we have our base budget of $8.5 million for doubling our overseas office.

B. Ralston: The question I'm trying to get at…. I will persist until I get an answer, just in case the minister thinks that obfuscation is going to assist her. The $8.5 million, then, is in the base budget. What portion of the budget for the overseas office network is being funded from contingency? She's mentioned $8.5 million in Vote 29. How much is outside Vote 29 and coming from contingency?

[1450]

Hon. T. Wat: Specifically for our contract for our overseas office, the base budget is $4.9 million, and from contingencies, $5.8 million. That makes a total of $10.7 million, but we recover $100,000 from Saskatchewan, and the total comes to $10.6 million.

B. Ralston: The minister mentioned a moment ago a figure of $8.5 million. So am I to take it that the new figure is a total of $10.7 million? Is that a recalculation of the total expenditure, or is that some different calculation?

Hon. T. Wat: Just to make it clear once again, the $8.5 million that I referred to earlier for doubling overseas presence is not just the overseas office costs. As I said earlier, it also includes marketing activities, staff for overseeing the offices — that is the staff in Vancouver — the export and development activities. This $10.6 million that I was talking about is specifically for the running of the overseas trade office.

B. Ralston: Of that, then, just to reconfirm, $4.8 million comes from contingency? Is that correct?

Hon. T. Wat: It's $5.8 million that comes from contingency.

B. Ralston: Is that $5.8 million allocated to any specific offices — the minister has mentioned offices that were opened rather recently — or is it a global budget, and it's unallocated to any specific office?

Hon. T. Wat: I have to inform the hon. member that we cannot just separate the contingency from the base budget. The total of $10.6 million — we blend the budget from the base ministry budget and contingency — is for the overall operations of the international trade and investment office.

B. Ralston: As the minister knows, the Premier has appointed a Minister Responsible for Core Review. Has the minister or her staff advised the minister in charge of the core review of this unorthodox way of funding this? It might seem that this was susceptible to a review by the core review. Given that these operations are being funded from contingency, it would suggest that they're not important, core business activities of the government.

[1455]

Hon. T. Wat: The process of the core review, actually, is making sure our government is structured for success. Government made a promise to all British Columbians that we would manage every penny and balance our budget on their behalf.

We have not identified the international trade and investment office as a target for the core review. It's because, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the international presence, the trade and investment presence, is very important for us to increase our trade and diversify our export market for the benefit of British Columbia. This is really important, very crucial for our economic prosperity. That's why it has not been identified as one of the targets of the core review.

B. Ralston: But surely, the minister would agree —
[ Page 585 ]
and perhaps given her relative newness to the portfolio, others might advise her — that if something is funded from contingency, it suggests that it is provisional, it's not continuing, and it's not part of the core operation of government.

I don't understand quite why the minister seems so certain that a ministry operation which is being funded from contingency, for reasons that are not apparent — something about flexibility was mentioned — would not be subject to review.

If it's essential and important, can the minister explain why it's not in Vote 29? Why is it not part of the ministry's budget? Why is it coming from contingency? What is the logic behind using the contingency budget in this unorthodox way?

[1500]

Hon. T. Wat: Doubling our trade and investment office overseas is a key to our jobs plan, and we got formal approval from the Ministry of Finance for this contingency fund. This gives government flexibility. We only get money for certain specific purposes. If we can find savings in our ministry in other areas, then we can reduce our requests for the contingency fund.

B. Ralston: That's just a repetition of the talking point we heard earlier. I can see that I'm not going to get an answer to that question. The public will have to be the judge of why the minister is failing to respond to such a direct question about the funding of the core programs of the ministry. I'm going to have to move on, given that the minister won't answer that question.

Earlier I mentioned the business case for a trade office in both Singapore and Taiwan. Can the minister explain why — particularly in the case of Taiwan, the minister will be familiar with the Taiwanese diaspora that is in business and lives in British Columbia — the government hasn't pursued some form of engagement with Taiwan?

This is not a political question that risks offending the People's Republic of China. Indeed, the minister will know that cross-strait trade in recent years has rapidly accelerated. Where there were no cross-strait flights, there are now hundreds of flights a month. There is an ongoing exchange of investment going both ways from Taiwan to China. There is not really a political barrier. Is it not in the economic interest of British Columbia to take advantage of the business connections with Taiwan?

I'm sure the minister will be well aware of them. I think the owner of the radio station that she used to work for is a Canadian but originally of Taiwanese origin. So, well known. Why has the government not pursued that?

[1505]

Hon. T. Wat: As I said earlier, we are constantly evaluating any potential, any priority marketplace that we want to place our trade and investment representative there. But for practical reasons and realities, we cannot be everywhere. I hope we can. Then we can invite more trade and investment and really diversify our export market.

We have to prioritize. That's the reason why we doubled our international trade investment presence. That's exactly why we need to double the presence. We want to increase our trade in our target markets. We want to export our goods to these places, and that's exactly what we are doing.

B. Ralston: I agree. It is a question of priorities. Given a number of factors: the strength of the Taiwanese diaspora in British Columbia; the wealth of Taiwan — I think they have about $600 billion in hard currency reserves — and the fact that the government of Canada, I'm advised, has never discouraged British Columbia or other provinces from having trade and economic connections with Taiwan…. That doesn't really impinge on the diplomatic issues that are separate in terms of the People's Republic of China's relation in its historical view of Taiwan.

I understand it's a question of priorities. But I also understand, and am advised, that a strong business case has been put together, has been sitting on the desk of various ministers over the years, and this government has taken no action.

I do recall, though, that Dave Hayer, a former member for Surrey-Tynehead; and, I believe, the current member for Burnaby North; and a couple of other Liberal members and non-government members, travelled to Taiwan as recently as 2012, if my memory is correct. So there is some contact there, and I'm sure that they would have brought back some information about the business opportunities there.

I'm just wondering, in the scheme of priorities, beyond the talking points that the minister is reciting, whether she will address the question and advise why there isn't some further, more careful consideration of Taiwan — and probably, secondarily, Singapore, but for the purpose of this question, Taiwan — as a prospective trading partner to enhance the economy and prosperity of British Columbia.

[1510]

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, I'm sure the hon. member agrees that we do have trading and we do export our goods and services to practically many, many countries all over the world, but we do not have overseas offices in all those places. The reality is that we just simply cannot have our international trade and investment office in any city or any country that we have a trading relationship with.

Having said that, we are still constantly evaluating any target market, any target country, that we think there is a case for opening an office there.

B. Ralston: Well, I don't want to press the point too
[ Page 586 ]
hard. Clearly, the minister is not going to answer the question.

Other Canadian provinces — I believe Quebec, Ontario and one other — do have offices there. There is a Taiwanese diaspora here, which would make for a number of investment opportunities. Certainly, given the relative diplomatic isolation of Taiwan, that kind of gesture, I think, might be a fruitful one for the economy of British Columbia. But I'll leave that topic.

Can the minister advise, then, though: in the trip that's planned this fall by the Premier — I assume that the minister will be accompanying the Premier on the trip — is there consideration being given to visiting Taiwan?

Hon. T. Wat: As I said earlier, we are still in the planning stage for the Premier's trip to Asia. I cannot tell you the specifics. The Premier has made it clear that her trip to Asia in the fall will focus on LNG. It's clear that our Premier is going to Asia, but I cannot narrow down to any cities that the Premier is going to, because it's still in the planning stage.

B. Ralston: The various diplomatic representatives that represent their respective countries in Vancouver that I have spoken with in the recent past have suggested that a discussion of LNG prospects will be greatly enhanced by knowledge, for the companies, of the tax regime that they will be facing in British Columbia.

I know from an article in the Wall Street Journal that the Premier says that the government is in discussions with a single company about the prospective tax regime for LNG facilities should any of those companies decide to make the capital investment decision and invest in British Columbia.

Given that those discussions are unlikely to be very fruitful unless the tax regime is in place or in a late stage of a draft form, can the minister advise, then: has she been assured that in the preparation for this trip, that essential detail will be available and ready to go for discussion with companies and their representatives and whatever government representatives are visited during this trip sometime this fall?

[1515]

Hon. T. Wat: I would like to emphasize that tax policy is the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance and is not for this ministry to discuss.

B. Ralston: I fully appreciate that. But when you're proposing to spend a provisional budget of $750,000 and you're being told that people will really find the visit not very fruitful unless there is a firm sense of what the tax policy of the government is going to be in dealing with potential LNG investors, it would seem to me that it would be incumbent upon the minister to avoid wasting that money by undertaking a trip when the very information that those companies want might not be available.

But the minister can defer to others, I suppose, and I'll move on. I don't think that's a very satisfactory answer. Nonetheless, I'll move on.

The minister has spoken about other markets. I understand that it's not possible to have trade representatives in every market. But once again, there is a huge diaspora community in British Columbia, particularly in the Lower Mainland, from the Philippines. The Premier once said that in her heart she was a Filipina. I can't think of a stronger connection to the Philippines than that.

What consideration is in the ministry's plans to enhance trade and investment opportunities going both ways between British Columbia and the Philippines?

Hon. T. Wat: I appreciate that you bring up markets like Taiwan, Singapore and the Philippines. As I said earlier, we are constantly evaluating good particular countries or cities where we should have a presence. This is in the process. Once we can have a strong business case to open up any new office, we will certainly do so.

B. Ralston: I do have a few other suggestions about areas, but perhaps the minister can advise which section of the ministry makes those evaluations of market strength and the appropriateness or not of either seeking trade representation or working, presumably, with the federal government or, indeed, in combination with other provinces. Where in the ministry's budget are the staff that do that work, firstly?

[1520]

Then secondly, I wanted to make some further comments along the same lines. I appreciate the need to focus. But on the other hand, it would seem that sometimes decisions are made and driven by a purely political agenda rather than by a business case.

As I mentioned, the business case for an office in Singapore has been well established and ignored in preference to other choices which appear to be more politically driven, while they do have some economic merit.

Can the minister advise where in the ministry that research evaluation and recommendations come forward — presumably, to the deputy minister or up the chain for decision by the minister?

[1525]

Hon. T. Wat: Staff in international trade and investment attraction are working with the federal government, working with the public sector, working with other ministries in our government to evaluate whether we need to set up an office there.

There are a number of factors that we consider, depending on whether they are strong trading partners in terms of our exports to the market, also our trade volume, their growth rate and also the potential demand. I just cite China as an example. We started trading with China
[ Page 587 ]
ten years ago, and now our export of lumber to China has taken up a huge amount of our exports.

M. Elmore: I'm wondering if the minister could supply an itinerary to me for the trip that the Premier undertook for the trade mission previously, to China and India, but particularly in the Philippines — her stay there and also the scheduled events and the associated costs for that portion, that leg of the visit.

Hon. T. Wat: Can you specify what areas of the cost you are asking?

M. Elmore: Sure. There was a brief stop in the Philippines. I guess it would be the itinerary and the schedule for the duration of the stay in the Philippines.

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, we will provide the itinerary of the Premier's trip to the Philippines to the hon. member.

M. Elmore: Also accompanied with the costs and expenses for the duration of that trip?

[1530]

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, our team will put together all the costs and expenses and will provide the hon. member with the data.

B. Ralston: Again, understanding that the ministry chooses to focus, I am interested in asking a few further questions about other markets.

Certainly, I think it's recognized that Latin America is booming. A number of Latin American countries are represented diplomatically in Vancouver. Brazil has a consulate general there. So does Mexico.

I further understand that the government of British Columbia has not been interested in my conversations with officials at that consulate. The government of British Columbia has not really been very interested in pursuing any investment opportunities or exchanges with Mexico. Their trade investment office, which they had established here, was moved to Seattle. They felt it was a more fruitful location than remaining here in British Columbia.

Again, I appreciate the need to focus. On the other hand, historically British Columbia and Canada were dependent on the American market. There seems to be a view that we should switch our attention largely to the market of the People's Republic of China.

I'd be interested in the minister's views on, in the longer run over the next few years, expanding trade and investment opportunities in Latin America. There is a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia, for example. There is much exchange in the Latin American business community, and the Latin American diaspora, certainly in British Columbia, is growing. There are some opportunities there that I think a forward-looking government might be interested in.

Could the minister give a sense of her views on expansion into Latin America?

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, our province, our government is very forward-looking. That's why we keep diversifying our export markets. We do see the economic opportunities in Latin America. That's why staff in our ministry are working with the consuls general of the Latin American countries. We are promoting our trade with this country, and then we are increasing our exports to this country.

Just for information, our province is the most diversified province in the whole of Canada. We have diversified our exports and services to different markets. Right now over 44 percent of our exports are to the United States, and just under 44 percent of our exports are to Asia. That shows that we have diversified our markets.

[1535]

Traditionally, our trading partners are the U.S.A. and Europe. We have diversified our market. That's why we weathered the economic recession so well, much better than any other province in the country.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It is true that trade with China has expanded. I'm sure the Minister of Technology would be interested in also changing the composition of the trade of British Columbia.

When one looks at most Asian countries, it's true that exports of coal, copper, raw logs or lumber have increased. That's a good thing. But for example, the high-tech industry, which employs over 80,000 people here in British Columbia, and a number of diverse businesses in the knowledge industries don't seem to occupy the same position of strength and are not top of mind when it comes to promoting how British Columbia exports.

The challenge is certainly to expand trade, but it's also to change the composition of trade. In some ways, when one looks at the leading commodities that are exported from British Columbia and the commodities which come back from places like Korea, China, Japan, we might be called a classic resource economy with very little finished or higher-end manufactured goods composing our exports. We're, typically, almost entirely commodities — copper, sulphur, lumber, coal.

Again, those industries employ people in British Columbia. I understand that, and I support that. But I think the longer-term challenge, rather than just saying exports are going up, is to look more closely and analytically about the composition of exports and how to change that.

With that in mind…. The minister again says that opening trade offices is about choices. I understand the government opened an office in London, England, in one of the highest-rent districts in London.

Can the minister confirm, one, that the office is open,
[ Page 588 ]
two, the annual rent of the office, and thirdly, the reason for opening an office in London when Canada is, of course, very capably represented by a former Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Campbell. I'm sure he's doing a great job in promoting British Columbia fairly and evenly among the other provinces that he represents as part of Canada. But certainly it seemed to me British Columbia had pretty easy access to the Canadian high commission there.

I'm wondering why the government felt it necessary to open an office, if it did, in London.

[1540]

Hon. T. Wat: The London office was opened in 2013. The reason why we chose the London office is because London, as the hon. member is well aware, is a global financial centre and has huge investment opportunities. Actually, the London office also covers the whole of Europe.

As the member of the opposition brought up earlier, we need to not only export just our natural resources. Actually, in London, in Europe, there's a multifaceted economy. It continues to present many opportunities for our trade and partnership in key sectors. This includes not only resources; it's biomass, green technology, information and communication technologies, life sciences and education. This office is co-located with our province's tourism office. Our rental component, our share, is $170,000.

B. Ralston: I'm presuming the…. I know rents in London are high, but I'm presuming it's $170,000 Canadian a year, not a month. Perhaps the minister can confirm that.

Secondly, how many staff are employed there? Are they contract employees or not? What's the anticipated annual budget? Is it being paid through the contingency fund as well?

Hon. T. Wat: That $170,000 is for a year. I just want to confirm that it's not for a month.

The total contract value for the London office is $1.266 million, including the rental as well. We have seven contractors in the London office. Again, this budget comes from a blended budget. A portion of it comes from the contingency fund, and a portion of it comes from our base budget.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain how much comes from the base budget and how much comes from the contingency?

[1545]

Hon. T. Wat: The London budget is part of our overall budget for all of our international trade offices. The whole expenditure is a blended budget, as I told the member of the opposition earlier. A portion of it comes from the contingency, and a portion of it comes from the base budget.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain why the decision was made to locate this office for Europe in London rather than in Frankfurt — that's Frankfurt on the Main, not the Frankfurt on the Oder — which is one of the financial capitals of Europe and, given the strength of the German economy, perhaps almost unique among European countries? Can you explain what consideration was given to Frankfurt and why the decision was made to locate in London, given that the opportunities to get assistance for Canadian business in London are obviously greatly enhanced by having a former Premier as the Canadian High Commissioner?

Hon. T. Wat: London, as I said earlier, is the global financial centre, and traditionally, London is the best place for many multinational companies to cover Europe as well. That's why we chose London.

B. Ralston: Well, if I might be permitted an observation, it doesn't seem like very deep analysis if it's simply based on tradition. Certainly, the German economy is the strongest in Europe and has global reach and would have seemed at least an equal choice. Given the fact that Mr. Campbell is there — I'm sure, quite willing to assist B.C. business in any way he can — the annual expenditure of $1.2 million might have been better spent elsewhere.

Can the minister advise where in the strategic plan in terms of investment opportunities there is outreach to sovereign wealth funds? One proposal I've heard was to locate a representative or have some ongoing contact with Dubai, given a number of the oil emirates have sovereign wealth funds which traditionally source investment opportunities globally. Was that considered at all, or is that in consideration?

Certainly at the time of the 2010 Olympics we heard a lot about, at least rhetorically and politically, entertaining prospective foreign investors. I understand there was some interest from representatives of Arab countries. But as far as I can tell from my research and anecdotal conversations, none of that has been followed up on.

Can the minister explain where sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East might fit into the overall plan for this ministry?

[1550]

Hon. T. Wat: I'm advised by my staff that our ministry does have conversations with sovereign wealth funds, but due to the business interests, this is strictly confidential. We cannot discuss it.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps I can get a briefing from the
[ Page 589 ]
staff, on my undertaking not to reveal any commercial confidences.

The problem with that kind of answer is it suggests that not a lot is going on and therefore there's not much to talk about. But I accept the minister's statement at face value, and I'll move on.

The other suggestion that is sometimes made is…. And this may seem a little bit counterintuitive. Although the commercial centre — certainly, in its own mind — of corporate Canada is Toronto, for their own political reasons, I am sure, Quebec has an office in Toronto and one in Vancouver. What effort is made by the ministry…?

Although I know technically the title is international investment, many global multinationals base their Canadian operations, at least initially, in Toronto. What effort is made to access investment opportunities that may emanate from business contacts in Toronto?

[1555]

Hon. T. Wat: We do understand that there are lots of multinational corporations in Toronto, and that's exactly why our staff in Vancouver have been in constant touch and dialogue with all of those companies in Toronto. When they travel to the east coast, they do have a range of dialogue with these companies.

B. Ralston: Where might that contact be publicly reported — on the ministry website or in any document that the minister publishes as part of the accountability measures that she is obliged as a minister of the Crown to undertake?

Hon. T. Wat: We do have a matrix in our service plan that shows a number of investments. For the investment leads, I hope the hon. member does appreciate that they are confidential. If the hon. member is keen to get a handle on this issue, I'm more than happy to get my staff to give you a briefing on our investment leads.

B. Ralston: I thank the member for that offer.

[1600]

I want to turn now to the statement that is contained in the service plan. "We will be working…with private sector partners and other partners to implement the Asian head office strategy to make B.C. the first choice for Asian companies looking to locate in North America. Our goal is to attract five North American headquarters to B.C. by 2020."

The minister is now responsible for what's called AdvantageBC, the former International Financial Centre. I don't know if there are representatives of that organization here this afternoon or not.

The minister will know or will be advised that one of the goals of that international financial sector was to attract head offices. There were a number of tax incentives for key personnel and for certain economic activities that were referred, including rebating general corporate income tax and personal income tax for key personnel. So far, I think they would be willing to concede that that hasn't been overly successful, although the organization was set up in the 1980s, I think back when Mr. Couvelier was the Finance Minister.

In my discussions with former Finance Minister Carole Taylor, she expressed confidence that an Asian financial institution would be willing to locate its headquarters here — in Vancouver, I think, specifically, although British Columbia generally — given that the corporate capital tax was no longer going to be a consideration of the tax structure of British Columbia. That hasn't happened either.

Given that history and given how difficult it is and given how competitive it is, can the minister explain what new elements this ministry brings to that strategy beyond the rhetorical that might guarantee some kind of success in the medium term?

[1605]

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, AdvantageBC actually just joined our ministry. In our ministry, even though AdvantageBC fell under another ministry, our staff have been working closely with Advantage BC in the past, and definitely our relationship will be even much deeper and closer now that they are within our ministry.

As a matter of fact, yesterday I had a meeting, together with my deputy minister and some other staff, with the BCBC CEO. We are working with BCBC and the government of Canada, coming up with a strategy on how to attract Asian companies to set up their headquarters' office in B.C., because B.C. really has a lot of advantages.

We are the business gateway between Asia and North America. We offer them a favourable business climate, including low taxes for business and individuals, long-term economic stability, a business-friendly government and competitive business cores, a well-educated and ethnically diverse workforce. That's the kind of quality that we can attract Asian companies with to set up head office in B.C.

I just have an example — the Agricultural Bank of China, which is the tenth on the Banker's list of the world. They have $1.8 trillion in assets. They just opened an office in Vancouver. It's the first office in Canada.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that recitation of AdvantageBC. I'm very familiar with the organization. I've been briefed by them a number of times. But the minister didn't really answer the question. What new element, what different element…?

I mean, we're familiar with a number of the things that we like to say about British Columbia. I think Yuen Pau Woo — who is the chair, president and CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada — has referred to Vancouver as the most Asian city in North America.
[ Page 590 ]

There are elements that would seem to offer promise in terms of attracting business, but it is remote from major capital markets. It's a relatively small city when one compares it to the size of global cities. Frankly, a lot of the efforts that have been made, I think sincerely, over a long period of time — AdvantageBC or the assurances offered by Carole Taylor back when she was Finance Minister a number of years ago — have not taken place.

So what new element does the minister offer to bring to this effort to attract, allegedly, five new offices? I mean, it's one thing to set the goal. I don't disagree with setting bold goals. But how the ministry is going to achieve this goal, I guess, is…. What's new?

Hon. T. Wat: The new element is that we have been witnessing the growth in our Asian markets, and that's why we have doubled our international trade and investment offices there. All these are new elements. All this makes B.C. an attractive place for Asian companies to make us their head office.

[1610]

That's why we have been talking to BCBC and the federal government and other stakeholders on how to come up with a strategy. As I told the hon. member, I just had a meeting with the CEO of BCBC, and we are now starting to work on the strategy to achieve this goal.

B. Ralston: By BCBC, I assume the minister means the Business Council of British Columbia. Sometimes the jargon is a little impenetrable to the non-initiate. I understand Mr. D'Avignon was in the building yesterday. I think I did see him. I spotted him somewhere.

In order to give this assertion a little bit more reality, can the minister perhaps say what sectors are being looked at? Certainly, increasing the sales of coal and lumber and copper and sulphur to Asian countries doesn't necessarily mean that a head office from those countries would follow and set up here. So can the minister explain what sectors are being looked at, and why the minister is optimistic about achieving this goal that has been set for her in her service plan and in her mandate letter from the Premier?

Hon. T. Wat: We will be establishing a working-level project team led by a senior staff person from international trade with team members from — yes, I shouldn't say BCBC; sorry about that — the B.C. Business Council, federal government, the private sector and academia. We will also utilize our provincial overseas network. Just now I was talking about doubling our presence. They will be a primary vehicle for a sales pitch to the targeted companies.

For the sectors that the hon. member is asking about, it will be listed in the jobs plan from Natural Resources to Technology. We have low taxes, we have a triple-A credit rating, and we really offer a very favourable business environment for Asian companies to set up headquarters in Vancouver.

Just to cite the hon. member an example, three digital media companies from Japan have set up new offices in Vancouver. This is a very encouraging trend, and we expect this to continue to happen.

[1615]

B. Ralston: Yes, I was aware of the Japanese digital media. That's encouraging indeed.

I suppose that the challenge is this. When ministry officials meet with the Business Council of British Columbia representatives, they will doubtless reference a paper they published — I think it's a few years ago now, maybe four or five years ago — which spoke of the decline in the number of head offices in British Columbia over the last decade, perhaps in part, at least, due to the consolidation and collapse of the forest industry in many respects under the B.C. Liberals.

The number of head offices in Vancouver, particularly, has been declining, not expanding. It's growing in Calgary, growing in Toronto, growing in other places in Canada.

The challenge, I think, is not to be underestimated, and I don't get the sense that the minister is bringing any new elements to this. But I will move on in the interests of time.

I do want to ask a few questions about what point 8 is in the minister's mandate letter. "Examine the strategy executed by Australia to aggressively pursue Asian trade and economic development and report back to cabinet on what people can learn and implement from their successful strategy."

The white paper, as the minister may be aware, Australia in the Asian Century, was issued October 2012. It's indeed very lengthy and sets a number of audacious goals for Australia, particularly targeted at 2025. Australia has some common elements with British Columbia in the sense that it has become very prosperous relative to other countries, largely as a result of its natural resources. And of course, China is one of the biggest customers for Australian natural resources, particularly its iron ore, its coal and, as we know, globally for its LNG.

Can the minister explain what elements of the Australian white paper she is considering, that she prefers? What does that offer?

I know there was a conference on June 3 to 5, hosted by the Asia Pacific Foundation in Vancouver. I think the member for Burnaby North was there. I think he's the Parliamentary Secretary for Asia Pacific, although I didn't see the minister there. I don't believe she was the minister yet at that point. Certainly, I think the view of the representative of Australia was that it was a very successful strategy, well received publicly. So can the minister give a sense of what direction she's going to take on this file?
[ Page 591 ]

Secondly, will she consider, in addition to reporting simply back to cabinet, where that would remain confidential, reporting at least…? I appreciate there are some strategic elements that may not be appropriate immediately for public view. Will the minister also consider and undertake to provide some summary of her thinking and the thinking of the ministry as they examine this very detailed strategy based on Australia in the Asian Century?

[1620]

Hon. T. Wat: My ministry staff are researching and reviewing the Australian strategy, including reaching out to the Australian trade officials for background, analyzing the best practices, determining potential business outcomes and developing options that could be successfully implemented in B.C.

Thank you to the member for the suggestion. When we report to the cabinet about the pros and cons of the Australian model, we will consider releasing a certain portion of the report to the public.

B. Ralston: Just to advise the minister, I'm going to get to the multicultural side of the minister's responsibilities shortly. But I do have a few more questions in the trade area, since that is the most important economic issue, in some ways, that concerns this ministry.

The minister, in her service plan, says that "British Columbia is an active partner in numerous domestic and international trade-related agreements and initiatives to improve our economic competitiveness and support job creation." Can the minister advise what input — because I know it was solicited by the federal government — the provincial government gave to the negotiators negotiating the trade agreement with the European Union?

Hon. T. Wat: Our ministry has been working with our federal counterparts to pursue open trade policy. This includes CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, in order to provide quicker access to markets that will provide new trade and investment opportunities for B.C.'s key industry.

The European Union is the largest trading block in the world, and provincial access to this market could be an enormous boost to B.C. companies and will create long-term, high-paying jobs.

[1625]

We have been, as I said, an active participant in the CETA negotiation. Actually, since 2009 we have been at the table, and we have been consulting the stakeholders involved in negotiations and have shared the views of British Columbians — including municipalities, industry associations and businesses — with the federal government. Our goal is to advance B.C. interests and to maximize the market opportunities for B.C.'s good and services.

B. Ralston: Is the minister then saying that British Columbia supports the agreement in its present form? There were some issues, particularly around the patent protection for pharmaceutical drugs. Some members of the public had expressed concern about its impact on the health budget here in British Columbia, as it would affect other provincial health budgets across the country.

Is the minister saying that notwithstanding that concern, British Columbia supports, as conveyed to the federal negotiators, its support of this agreement, or are there any unexpressed or non-public reservations that have been communicated to the federal government?

Hon. T. Wat: I want to emphasize that there is no agreement in its present form, and the negotiations are still ongoing.

B.C. has been working hard to address the cost pressures in the health care system, as the hon. member pointed out, because we have successfully utilized generic drugs in this regard. Anything that affects our provinces' and territories' access to generic drugs is an issue that needs to be carefully considered. We will continue to closely monitor this issue and are working with our B.C. Ministry of Health to assess the potential health impacts CETA has for our province.

B. Ralston: I know the federal government was hoping to wrap up the deal fairly recently. The Americans are apparently advancing closer to a deal, at least according to some news reports, and Canada runs the risk of being leapfrogged by the Americans making a deal with the European Union. Given that the deal, I understand, is not concluded but was thought to be in its final stages, can the minister advise what British Columbia's position was on patent protection for pharmaceutical drugs?

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, health costs are a great concern to this government and also to British Columbians. That's why the province is keeping a close eye during the negotiations on the discussion on intellectual property, particularly relating to impacts on provincial health care costs.

We also remain aware of the need to protect innovation created by knowledge-based industry. These elements reflect a careful balancing of the interests in Canada's intellectual property system.

[1630]

B. Ralston: Given that non-answer, I'll have to move on to the next point.

I have a document here. It's called Securing Canada's Place in Asia. It's published by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. They talk about a winning trade and investment strategy for Canada in Asia. One of the things they talk about is trade deals, or trade agreements perhaps.
[ Page 592 ]
They give the example of South Korea. I know the minister has said that British Columbia is represented by an office in Seoul, so I'm not sure what input there is in this agreement by British Columbia.

Let me just quote from this briefly and ask the minister for comment.

"The case of Korea is instructive as to why it is essential for Canada to urgently pursue and conclude trade agreements with key Asian markets where Canadian companies compete with their United States, Australian and European Union counterparts. Consider the following: South Korea is Canada's sixth-largest export market and an important destination for Canadian pork and beef."

And there would be obviously producers in British Columbia who would be affected by this.

"Significant progress has been made on most of the elements of a bilateral comprehensive FTA, but a few stumbling blocks have held up its conclusion. The United States faced similar difficulties in their negotiations with South Korea — namely, auto parts — but eventually concluded negotiations, and the Korea–United States FTA, KORUS, came into effect on March 12, 2012. It is expected that KORUS will cause trade diversion from Canada's beef and pork industry. Chile saw a 22 percent increase in pork exports to South Korea in the year following the conclusion of its bilateral FTA with South Korea."

It goes on:

"In 2010 the value of Canadian beef and pork exports to South Korea amounted to Canadian $99.4 million. The Canadian industry may be world-class but must now compete in South Korea against other efficient producers with a 20 to 25 percent cost disadvantage arising from the import tariffs imposed on Canadian goods."

So what input or involvement, if any, does the government — through, I presume, this ministry — have in terms of the negotiations for a free trade agreement with Korea? One understands that the agricultural sector is always a particularly sensitive one in trade negotiations, and I appreciate that. But can the minister advise what position, if any, British Columbia has taken and what role, if any, the British Columbia representative in Seoul has taken in these talks?

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, we are disappointed Canada has not been advancing our trade agreement with Korea. That's why we have been encouraging the federal government to continue to advance the trade agreement with Korea. As for our involvement, our Seoul representative is aware of this issue, but the actual contact with the federal government is from our Vancouver ministry staff.

[1635]

B. Ralston: I understand that one of the rounds took place in Vancouver relatively recently, in either March or April of this year. So just to confirm, then: British Columbia has input into the negotiations surrounding this agreement or not?

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, the officials from Canada and Korea have negotiations, but that is not widely known to the public. They are re-engaging with Korea. We do have input to the federal government for all trade agreement negotiations, including the Korean one as well.

B. Ralston: Has the Premier, since she became Premier, or the minister, since she became minister, met with the federal Minister of Trade, Mr. Fast, who's a British Columbia Member of Parliament?

Hon. T. Wat: I haven't personally met with Minister Fast, but I have numerous telephone conversations with Minister Fast on a number of trade agreement issues.

B. Ralston: I take it I'm not going to get an answer on whether the Premier has met with him or not, but I'll move on.

What is the position…? As the minister will know, or her officials will advise her, there is an ongoing negotiation with Japan to conclude a free trade agreement. It's in the latter stages. A House of Commons committee met with Japanese officials, I think in late fall of last year, early spring of this year. I'm wondering what the minister can advise about the government of British Columbia's position with regard to concluding a free trade agreement with Japan.

Hon. T. Wat: B.C.'s position — we do support Canada's negotiation with Japan on the trade agreement because Japan is one of our priority markets.

[1640]

For the hon. member's information, the first round of talks was held earlier this month, and we are advancing our B.C. interests when we are talking to the federal government. That's why we are encouraging and an active partner in our approach to the federal government on the Japan-Canada trade agreement.

B. Ralston: Let me, then, read further from this document published by the Asia Pacific Foundation, just for the minister's comment. One of the recommendations, among others — and I haven't read them all — includes discussion about relations with China and India. But this one I particularly want to read and just ask for the minister's comment.

"Taiwan is Canada's fifth-largest market in Asia. In the past, FTAs with Taiwan were not politically feasible. However, several countries, including Australia and Japan, are currently examining FTAs with Taiwan.

"Canada should consider a trade pact with Taiwan for two reasons. First, Taiwan is integrated into regional production networks, especially in China, and, in this respect, could be a good partner for Canada. Second, Taiwan is likely to be excluded from the current regional trade and economic proposals. A bilateral approach is the only option for deeper economic engagement."

So that's a suggestion by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Does the minister have any comment on that proposal?

Hon. T. Wat: It's the federal government's decision to
[ Page 593 ]
enter into any trade negotiations with any country in the world. Having said that, we have been supporting the federal government in all the trade agreement negotiations so far, and normally the federal government's priority markets are also our priority markets.

B. Ralston: I'd like to turn now, if I could, to the multiculturalism aspect of the minister's responsibilities.

I want to begin, first, by speaking about the director of communications. Can the minister confirm that Mr. Blair Phelps is the director of communications for her ministry?

[1645]

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, Blair Phelps is the ministry communications director, but he is assigned by GCPE, government communications and public engagement, to our ministry. GCPE is under the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services.

B. Ralston: I appreciate it was not the minister's decision to hire him, but I gather the minister must be aware of his role in the ethnic outreach scandal dating immediately before the election. He was then B.C. Liberal caucus research director, and he played a direct role in that operation, building a running dossier on every nominated candidate and charged with examining the NDP's alleged failures in addressing multicultural issues. He was mentioned in the report and sanctioned.

Is the minister not concerned that by having this person responsible for communications, there's a likelihood of repeating mistakes of the past in relation to relations between this section of her ministry and the B.C. Liberal party?

Hon. T. Wat: I'm not going to discuss a personnel issue, a personnel decision. However, there are certainly degrees of culpability. Those who are identified in the review, by the Dyble report, as key players are no longer working for government. The Dyble report makes it clear there were varying degrees of seriousness when it came to breaches.

B. Ralston: Well, this is a bit different. This person, who had a key role in that operation, is now working directly for the minister. I appreciate that the minister didn't hire him. That wasn't her choice. But is the minister not concerned that given that he reports to the Premier's office, there is a danger of staff being directed in the same direction as they were in the past — that is, to blur the lines between government and the B.C. Liberal Party and use their positions of government influence to advance the interests not of the public, violating the public service code, and advancing the interests solely of the B.C. Liberal Party? Is the minister not concerned about that?

[1650]

Hon. T. Wat: The Dyble report has come out with a number of recommendations, and our government has accepted all the recommendations. In addition, it is my understanding that to date GCPE's 270 staff, including Blair and all my staff, have attended a privacy and awareness training session. I myself made it very clear to all my staff that they have to strictly follow this standard of conduct.

B. Ralston: Is the minister aware that Mr. Phelps was also implicated earlier in using his government position and his time in government to construct a political website designed to attack the Leader of the Official Opposition, and he was reprimanded for that? So his involvement in the ethnic outreach scandal was a continuation of a pattern of behaviour that had preceded that involvement in another context.

Given that track record, is the minister not concerned that a simple warning may not suffice with a person who has shown a propensity to ignore the civil service code of conduct and act in the interests of the Liberal Party and not in the interests of the public of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Wat: As I said already, the Dyble report has come out with recommendations, and it has done a thorough review of the whole issue. My staff, including Blair, has already undertaken training. I have talked to all my staff and made them understand clearly what their role should be, that they should not cross a line and that it is not acceptable. I am satisfied that they fully understand what their role is.

B. Ralston: The minister will be aware that the multicultural unit has moved through six different ministries, I believe, since 2010. The present minister is the sixth minister responsible in that time.

October 2012 it was in the Ministry of Regional Economic and Skills Development, reporting to Parliamentary Secretary Dave Hayer, the former member for Surrey-Tynehead. Then March 2011, the Ministry of Social Development, Minister Harry Bloy. September 2011, the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, yet another reorganization, reporting to then minister of state Harry Bloy. March 2012, Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, reporting to then minister of state, the member for Richmond-Steveston. September 2012, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology, reporting to the then minister, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

February 2013, Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology, reporting to then minister, the member from West Vancouver. Then March 2013, reporting to the present Minister of Finance; and finally, in June 2013, reporting to the minister.

That's quite an odyssey through six different ministries. That may explain why the political level was not able to
[ Page 594 ]
monitor — or maybe that was the design — the conduct of some of the members of this unit.

[1655]

Given all of those moves, I'm wondering: what has been the impact on staff in the multiculturalism unit? Any employee satisfaction surveys been done? I guess one would anticipate, given all that bouncing around and all the controversy, that morale would be low, possibly. So I'm wondering what assurances the minister can provide that, as the minister responsible for this unit, she has made inquiries as to the morale and the efficacy of this much-bounced-around multiculturalism unit.

Hon. T. Wat: First of all, the multiculturalism programming staff were never involved in any of the controversy, and the morale has been great. They have been doing a good job. Especially now that the multiculturalism element is aligned with the Minister of International Trade and for Asia Pacific Strategy, we have informed our staff that we will try to get multiculturalism and international trade working together to take advantage of our diverse community and try to use our close connections of our diverse community with our priority market in Asia-Pacific. They are all very excited and looking forward to working on this file.

B. Ralston: Well, with respect, Minister, I think that may well be wishful thinking. What I'm advised is that due to the fact of multiple moves, morale is not sky-high in that particular unit. I'm wondering if there's any objective confirmation that the minister can provide, such as employee satisfaction surveys. They're commonly used in the private and public sector to assess employee engagement and commitment. I don't think there's any harm in revealing those publicly — they don't identify any persons individually — as a way of assessing where those employees are at.

[1700]

Hon. T. Wat: First of all, the multiculturalism only has a small setup. We have a staff of only six people, and my senior staff have already had a new planning session with each and every one of the six individual staff.

The feedback from my senior staff is that they are very excited about a new alignment of the international trade and the multiculturalism file. They are already excited about this direction. They see a lot of opportunities in taking advantage of this diverse community.

We are going to work with our consultancy company to continue to monitor their morale, their performance and get feedback and input.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise: what is the name of the consultancy company, and what advice are they providing?

[1705]

Hon. T. Wat: The name of the management consulting company is Berlin Eaton. This contract actually started from the previous Ministry of Advanced Education and will continue to provide strategic planning and alignment with our staff, with the move to our new ministry.

B. Ralston: What's the value of the contract, and who are the principals involved in the company?

Hon. T. Wat: We have to work with the Ministry of Advanced Education and get the figures back to the hon. member.

B. Ralston: Thank you. Then I'll ask the minister to give an undertaking to provide the full name of the company; a copy of the contract, if that's available; or if for proprietary reasons it is not, at least an indication of what the contract is for, when it was signed, the value of the contract and its end date.

May I ask, then…? Given that it seems to be for strategic planning, at least as I understood it, can the minister advise why this work wasn't undertaken by the ministry itself at the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister level? Surely planning is part of the general operation of any ministry.

[1710]

Hon. T. Wat: The management consulting company will provide an independent voice to get our staff to be more comfortable so that they can brief them and they can talk with them on how to fit into the broader scope of our mandate.

Having said that, our senior staff are continuing to be involved in the strategic alignment and the strategic planning.

B. Ralston: So just, then, to confirm: the minister will provide all the information I requested to me in writing by the end of the session — that is, July 25, 2013?

Hon. T. Wat: We will try to work as hard as we can. The original document lies with the Ministry of Advanced Education, but we will try our best to deliver the information to the hon. member before the end of the session.

B. Ralston: Thank you.

Looking at the subvote on page 115 of the estimates document, it speaks of a voted appropriation of $625,000. Is there any additional part of the budget that's funded — as we've discovered, and as this minister has admitted — from contingency, for reasons of flexibility, I think were cited, and, I would also argue, political convenience? What in additional funding comes from contingency to fund the programs of the multiculturalism branch of the ministry?
[ Page 595 ]

Hon. T. Wat: There's no funding from contingency for this $625,000.

B. Ralston: In the subvote is mentioned a program called Safe Harbour. I believe the minister will be familiar with it. Can the minister briefly describe what the program is?

I understand it's funded for the present budget year. Can the minister describe its value to the public and express any views that she's prepared to give about the ongoing importance of this program of the ministry?

[1715]

Hon. T. Wat: Safe Harbour creates opportunities for businesses, institutions, agencies and municipalities to create respectful and welcoming workplaces and communities. This year the province will have spent $250,000 on the Safe Harbour program. This program will be administered by AMSSA, the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies.

B. Ralston: I understand in 2011 they also awarded AMSSA's Safe Harbour program the Nesika Award, which is an award program that's administered by the multicultural branch. I wonder if the minister can confirm that, firstly. Secondly, in the three-year fiscal plan what is the place of this program? Does the minister foresee it continuing, or is it a program where the operation of the core review may lead to the end of the program?

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, the Nesika Award will continue this year, but the budget for 2014 and 2015 has not been developed yet. That process will begin this coming winter.

However, I can say that the use of additional or complementary resources from the ministry will be considered to strengthen long-term plans for multicultural funding. We recognize the importance of this working relationship to address discrimination and promote inclusive workplaces, and that's what we are currently identifying as the best use of current resources to meet that goal.

B. Ralston: In the description of the subvote, as mentioned, "community networking against racism and hate," can the minister give a brief description of programs that are funded by the ministry that rally people against racism and hate?

[1720]

Hon. T. Wat: The funding for organizing against racism and hate aims to enhance the ability of rural communities in B.C. to effectively address racism and hate crime. We have a three-step process. Communities work to develop capacity and skill, foster community engagement and build local community action and sustainability plans to address racism and hate.

We also support six networks. To cite some examples, we have some community exhibits, including Different Like Me murals and a film festival. The Kootenay network has also successfully partnered with municipalities in the area to achieve our against-racism program goals. There are many networks that have partnered with First Nations groups against racism and hate.

B. Ralston: Now I want to turn to the issue of the proposed apology to the Chinese-Canadian community. The minister will be aware that on June 28, 2013, a letter was sent to the Premier — and maybe if she's not, I do have a copy here — by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Perhaps I can just read from the letter so that it's clear what we're dealing with.

"Dear Premier:

"We are writing to ask about your intention, plan and timeline to proceed with an apology to the Chinese Canadians by the B.C. Legislature for racist acts passed by the Legislature in the 19th and 20th century and federal government actions such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Chinese head tax, both of which were supported and encouraged by B.C. leaders of the day.

"During the election campaign you stated an apology would be forthcoming in the summer sitting of the Legislature. In Wednesday's throne speech you failed to lay out a plan as to how your government would proceed to make good on your election promise.

"As you're aware, the New Democrat caucus has always been ready and prepared to work with your caucus members, who approached us about presenting and passing such a resolution in the last days of the 2012 spring session. Then, without explanation, your government withdrew the motion in the spring sitting.

[1725]

"The official opposition stands ready to work with the government on this issue to make it truly non-partisan. Given its absence from the throne speech, what are the government's intentions now?"

It's signed by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Can the minister advise what the position of the government is? Obviously, there's an offer to make this a non-partisan issue. I think that's appropriate. I'm not here to gain any political advantage. But there were some steps taken, and it appears that we're not moving forward together on this file. Can the minister advise where this is at?

Hon. T. Wat: The Premier and this government remain strongly committed to working with all the parties to make a meaningful apology for the historical wrongs against the Chinese community. As a Multiculturalism Minister of Chinese descent, I strongly believe that an apology is the right thing to do, but it has to be done in a non-partisan way. It has to be done respectfully and cooperatively.

B. Ralston: I agree with everything the minister said on that point. I'm just wondering, then: what are the next steps, given that she's the minister handling the file? The
[ Page 596 ]
Premier, I think, created expectations that something would happen this session. Perhaps it is. There's still time, but we've only, I think, after the end of today — what? — six days left. We're nearing the end of this very brief session, so it may not be possible to achieve that.

I'm wondering if the minister could give a sense, in response to the letter that I just read, of what the timetable is, what consultation is envisaged and how we will move forward together on this file.

Hon. T. Wat: As I said in my earlier answer, the apology for the historical wrongs against the Chinese community remains our priority, but it cannot be rushed. It has to be done respectfully and also in a cooperative manner. I will engage with my House colleagues, including the member for Burnaby North and members of the opposition, to ensure that all their efforts and their progress continue. It's also important to note that we have to consult the Chinese community, and their voices must be heard.

I'm sure the hon. member remembers that in 2008 the House unanimously passed a motion apologizing for the events of May 23, 1914, when over 300 passengers of the Komagata Maru, stationed off Vancouver harbour, were denied entry into Canada. This really serves as a great example of what can be accomplished when all the parties come together and work cooperatively, without any political agenda, to apologize for a historic wrong.

B. Ralston: I agree that in order for this to move forward effectively, it's important to set aside any political agenda. I won't refer to some of the recent details in the ethnic outreach scandal. I think that really skewed the issue here. I think on this side we're prepared to overlook that and move forward together.

[1730]

I welcome the minister's offer. I gather that she is taking the lead on this file. Members of the opposition stand ready to meet with her or her designates or other MLAs. Or if the minister wishes to strike an informal committee, all of that is something that the opposition is willing to engage in. I just want to make that very clear.

I appreciate that the voices in the Chinese-Canadian community may not be entirely unanimous on every detail. That will require time to work through as well. We're not endeavouring to rush this. There's no timetable in that way. But on the other hand, we do wish to see progress. I hope I've left the impression with the minister that we, on the opposition side, are willing to proceed with this, and we look forward to the meetings that the minister has said she will arrange in the near future.

If I might turn to some concluding issues in the Multiculturalism file, in the subvote there's mentioned something that's called interfaith bridging. Can the minister advise what that is — what that program is and how it might be of benefit to British Columbians?

Hon. T. Wat: The interfaith bridging supports projects and initiatives that facilitate the building of relationships between diverse faith communities and seeks to promote understanding of intersectional identities between one's faith and spirituality to cultural, ethnic and racial identity.

B. Ralston: In practical terms, what organizations in the community are involved with this, and what does the program cost?

[1735]

Hon. T. Wat: There are a total of 13 contracts with a total budget of $272,000. Over 190 partnerships were created between different faiths and community organizations, including churches, mosques and temples. Examples are the Islamic Centre of Nanaimo, the Victoria Kolot Mayim Reform Jewish synagogue, the Abbotsford Bahá'í community and the Prince George Punjabi Heritage Society, as well as the Victoria Multi-Cultural Society. So we organize workshops and conferences for different faiths.

B. Ralston: I'd be obliged if the minister would provide me with the detail of that program, including all the participants, in a letter following the conclusion of these estimates, sometime in the next few weeks. I thank the minister for that in advance.

I now want to turn to what's described as the competitiveness subvote and particularly turn my attention to the British Columbia Immigrant Investment Fund and the British Columbia Renaissance Fund. I have the revised service plan for the Immigrant Investment Fund, and I'm aware that in August 2007 the provincial treasury allocated $90 million to the Renaissance Fund for the purposes of providing investment in four key technology sectors: digital media, information technology, life sciences and clean technology.

It seems odd, at first blush, that this particular function is in this ministry, given that there is a new Ministry of Technology which also addresses issues of venture capital. Be that as it may, I do have a number of questions.

Can the minister briefly describe what the Immigrant Investment Fund does, and then I'll turn to the Renaissance Fund. The bulk of my questions are concerned with the Renaissance Fund — its operation and its alleged successes and failures.

Hon. T. Wat: We invest in public sector infrastructure in order to meet the needs of a growing economy. The B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund has investment in infrastructures such as schools, universities, colleges, hospitals, roads and bridges.

[1740]

B. Ralston: The source of those funds is the federal immigrant investor program, which provides an oppor-
[ Page 597 ]
tunity for experienced business persons to immigrate to Canada after depositing a prescribed sum of money with the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, that is correct.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the operation of the Renaissance Fund? It was seeded in 2007 by transferring money and was set up then. I believe the initial transfer allocation was $90 million.

Can the minister describe…? It's undergone a number changes, as the minister will be advised. I believe I see the official responsible for the Renaissance Fund advising the minister. I've forgotten her name. I believe I've met her on one occasion. Can the minister describe how the fund is operating now and, in particular, to what agencies is the capital of the fund being allocated? What is the requirement, if any, of those funds that receive capital from the fund to invest in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Wat: The B.C. Renaissance Capital Fund is a Crown corporation that has made capital commitments totalling $90 million in eight venture capital fund managers, each of whom has a proven track record of investing successfully in one or more of four key technology sectors, including information technology, digital media, life sciences and clean technology. Each and every one of the investors must sign an agreement to make the investment in B.C. and spend time in the B.C. market.

B. Ralston: That's not quite what I have been advised in terms of its B.C…. What does the minister mean by investing in British Columbia?

[1745]

Many of these funds are…. I'll give an example of Azure Capital. It's based in San Francisco and opened an office as of April 2013 in Calgary. They received money from Alberta as well.

What's the requirement to, one, have an office here or some connection here? Secondly, can the minister advise how many of these firms, which received capital from this fund, are based outside of British Columbia and the bulk of their business is done and invested in ventures outside of British Columbia and — indeed, in some cases — outside of Canada?

Hon. T. Wat: We have a total of eight fund managers. Three of them have B.C. offices. The rest of them are making good progress towards their B.C. strategy. Three funds have opened and maintain offices in B.C., staffed by senior investment professionals. The remaining funds have formed strategic alliances with B.C.-based venture funds to co-invest in B.C. companies. All the funds attend investor forums in B.C. to establish networks with local stakeholders, and all the funds continue to explore investment opportunities in the province.

B. Ralston: Can the minister name the three companies that she says have established offices in British Columbia? Then, dealing specifically with Azure Capital, based in San Francisco, I'm advised that it hasn't made a single investment in British Columbia, although it's opened an office in Calgary.

[1750]

So I'm wondering what the policy objective is that's being achieved here by lending money or giving money to this particular company, given that it has yet to invest in British Columbia.

Hon. T. Wat: The three fund managers that have an office in Vancouver are Tandem Expansion, Vanedge Capital and Yaletown Venture Partners.

As for the question raised by the hon. member about a U.S. company — it's Azure Capital that you are talking about — in fact, most of our funding investment is a ten-year cycle, and Azure is only just into year 1. It's just a new fund. They are very active in B.C. They established a network, and they have recently launched a Canada strategy.

B. Ralston: That may be so for Azure, but iNovia has had money from the Renaissance Fund for some time and has not invested in British Columbia yet. What explanation does the minister offer for that?

First of all, can she confirm that they have received money from the fund? Can she confirm how much and confirm the fact, I am advised, that they have yet to invest in a single British Columbia company?

[1755]

Hon. T. Wat: Hon. Member, I have to correct the information you gave earlier. Actually, iNovia has invested in B.C.; iNovia is our second-newest partner. It is 1½ years into normally a ten-year term.

It has invested in Allocadia. Allocadia Software is based in Vancouver and provides software asset solutions to help marketing professionals manage marketing investment and gain insight into marketing. So iNovia invested $200,000 and attracted an additional $100,000 from syndicated partners. And iNovia also invested, so far, $250,000, and they have been very active in B.C.

B. Ralston: Well, that's not disclosed in the report that I have. I'm told on the front of the report that it's revised as of June 2013. So that must be a very recent investment, or it failed to find its way into the report that I have.

Can the minister advise how much money this company iNovia received from the Renaissance Fund?

Hon. T. Wat: We have committed a total of $4 million to the B.C. Renaissance Fund, but not all of the money
[ Page 598 ]
has been called.

B. Ralston: Just for clarity, then, we're speaking of iNovia. Perhaps the minister could confirm that.

[1800]

According to the document I have — which is the updated service plan, dated June 2013 — Arch investment has made two investments in British Columbia, and Kearny has only invested once. Can the minister confirm that that is true? It's on page 12 of the revised report.

Arch and Kearny jointly invested in Boreal Genomics, and Arch invested along with Yaletown in Cooledge. Can the minister confirm how many millions of dollars have been made available to both Arch and Kearny from the Renaissance Fund?

Hon. T. Wat: We have committed $6 million to Arch and $9 million to Kearny. Arch has successfully moved Cooledge from Texas to B.C.

B. Ralston: Sorry, I didn't understand the last part of that response.

Hon. T. Wat: I'm just trying to tell the hon. member that the service plan is correct.

Cooledge is a Texas company, and because of Arch, they managed to move Cooledge from Texas to B.C.

B. Ralston: At the top of page 12 it suggests that the current portfolio of 17 B.C. companies employs over 670 individuals. By my calculation, the funding partners have drawn $47 million for these investments. That's about $69,000 per job. Can the minister advise if she's happy with that figure and happy with the impact?

[1805-1810]

Hon. T. Wat: First of all, I would like to emphasize that those jobs are net new jobs from our investment capital. But having said that, the venture capital funding program is more than just about jobs. The purpose is to attract new investment capital to B.C., to increase partnerships for B.C. venture capital and to drive more new talents to B.C. for building companies.

As of March 31, 2013, $47 million of capital calls were drawn from the B.C. Renaissance Capital Fund by the fund manager. The BCRCF fund manager, in turn, invested $104 million in B.C. portfolio companies, and syndicated partners invested a further $92 million in these companies, for a total of $196 million. These results demonstrate a leverage factor of four times. The current portfolio supports the employment of more than 750 full-time jobs.

B. Ralston: The discussions that I've had over the last year with a number of people involved in the industry suggest that people don't agree with the minister, and they don't think the fund is a success. Just reading from some of my notes: "The Renaissance Fund is a failure." "No requirement for them to invest in B.C." "It's not working." Another person: "The industry feels something is not right with it, and money isn't being used wisely." "Current practice based on old thinking." "Give money to large B.C. firms." And "It just doesn't work."

I imagine this is going to be the concluding question. Unfortunately, time flies when you're having fun.

Can the minister explain the policy rationale for taking public money and giving it to firms, in some cases, with their offices located outside British Columbia and outside Canada, with no requirement to invest in British Columbia? Can she explain why that's a good thing for British Columbia and the public in British Columbia — giving millions of dollars to firms outside of the country with no obligation to invest back in the province?

If she could answer that, I'm sure that may be something that the public and people who pay attention to venture capital issues would certainly be interested in. My experience talking to people is that this fund is viewed very skeptically and is regarded widely as a failure.

[1815]

Hon. T. Wat: Of the eight fund managers, three have offices in B.C. All of the eight are active in B.C., and all have a strategy that includes B.C. as well.

[1820]

Just to remind the hon. member, the key objectives of the Renaissance Capital Fund are, first, to attract investment to B.C. and, second, to generate superior returns from our investment. Just to cite some success stories: over 750 employees are supported by this investment; 23 companies are funded, and they are growing in B.C.; and $104 million is from the B.C. Renaissance Fund managers.

This fund has gone into these companies, and there's a total of $196 million, if you include the syndicated partners as well. That is four times the amount of capital that the departments have given to this program.

B. Ralston: Noting the hour, I just wanted to thank the staff for their forbearance. Those who remained on deck throughout the day, I'm sorry I didn't get to everyone. There are some other responsibilities of the ministry, but in this very brief session, estimates is limited to a very small number of hours. I had many more questions that I could have filled.

I do want to thank the staff and thank the minister for the answers that she gave and hope that in the future the ones that weren't answered will be answered in some other forum.

Vote 29: ministry operations, $36,135,000 — approved.

Hon. T. Wat: I move that the committee rise, re-
[ Page 599 ]
port resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of International Trade and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Bernier in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $171,265,000 (continued).

L. Popham: I'm just wondering if there is an answer to the questions I asked before the break.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to come back and to answer some of the questions that were previously asked — the panel's recommendation on increasing the income threshold from farm status.

The panel recommended that changing the income threshold to one amount of $3,500, eliminating the current $2,500 for farms of two to five acres, which is indexed for farms larger than ten acres, and the $10,000 minimum for farms smaller than two acres…. Government decided not to implement this change, as there was some concern that this would impact the smaller marginal farm operations in the province. Therefore, the government is not planning to review the threshold levels in the near future.

As far as the additions to the primary agricultural product list — the value-added questions — the panel recommended that government consider additions to the primary agricultural products list for implementation in the 2013 assessment year. The following products were added: broadleaf maple and birch sap or syrup; breeding products, including livestock semen, ova and embryos produced as part of livestock raising; and horse stud services provided as part of horse rearing.

Although other products and services were considered — the value-added for the manure and the natural products — government decided not to add these products at this time. Although the list is part of a regulation under the Assessment Act, the Ministry of Agriculture is actually responsible for making recommendations for adding the additional products to the list. The Ministry of Agriculture must also consult with the Ministry of Finance, which will review the suggested additions from a tax policy perspective.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer. Although the minister is new to the ministry, this has been an ongoing conversation. Certainly, as far as adding things to the list, this is not a new topic. I know there has been discussion on why, perhaps, you wouldn't add a value-added product onto the list. There are tax implications for government in that regard.

But I have to say that when I look at what has been added onto the list in this current year, I'm just wondering: how many people would benefit from those products, compared to how many people would benefit from wild-gathered products and value-added products and horse manure? I think that the intent of this list is to incent farming, and to not have those very critical things added to the list seems like we're going in the opposite direction.

I have canvassed this with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Finance before. It does get shuffled among those three ministries, and it's very frustrating because regardless of who I ask, I get put onto a different ministry. It would be nice that maybe all three ministries could invite me to a meeting. I could speak to all three at once, and we could maybe settle on the idea or the philosophy of how these products are being chosen to go onto the list.

Hon. C. Oakes: I was just responding to the questions that you had brought forward. So of the list of value-added items that were brought forward previously, they have actually been implemented in 2013, this assessment year, as products that will absolutely be considered. The only one that wasn't, which was brought forward, was the manure. The other items that you raised have been….

[1440]

While it does take some time, we have been able to get those items on the list, and there is a process for looking at additional items to be added on the value-added sector.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer.

Perhaps, as the good staff from B.C. Assessment are here, I could ask the question: how many farms are there in B.C., and how many farms would qualify for having these new products as part of their farm income?

Hon. C. Oakes: Currently there are over 50,000 farms that have that classification under this status. What isn't done is we do not have the inventory on what type of value-added is produced. On each of those farm classifications — I know, for example, in my family, they've changed over the years. At this point we're not tracking
[ Page 600 ]
the inventory of specific farms. So to find that value-added piece of those over 50,000 farms — at this point we do not have it.

L. Popham: When a farm would fill out their forms for B.C. Assessment, you do have to itemize what you've sold. What happens to that information?

Hon. C. Oakes: Currently the income threshold of those products that do qualify under B.C. Assessment would be the ones that are considered under the primary agricultural products list. So it does not ask on the B.C. Assessment form to list items that are outside those items that are required to meet that threshold.

L. Popham: I may not have been clear. When somebody fills out their forms for B.C. Assessment…. Say they would add one of the new items onto the list as part of their farm income. Say it was maple syrup. How do we know how much take-up there has been with these new products? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Hon. C. Oakes: The products that have been added to the primary agricultural products list — we would be able, through our ministry, to provide what that uptake has been, and we'd be happy to do so.

[1445]

L. Popham: That would be great. If it's possible, I'd love to see a breakdown of all of the products that qualify and how many farms are qualified. That would be great.

I'm going off the farm assessment now because we don't have that much time. My next question is also a B.C. Assessment question. The government announced in February 2013 that it had arranged an agreement on the assessment of B.C. Ferries properties across the coast. Is there any concern about other properties being assessed at a similarly low rate? Has the ministry been working with the assessment authority to ensure that there are no more shocking assessments like there was with the B.C. Ferries property?

Hon. C. Oakes: You raised the question of what other potential…. The other one, potentially, could be NavCan.

L. Popham: Thank you. That'll be the end of my B.C. Assessment questions. I'm now going to be moving on to the B.C. museum and the B.C. Archives.

The Royal B.C. Museum assumed responsibility for B.C. Archives in 2003, following the first core review, and the museum received no funding increase to handle an increase in responsibility.

We understand from sources that the museum has done little for the Archives since 2003 and may have refused to take responsibility for all documents produced by ministries since then. Is there a significant backlog of material now being kept in limbo?

[1450]

Hon. C. Oakes: The RBCM continues to accept archival material on behalf of the province, and you, or anyone, are more than welcome, if you would like to see the archives, to come and check them out.

L. Popham: The Archives has an enormous cultural significance in our province. For me personally, I was able to have access to the Archives when I was going to Camosun College, and it has stayed with me since that time that I was able to hold in my hands a handwritten letter by Judge Begbie. I don't think the public has access to the Archives like that right now. I could be corrected if that's wrong.

It's becoming clear that the current location is not appropriate for the Archives, and there are plans to move. I'm wondering if the minister has any idea where that might go.

Hon. C. Oakes: That's great to hear. I like the personal stories about the fact that you have access, and it really does stand with you. You know, I've had those experiences as well. For the scholastic and academic, they do have access to review the Archives.

The other thing is that currently there is a community consultation process that is happening with the Royal B.C. Museum, looking at their master planning process of the existing footprint. They're looking, they're taking in all that information, and we're in that planning step — to answer the other question that you had around the Archives.

L. Popham: The member for Surrey-Whalley and I were talking. I think one of the things we're concerned about is that philanthropy will be the funding source for the Archives, when we think it's really a provincial responsibility.

Can the minister comment on that?

[1455]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question and for your passion for the museum.

Currently the province does provide two-thirds of the funding to the RBCM. For this year it's $11.7 million. We are looking at many different options. We are looking at prioritizing accordingly — and that the museum has some ideas on how they are going to be raising additional revenues to help support their operations and their vision to….

When you look at the vision plan and when you talk to different members, they have an exciting opportunity from a tourism perspective on how we can ensure that the museum is internationally renowned. So there are many different elements to doing that and looking out-
[ Page 601 ]
side the scope of how we can continue to support and raise funds for the RBCM.

L. Popham: I understand that, but the museum did receive a cut in funding, I believe, this year. Taking on the responsibility of the B.C. Archives never came with extra funding. I'm just wondering….

Really, I think that the B.C. Archives is a separate entity from the museum. I know they're falling under the same umbrella fiscally now, but I really think it stands alone as something that we need to address separately. Without any extra funding, and in fact less funding, how does the minister see the B.C. Archives surviving?

[1500]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you again for the question.

As we know, all ministries have been faced with difficult choices, and Crown corporations have had to find reductions and to look at efficiencies and new ways. We continuously work with the RBCM to find out how we can support, and ideas on how we can expand, revenue sources.

L. Popham: I'm going to switch topics now.

The former MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the former minister, made a very controversial decision to keep $3 million of arts and culture funding within the ministry to allocate to the arts as she chose to do so. These allocations were obviously not at arm's length from government but under the sole discretion of the member, and thus were labelled a slush fund by many observers.

My question is: will the minister continue this practice?

Hon. C. Oakes: That funding no longer exists.

L. Popham: Thanks for that answer.

My next question is about gaming funds. I understand it falls under a different vote, but I think the details of this question might pertain to this vote.

What ministry programs are funded by gaming funds instead of by operating funds? How much money is it, and how does it compare to last year's budget?

Also, you might be able to answer this question instead of me asking another question. As far as I understand, sports gaming funds will allow for capital improvements, capital investments, and as far as I know, arts gaming funds don't. Maybe the minister can clarify that for me.

[1505]

Hon. C. Oakes: We have $135 million that we receive from the gaming proceeds that we deliver to community gaming grants. None of that money goes to ministry programs. So that's the community gaming grants that we're responsible for, that $135 million.

There is actually minor capital allowed for grants for both arts and sports groups, which are generally under $20,000. Ursula here is a wealth of information, so if there are community groups or organizations that have questions, we'd be happy to answer questions and support any groups.

As well, we have a newsletter that we're now circulating, if you're interested in that. It just provides ways and ideas on how groups in your communities can get access to those programs.

L. Popham: Thank you, and I'll take you up on your offer to meet with Ursula. That sounds fantastic. I don't have any more questions, but I'd like to thank you and thank the staff that accompanied you today, and also to thank the staff working hard at the ministry.

Hon. C. Oakes: I would just like to say thank you so much for the questions that you've brought forward, the ideas that you've shared. It's given me a lot of information for me to take back and to share with staff on ideas on how we can always move forward and look at how we can best serve the public of British Columbia. So thank you very much for your thoughtful ideas that you have brought forward. And thank you for the questions. It has provided me the opportunity to get to know staff a little bit better, and the specifics.

I would just like to absolutely applaud our staff that I've got to know over the last few weeks, for doing such an outstanding job. I feel incredibly fortunate to have the ministry that I have and to know the impact they have in the province of British Columbia. Thank you to the outstanding staff that we have. Thank you for your generosity and your kindness in the questions.

And thank you, the individuals that have sat through the process. I really appreciate that. Those are my closing comments.

Vote 17: ministry operations, $171,265,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: Mr. Chair, thank you for patience.

[1510]

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 52: Auditor General for Local Government, $2,600,000 — approved.

The committee recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $66,702,000.
[ Page 602 ]

The Chair: Good afternoon. We're going to call this session to order. At this point, I'll recognize the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. P. Pimm: Thank you, hon. Chair. This looks like a Peace connection here somehow.

I'd like to give a quick overview of what I'll be going through in my speech. First off, this is my first estimates, so I'll get an opportunity to be here and be with some great people. We'll have introduction of our ministry staff. They're in the House with me. I'm going to give quick recognition of the expert staff that the ministry has across the province and how experienced and knowledgable and passionate they are.

Then a little bit about my personal history and my links to this industry; an overview of my mandate letter; our Buy Local program; our growing exports; break down interprovincial barriers; and growing the sector to $14 billion, which is the goal.

Balanced budget 2013 gives us a slight lift. We have a new meat inspection program that will be within the ministry. Also, greenhouse carbon tax relief, coloured gas carbon tax exemption, and the Agriculture Land Commission and some of the things that are involved there.

First off, I have a number of ministry employees that are with us today. I'd like to introduce them. To my right is Derek Sturko, my deputy minister. I have Grant Parnell and Melanie Stewart, the ADMs for the ministry, and Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister for corporate services.

Barron Carswell is with us. He's senior manager for fisheries. Brian Underhill, the executive director of the ALC, is also with us here today. Other ministry employees will be coming and going through the course of the events, and I'll introduce them as they arrive and join us.

[1520]

I'd like to say that it's an honour to be here to speak to the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. It's the first time that we've had a Minister of Agriculture from the Peace country in the history of this great province, and I'm very proud of that fact.

It's a privilege to be responsible for a ministry with 300 staff across British Columbia with extensive experience and expertise. Since my appointment I've had the great opportunity to meet a number of them in different areas, and we're going to do a little more touring later on this year, so I'll be meeting a few more as well.

I can tell you that I've been impressed with the knowledge, enthusiasm and passion that everybody has for their work on behalf of all British Columbians. They're a very passionate group, actually. I'm very impressed about that. As the newly appointed minister, I also look forward to working with the B.C. farmers, the ranchers, the seafood sector and food processors.

My experience and strengths have been in growing business and developing industry. I'll use those skills to help the agrifood sector grow as well. Farming and food production is a business, and my experience in helping B.C. businesses identify strategies and opportunities for economic development will help to grow the sector to $14 billion a year by 2017.

In my mandate letter our government has outlined a number of commitments for the farming community and the agriculture sector, and as minister I'm committed to fulfilling those in the years to come. Key areas will focus to continue with government's efforts to encourage British Columbians to buy local and to support the local economy.

I'll also be working to take advantage of the new market opportunities in Asia and other world markets. B.C. has had record exports of seafood and agrifoods products to China in each of the last three years, and I'm sure that that's going to increase as we move forward.

I'll also be working with cabinet colleagues and ministers across Canada to break down interprovincial barriers to create new opportunities in Canada to market the British Columbia wine that we're all so very proud of.

One of our biggest strengths is our reputation for growing, processing and selling a wide range of trusted, high-quality food products that B.C. offers to consumers both locally and around the world. I think people want to feed their families healthy, nutritious foods, and B.C. is Canada's most diverse farming province, with more than 200 commodities produced on the land and about 100 species harvested from the sea. There are opportunities for growth in each of these areas.

B.C. food producers and processors form a sophisticated and high-tech industry that now generates about $11.6 billion in revenue a year and employs 61,000 British Columbians. They deserve our support. I'll work with industry to increase our focus on innovation and technology and work with them to expand both their product lines and their markets.

Despite the challenging economic times that we find ourselves in, Budget 2013 reaffirms our government's support for British Columbia's agriculture sector. The ministry's 2013-14 operating budget is $79.3 million, an increase of about 20 percent or $13½ million from the 2012-13 budget.

Over the coming year we'll be introducing a new meat inspection program for provincially inspected abattoirs, supporting the meat producers and processors and building an increasing demand for local products.

Also, balanced budget 2013 includes $20 million over three years for carbon tax relief, to grant help to offset carbon tax costs for commercial greenhouse vegetable and flower growers. It also includes a carbon tax exemption for coloured gasoline and coloured diesel fuel starting in January.

There's an additional $930,000 to further strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission. What that means is
[ Page 603 ]
the province will provide the ALC with almost $3 million in annual operating funding this year.

The B.C. government has been working hard to develop a business environment that inspires and supports innovation and competitiveness in agriculture, and the agriculture industry plays a big part in generating new jobs, stimulating investment and inciting growth and community stability across the province. I'm going to continue our government's work and track record of success in creating opportunities for businesses, jobs and new markets for B.C. food producers.

Thank you, hon. Chair, and I hope we have a great set of discussions going forward.

N. Simons: I'd like to start off by thanking the minister for this opportunity and thanking his staff, who have, in some cases, travelled from a little bit away and who are here to help answer some questions that I have.

Just like the minister said, it's his first time. It's my first time. I hope it's not awkward. We'll remember this for a long time. I think that it's a great opportunity.

[1525]

I also want to just thank my colleague, the member for Saanich South, who has been, I think, one of the most effective critics over the last number of years in her role as critic for Agriculture. I think she has been instrumental in ensuring that the government pays more attention to the agricultural sector. I think that's a good thing.

I'm honoured to have been asked to act as critic in this area. Farming has been in my family for many generations. It has skipped a few. I'm one of the ones it's skipping, except in this role. I think that, as the minister mentioned, farming is obviously a business. It's also something that people do because it's important. They do it because we need it, and our society benefits from a strong agricultural sector.

I have a few questions for the minister about the budget, and for the most part, it's to inform the public of British Columbia, to do a little bit of scrutiny on the budget, the priorities, perhaps elicit some responses that could illustrate the government's direction.

I know that the minister is the fifth minister, I think, in four years, and I hope maybe if I'm nice to him, he sticks around and gives some continuity to the ministry and to the sector as a whole. I appreciate his words about the importance of the sector.

To start with, I'd like to know if the minister had any involvement in the development of the direction for his ministry or if that has completely come through his mandate letter.

Hon. P. Pimm: I think obviously the budget process was started in February, so that was all laid out in front of me. When I got the call from the Premier to be part of this ministry, I was thrilled, and certainly we're going to work forward over the next few years, hopefully, and move forward in the agriculture industry.

N. Simons: If the minister didn't actually have much involvement in determining the direction of the ministry, I'm just wondering if…. In his reading of the mandate letter, can he identify what his most important priorities are? Hopefully, he can get to all of it, but perhaps he could identify to us where his particular passion lies in terms of improving the sector.

Hon. P. Pimm: Thank you very much for that question, and certainly I think all the areas in agriculture are very important to all of us and all British Columbians. Obviously I've got a mandate letter, so there's going to be some importance placed around that. We've got a jobs plan, so we're certainly going to be looking at growing the industry. Our strategy is to grow the industry to a $14 billion industry by 2017, and we're going to make that a goal that we're going to look forward to.

Certainly, the Buy Local program is something that we're going to be putting an awful lot of attention on. At this point in time we have a good base. Most folks out there don't realize that about somewhere north of 45 percent of the food that they eat is actually B.C.-grown agriculture or processed in B.C. We're going to certainly look at trying to even grow that further.

[1530]

N. Simons: The minister mentioned that in fact it's the first time that we have an Agriculture Minister from the Peace country. I visited the Peace country a few times in previous lives, and it's a beautiful part of the province — and part of the province that actually does have a significant amount of agricultural land. I think, obviously, the minister is aware of that — farms, ranches and good-quality, class 1 and 2 land.

I'm just wondering if the minister could talk about, perhaps, his views on agricultural land and the importance of protecting agricultural land and how that's reflected in his mandate letter and how its reflected in the agrifoods strategy.

Hon. P. Pimm: Certainly, as the member opposite indicates, we do have an awful lot of good-quality farmland in the Peace country. I think there's good-quality farmland in all regions in this province, whether you're…. It almost doesn't matter which area you go to. You're going to have some good quality.

The Peace country is a little different. We have a little more wide-open range over there. We're kind of an extension of Alberta, almost, some might say. Certainly, there's lots of good quality land up there.

Obviously, we're very concerned…. Not concerned. I shouldn't say concerned. But we're very proud of the fact that we do have good land in the area, and we want to make sure that we have good futures for our farmers
[ Page 604 ]
as well in the area.

The ALR — I think that's something that all British Columbians are proud of. The fact that we've added an additional almost 40,000 hectares of land into the ALR is a sign of that and will be something that we maintain as we move forward as well.

N. Simons: Yeah, obviously, there are some regions of this province that have more agricultural land. I think, in fact, that Peace River has a fairly high percentage of agricultural land reserve.

That's an issue that's current. I'm just wondering if the minister could state where he stands on the Site C project.

[1535]

Hon. P. Pimm: Well, thanks a lot. As you're aware, I have lived the majority of my life in the Peace country. I was away for a couple of years here and there, but certainly, all my life is there.

Site C, if it ever does go forward, will be about seven kilometres from my house, so it's certainly something we all have great interest in. The discussion has been there since about 1980. I think that's when discussions first started. As I came on…. I think Site C is going to be something that will be needed by this province as time goes on. I think with the industry and the amount of extra folks that are coming into the province down the road, there's a good chance that we'll need extra power as we move forward.

The other thing is that Site C is presently in an environmental assessment process, as the member opposite is aware of. That's in early stages of that process that it's in right now.

One of the things that I have said, and I'm on record saying this, is that I'm going to make sure, if Site C in fact does go forward, that the local area is going to benefit from some of the things that could happen — benefiting agreements, different things that the area…. You know, we're going to be affected as any construction might happen and certainly want to make sure that our area is looked after as that process moves forward, if, in fact, it does.

N. Simons: My question is about if the commission were to argue against the exclusion of class 1 and 2 farmland from the land reserve. I'm just wondering where the minister…. Would the minister be advocating on behalf of the agricultural sector? Is that his priority as minister?

Hon. P. Pimm: Obviously, there is a process that's in place right now, as, again, the member is well aware of. The ALC is arm's length of the government. Their decisions are arm's length to government, and they'll be identifying issues that are related to Site C as that process moves forward.

I don't want to get out and prejudge what that might look like. I'm not going to prejudge the decisions that may or may not come out of this process. As we move forward, obviously, this process is going to deliver some results that the area folks are going to be looking forward to. We'll deal with them as they move forward at that point.

N. Simons: I'm just trying to get a sense of the minister's views on the commission and whether or not he will actively take a position for or against what the commission recommends. You know, because of his position as Agriculture Minister, you would expect an answer that would be about ensuring that he can fulfil his mandate letter by protecting agricultural land.

I've looked at some of the statements the minister has made in the past about Site C. There was a time when it would all be about the consultation process, and then there are times where they're saying it's really not a lot of land; 5,300 hectares is not a lot of land. I'm just wondering if that's still his position.

[1540]

Hon. P. Pimm: Obviously, our area is…. Again, we're a big country up there. We do have a fair amount of land. I don't think I'm going to prejudge what's going to happen in the outcome of the environmental assessment that's going on. I've been on record as saying that many times. I don't think now's the time for me to change my position on that.

As you know, there are some ALR lands that are within the confines of what might be a future Site C, and the ALC is going to have to make some decisions around that as well. They're an arm's-length body of this organization. We're certainly going to look at their report as time comes on, but I'm not going to prejudge what that outcome looks like.

N. Simons: Well, my question is: does the minister have the authority to override the Agricultural Land Commission, and would he ever do that?

Hon. P. Pimm: I'll quote from my mandate letter. One of the things it says is: "To ensure that the agricultural land reserve is working for British Columbians…propose any necessary changes. These changes must successfully balance our desire to protect valuable farmland, while allowing for responsible economic development opportunities." That's one piece of it.

The other, to get more directly to your question: at the end of the day, if in fact the cabinet or Lieutenant-Governor by way of cabinet decides that they want to overrule that decision, they can, in fact. That's something that they can do as a cabinet unit. At this point I'm not going to prejudge that. It's well into the future, and we're in the early stages of that environmental assessment at this point.
[ Page 605 ]

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister. Let's just turn directly to the Agricultural Land Commission itself. Would the minister say that currently there is an adequate budget in the commission to fulfil its mandate?

Hon. P. Pimm: As you're aware, the ALC has been given additional funds over the last few years. They were given a $1.6 million injection two years ago to get them started. This year they were…. I guess there's $4 million over three years. That's going to be additional funding that's going to go into the ALC as budget. I think it's almost $1 million that went into it this year. They're up to about a $3 million budget, compared to a $2 million budget in the past.

[1545]

It has certainly given them an opportunity to do some of the things that they've been wanting to do over the past few years — for example, some boundary expansions, digitalizing some mapping, that sort of thing. The ALC seems quite happy with where they're at in their funding at this point in time, and we're certainly happy that we've been able to give them an uplift in their budget over the past couple of years and continuing on.

N. Simons: My understanding is that there has been some talk about the Agricultural Land Commission being able to assess fees for some of their work. What's the status of the fee structure?

Hon. P. Pimm: The ALC has the ability, as you're aware, to levy fees with applications. There has been some discussion about allowing those fees to be increased over time, possibly, but there's been no decision made on that.

There has also been some public consultation around that. Certainly, the public is aware that there have been some discussions around some increase in fees. That was also part of, I think, the legislation package, as well, that came in a couple of years ago — that those are some areas that would be looked at and addressed.

N. Simons: Can the minister tell me what the fee structure is for the oil and gas sector?

[1550]

Hon. P. Pimm: It's a little bit complex, but basically speaking, if the OGC is applying for a non-farm use, that application will be dealt with by the ALC the same as any other application would be. There's a $600 charge that would be paid to the local government; $300 would stay with the regional district and $300 would come to the Agricultural Land Commission.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain how that fee compares to other fees for the ALC?

Hon. P. Pimm: At the present time the only fee that they would pay is that fee. That's the same, whether you're an individual or any company out there. It would be the same fee, regardless of where you are in the province.

N. Simons: Forgive me if my questions sound a little naive, but I'm just pretending.

No, I'd like to know if in fact this fee structure has changed at all recently. Is it going to be changed? If not, how is it going to actually support the operations of the ALC going forward?

[1555]

Hon. P. Pimm: That $600 fee has been a constant fee. That's been constant for several years now. There had been some discussion about other fees. Obviously, you're aware that they have a delegation agreement between the OGC and the ALC. Some of the discussion has been around some audit fees, some compliance-and-enforcement type of fees, that sort of thing. But they're all within discussions. We haven't made any decisions around it at this point in time, and they're still in discussions.

Maybe there's an opportunity down the road. We're not just sure yet.

N. Simons: My understanding was that a fee structure was going to assist the commission in becoming more self-sustaining. How does this help the commission in that regard?

Hon. P. Pimm: Basically, at this point in time there has been ongoing discussion around fees. That discussion will continue on, but at this point in time what government decided…. Instead of going with an increase in the fees, we actually gave an increase to their base budget instead. So basically, they have a base budget increase, and the fee discussion will be one that will continue. It'll be ongoing.

N. Simons: My understanding was that that budget increase was planned regardless of the fee structure, so in fact, there seems to be a bit of contradiction. That would be quite a bit of money missing, if in fact that isn't the case.

What's the minister's timeline for seeing the ALC establish a fee structure that actually allows them to become more self-sustaining? I'll start with that.

Hon. P. Pimm: I think this is a point where I'll disagree slightly with the member opposite. There's been nothing misleading here. We've had increases that the government has given to the ALC. Those increases are going to be 2013-2014. We're going to go from $2.905 million to an increase of $930,000. In 2014-15 that'll take it up to $3.51 million, and in 2015-16 it'll actually go up to $3.39 million.
[ Page 606 ]

Those are increases that the government has actually given. That's without having any increases to any applications, whether it be for residential applications or industry applications — regardless of what kind of applications.

[1600]

We've given them money so that they can continue on with the mandate that they've been given through the new legislation, so that they can work on the things that are important to them, as far as getting some digitalization on their mapping, looking at some boundary reviews — that sort of thing, as was mandated going forward.

N. Simons: I didn't intend to suggest there was any misleading going on. Just for clarification, I believe that the discussion about the fee structure for the oil and gas sector has been one that's gone around the cabinet table many times. The minister perhaps wasn't privy to those discussions. But would the minister characterize the fee structure that's the same for all sectors as being fair, regardless of the ability to pay, or does the minister think that needs to be looked at?

Hon. P. Pimm: The short answer to your question: I think it is fair. All industries and all residential applications — whatever — have an application that they go through. It's the same application process. It's the same amount of paperwork, the same amount of work for the ALC, so yeah. That application, I think, is probably fair. It really doesn't matter who's making the application.

You're right. I haven't been part of cabinet discussions around fee discussions in the past. Maybe I'll get to that point at some point in time. I do think that we're going to continue discussion around fees and see if there are…. You know, I think it's a little bit complex, but maybe there is some opportunity to generate some additional revenue, and we're going to have those discussions. We're going to keep those discussions going.

N. Simons: The commission itself has suggested a fee structure would be one that would assist them in fulfilling its mandate. I'm wondering what the hesitancy, the reluctance, is to establish a fee structure for the oil and gas sector, which is a significant impact on lands in the Peace and in other parts of the province as well. What's taking so long, and why would the government, in its effort to remain arm's length, reach out its arm and not allow a fee structure to be put in place, where, in fact, the important work of the commission could be conducted with the ability to fulfil its entire mandate?

I would just, at that same time, suggest that it seems a little bit strange to me that the minister would defend a policy that would, in fact, require residential and industrial users to pay the same fees. I'm just wondering what interference, in terms of involvement, the government, cabinet, has in the commission's efforts to become more self-sustaining.

[1605]

Hon. P. Pimm: I think what I will say is that in discussions with the ALC, they feel like they've got a nice uplift in their budget, when other different areas in the different ministries haven't got an increase.

They've had an increase of over 50 percent at this point. It's going to generate, actually, up to a 70 percent increase over the next couple of years, and it's allowing them to do some things that they haven't been able to do over the last few years. As to where they're getting their increase from, I don't really know that that's critical to this discussion.

I think we're going to have ongoing discussions about applications. When you talk about the residential application, I think most folks, if they're getting land out of the ALR, are probably going to do some investments that are going to bring back copious amounts of revenue for them as well.

I think that if you weigh it out on both those scales, there are opportunities for industrial activities on all fronts, actually.

N. Simons: I'm wondering. It must, for the minister, sometimes be a bit conflictual, in a way — his involvement in the oil and gas sector, representing an area that does generate a significant amount of revenue for the province. My question, I guess, for the purposes of the agricultural sector is: will the minister be advocating for more robust fees so that the work of the commission can actually be accomplished?

Obviously, with changes over the years, they're making up for lost time. There were cuts in the past that have forced the Agricultural Land Commission to prioritize what it did. I commend the commission for refocusing and for finding ways of doing their important work.

The minister himself perhaps can provide, potentially, some comfort to the agricultural sector by saying that he will be an advocate for the agricultural sector. Is there any conflict in the minister's mind as to where the priorities are?

Hon. P. Pimm: Of course, I'm an advocate for the farming community. I'm going to say that. I'll be on record. I'm very proud to be the minister.

I want to say that the ALC has got a nice increase in revenue going into their ministry. It's about a 50 percent increase. That's going to allow them to do work that they haven't been able to do in the past, and I think that's great.

In this ministry we've had a 20 percent increase in all areas — the greenhouse industry; certainly the carbon tax for farming vehicles, which is going to come in January. I think this ministry is doing well, in consideration of some other ministries, and I'm continuing to fight for that.

[1610]

As for the fee discussion, like I say, we're still going to
[ Page 607 ]
continue to have that fulsome discussion. Where that ends up, I can't tell you at this point in time. We're going to continue to have the discussion but without the fee increase and with the increase to the ALC, and I'm happy with that.

V. Huntington: As we know, the ALC has had difficulty enforcing some of its regulations. It was my understanding that the government had given the ALC the opportunity to enter into human resource–sharing agreements with municipalities and with other ministries. I'm wondering if any of those agreements have been signed and, if so, whether there has been a measurable increase in the ability to properly enforce the regulations.

Hon. P. Pimm: Legislation in 2011 did actually enable the ALC to work with municipalities to formalize some of the agreements. They could actually appoint folks to do some of the enforcement-type operations. To this point none of those agreements have been formalized. What has happened is that they've had the ability, over the last, to work within other ministries as well. Through FLNRO they've actually had an additional….

Interjection.

Hon. P. Pimm: FLNRO. I'm sorry, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I'm even getting good on acronyms now. That's impressive for me.

We have about 40 additional enforcement officers around the province at this point in time, through that ministry, so that has been an increase.

V. Huntington: Always, questions come up with more. What is the level of training that these officers in all the different ministries are receiving with regard to enforcement of the agricultural issues?

[1615]

Hon. P. Pimm: First off, the enforcement officers that are located within different ministries now are already trained, to some degree, in enforcement-type operations. What they do is they actually get augmented by the ALC.

The ALC has their enforcement officers go, and they talk with them. They have some workshops with them and get them up to speed on what's in the act and how to enforce within the act as well.

There is some additional enforcement, but they are mostly people that are trained in enforcement already.

V. Huntington: Some time ago the minister — two previous ministers — had indicated that the Agricultural Land Commission and the Farm Industry Review Board were speaking about amalgamation. I would like to understand what the status of those discussions is.

I understand that the ministry was awaiting a report. Have you received the report? If so, is it publicly available? Could you elaborate a bit on those discussions?

[1620]

Hon. P. Pimm: I'm not too up to speed, really, on what the reports from two ministers ago really were. I think there were some discussions around some sort of amalgamation. I think governments are always looking for some sort of efficiencies within different bodies.

At this point I can say that there has been no action on any of those discussions. We're not really considering anything — at this point, at least.

V. Huntington: That's interesting. I didn't expect that answer, actually. I'll assume, then, that the minister isn't planning on moving this forward in any manner. Okay.

My last question is on the Agricultural Land Commission. I could, of course, keep going for hours.

As your staff and the minister will probably know, there have been option-to-purchase agreements made on close to 600 acres of agricultural land in Delta. I have recently been told that the Agricultural Land Commission met with the developer, the proponents Emerson and Segal, and that they've had discussions with the Port of Vancouver on its interest in industrializing agricultural lands.

I would very much appreciate some sense of where these discussions led and what the interest of the ALC was in pursuing the issue.

Hon. P. Pimm: What I've been advised is that certainly there have been some port discussions between Metro Vancouver and some of the stakeholders, but there is no application before the ALC at this point in time. There have been no discussions with the ALC as to any formal applications. Really, there's nothing before the ALC at this point in time, so I really can't discuss much about it.

[1625]

V. Huntington: I'd just like to pursue the discussions with the port a little bit more. I would really appreciate understanding what the position of the ALC is on the port's desire to industrialize agricultural land for port-related activity. I would like to understand the minister's position and whether he supports or disapproves of the industrialization of agricultural land, other than in the Peace. Let me put it that way.

I'm extremely concerned about what those discussions may have been. I'm assuming the ALC was cautioning the port, but I would like to know what the direction of those discussions was, if that's at all possible.

Hon. P. Pimm: Like I say, there have been no discussions with the ALC at this point in time, with the port. There are certainly no applications. They're not giving any direction or feedback to the port. Obviously, it's out
[ Page 608 ]
in the general public, so they've heard of it through that process.

I'm not going to prejudge what might or might not be with an application that might or might not come. There's a process that anybody is going to have to go through. At that point in time there will be an application made to the ALC, as per a normal channel, and they'll judge it through the act, as they do with all other applications.

V. Huntington: That's certainly the standard answer that we do get. However, I want to clarify. I thought in the first response you mentioned that the ALC had, indeed, been speaking with the port, but that this time they hadn't.

There were two issues: whether they had been speaking to the developers — the consortium that has the options to purchase the land — and to the port about the port's interest in industrializing agricultural land at some point. I thought I heard you say that they had, indeed, been speaking to the port. I wondered what those discussions were.

The minister is now clarifying that the ALC has had no discussions with the port.

Hon. P. Pimm: Yes, that's what I'm confirming. There have not been discussions with ALC to the port.

N. Simons: To get back, if I may, to the user-fee option that became one in 2011 when we passed, in this House, amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission, what is taking the government so long to assist in establishing those new user-pay funding models? Obviously, it will have an impact on the ability of the commission to conduct its business.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. P. Pimm: Thank you very much, Chair, and welcome to the discussions of this afternoon.

[1630]

I'll just get back quickly to the fee structure. Again, we gave a $1.6 million uplift to the ALC for its budget. We've made that increase permanent. They now have a $3 million budget that's going to be increasing slightly over the next couple of years.

The fact that government gave those increases is a sign that we certainly understand and appreciate the ALC. Whether they have a fee increase or not, they've got their uplift in the funding, and they're happy with that. It gives them the opportunity to move forward and do some of the work that they have been wanting to do for many, many years.

The Chair: Member.

N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the Birch Room.

The question then is: why pass legislation to establish the possible user-fee system?

Hon. P. Pimm: Basically, we made a few legislation changes at that point in time. What this does is it gives us an opportunity that if in the future we need to have more of an increase, we already have legislation in place that can address that issue.

We also have ongoing discussions. If those discussions lead us to some different direction, then we'll look at that.

At this point time we've given an increase. It allows the ALC to go out and do some things that they've been wanting to do, and we'll monitor that. If they need some additional funds, that'll be an opportunity to do an increase. We won't have to change any legislation.

N. Simons: It strikes me as sort of almost self-evident. In every sector in this province, every ministry is struggling with the budgets offered to them, and user fees are going up in every other possible sector. What is it that's stopping the ministry from allowing the Agricultural Land Commission, which actually needs $4 million to operate, to fulfil its mandate…? Why would the government be so hesitant?

Every fee to the individual in this province is going up, from MSP to ferry fares — you name it. Yet here you have legislation that was passed in 2011 to allow for the ALC to collect some fees. Why would this minister not say that this isn't a higher priority?

I think that this is the most obvious way for that revenue to be collected. I think that the public deserves an explanation that is consistent with the statement on these difficult economic times. One would suggest that this is one of those ways that the commission would be able to fulfil its mandate and not have to prioritize and leave certain things undone.

[1635]

Hon. P. Pimm: Just following up. I definitely want to continue the discussion that says that we've given the uplift to the ALC. They've got a nice increase. It's one that they think they can work well within.

We have an opportunity to increase fees down the road if we want to. Those discussions are ongoing. I guess one of the things is I'm happy that at least you're on board if we decide to increase them — that at least you'll be on board with us when that time comes. I'll take that as an assumption that you would be there.

N. Simons: I'm just simply stating the obvious. The government has introduced a wheelchair tax. These are the priorities of the government. Here you have an opportunity, based on the legislation passed in 2011, allowing for other sources of revenue for an underfunded
[ Page 609 ]
Crown corporation or independent office.

If you can find revenue from another source — that the cabinet has passed legislation; the House has passed legislation allowing that alternative source of revenue — it would seem to me fairly obvious, in these difficult economic times where everyone has to do their part, that in fact perhaps other funding could be saved for other important projects. Perhaps there would be some deficits in other ministries.

But fundamentally, the commission is still underfunded, and I would suggest that this would be the opportune time to encourage the commission to find some of its own source revenue.

Here we have a minister who is saying: "Oh, no. We've given them an increase. We don't need to fulfil what we said we would do in 2011, because we've just given them money." Well, you know, when the time comes, if there's a need to implement user fees, that's one thing. I won't commit now to the minister. I'm not sure why he wants my approval anyway, but I'm honoured. Maybe the time may come one day where I will be able to have some say over this kind of thing. The time may come.

However, here we are now. We have a commission that's underfunded. We have legislation allowing them to implement user fees. The government says they don't really want to do that. Is the minister, perhaps, suggesting that there are some sectors that they want to protect from the user fee? Perhaps there are some industries that he's tied to that are not necessarily in favour of such a plan.

Maybe that's where we need to go. Maybe that's the issue. What is causing this government to be so…? What's the word?

V. Huntington: Recalcitrant.

N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Delta South.

Recalcitrant. Reluctant to do what it has stated that it wanted to do in the past.

I mean, this government enjoys increasing user fees in other areas. But for some reason, where there is a sector that can afford higher user fees, it's being protected, and a commission is still unable to fulfil all aspects of its mandate.

For example, promoting farming. For example, ensuring there's adequate enforcement. These are good enough reasons, in my mind, for the minister to make cogent arguments to his colleagues at the cabinet table for allowing the commission to do what the legislation was passed by this government would do.

I'm wondering if the minister can comment further on that.

[1640]

Hon. P. Pimm: I think I'll continue down the same kind of answering as I've been giving in the past.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Pimm: I won't say that, actually.

Certainly, we've given the ALC lots of tools. Through legislation, they've got the opportunity to utilize the different ministries and their enforcement-type folks that they have on the ground, so that's certainly relieved a lot of burdens that they've had. We've given them the opportunity to strike deals with municipalities and regional districts if they want to pursue those avenues as well, so that also helps them. And we've given them a budget increase.

We also have the ability to continue those talks on the fee structures, and we probably will continue to look at those fee structures. But at this point in time they're comfortable with their mandate. They're comfortable with the lift in the budget that they've got, that they can do the things that they've been wanting to do for the last several years.

If they're comfortable with that, quite frankly, I'm comfortable with that as well.

N. Simons: It's good that everyone's comfortable.

I did live in the north. We used to call the Peace River the south. In the north we're straight shooters. You know, we say what we think. I think what we're getting here is a bit wishy-washy, if you don't mind me saying so. I like the minister, so I don't want to offend him. He's also bigger than me.

The question is, really: why would you give the commission the mandate…? Maybe the minister could answer this: has the minister just said that the commission is able and can go ahead and start charging user fees? Maybe that's what the minister is saying. "It's in the law, so go ahead and do it." Is that the minister's stance?

Hon. P. Pimm: The simple answer to that question is no. Any fee increase will have to go through Treasury Board, and we'll deal with that when that time comes.

N. Simons: I'll change the subject soon, but I just want to say….

Interjection.

N. Simons: You're happy to continue discussion. We'll continue to look at. We'll continue to discuss. We'll continue to consider. We'll consider considering.

However, what really needs to happen is action — you know? We do a lot of talking in this building, and sometimes we really need to get down to it.

It's good that they're comfortable with their budget increase, and I'm glad that they're comfortable with their budget increase. But everybody knows that their budget increase will not allow them to fulfil their entire mandate. They still have to prioritize. They still have to process applications. People, industry — everyone's going to
[ Page 610 ]
be concerned about the delay.

[1645]

This is a government that's interested in ensuring things get done quickly. The government's reluctance to allow the commission to introduce user fees is going slow down the process. It's going to slow down the process of economic development.

Wow, can you believe that this government is introducing policy through legislation that makes it more difficult for business? Well, there you go. There you have it. We have it on the record.

Let's change the subject to the enforcement angle of the Agricultural Land Commission. How many enforcement officers are there?

Hon. P. Pimm: At this point in time there are two enforcement officers in the ALC. They're funded for two more for this fiscal year, so that'll double that. They also have the ability to utilize the other ministries' staff, so they're using right now about 40 other ministry staff through Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. They also have the ability, like we said earlier, to work with municipalities to utilize some of those positions as well.

One of the folks that they have in their operations now actually is a coordinator-type person, so he or she, that position, would be able to coordinate those activities as well.

N. Simons: So when it's an FLNRO official enforcing ALC or the act, do they get direction from the commission? Where does their direction come from?

Hon. P. Pimm: When one of the other ministry enforcement officers is working on an ALC type of application, they get their direction from the ALC staff. Certainly, they work together with them. They might not be there all the time, but when they're dealing with an enforcement issue for the ALC, they get their direction from the ALC.

H. Bains: Congratulations to the minister for the appointment.

I have some issues on the enforcement. It's related to some of the local issues in Surrey. As you know, Surrey has…. I could be corrected, but 70, 75 percent of the land mass is agricultural land — not the bit in the Surrey municipality. We have small farms, hobby farms. We have a medium-sized farm. We have large farms. They produce all sorts of products, produce, and many of them are making a living on those farms. But when it comes to….

I would say small or medium-sized farms are 20 or 30 acres. They are very active in agriculture. Many of them have blueberries, others have some other products that they produce, but that is not enough for them to make a living and raise their families on the income of the farm. So, many of them have side businesses. They have second jobs.

[1650]

The point I'm trying to get to is that there are folks who have a side business, as in trucking, in Surrey. The owner may have a ten-acre, 20-acre, 30-acre farm producing blueberries.

I think the first question I would like to ask is: how much of that farm is required or can they actually use which is not productive or cannot be productive? Or can they take that out of production and use it for their machinery or for the farm equipment and the residents to be there? Is there a percentage of that farmland, or is it a certain acreage that they must set aside?

Hon. P. Pimm: If it's a permitted use within the ALR, within the act, basically, the ALC doesn't have any percentages or anything like that within their guidelines that they can utilize. It actually gets back to the community involved — so the regional district or the community. They would have the amount of footprint that can be utilized, based on whether or not it's a farm use. If it's something that you can utilize under the farm…. What's the word I'm looking for?

Interjection.

Hon. P. Pimm: There you go.

As long as it's an accepted use within the ALR, the community can regulate that. And they do, within their own bylaws.

H. Bains: As I heard earlier, when you talk about enforcement, it is coordinated with the municipal resources, along with the inspectors that you mentioned. When that part of the enforcement is brought up, there is a farmer who's got a truck and brings their truck home at nighttime — maybe a dump truck; it has nothing to do with that particular farm or doing any farm work — and parks their truck there.

Whose responsibility is it to enforce, to make sure that the ALR rules are enforced? Is it complaint-based, or is it initiated by the municipality? Who monitors all of this, and who decides what is right, what's within the rules and what's not within the rules?

[1655]

Hon. P. Pimm: Just kind of following up on that, what you're talking about is basically a non-farm use. That is where you're going with this. I'm trying to remember all of the questions. I didn't get them all written down. There were two or three questions in there. Number 1, it can be kind of complaint-based. That can be one of the triggers that does it. Also, the Surrey municipality itself can trigger this.

Usually, the municipalities will work with the ALC. If
[ Page 611 ]
it's a non-farm use within that land, they might have a minor business or something like that that allows for a business to operate there. Those will be bylaws that will be set within the boundaries of the municipality. The municipality will have guidelines for what that looks like, and then it's basically enforced by the municipality and the ALC. They can jointly enforce that together.

H. Bains: So that I get it clear, the issue is that the municipality will decide through their bylaws how much land actually can be used. I'm talking about…. There is the productive land, and there is a piece of property in every farm that you use to park your tractors, your hoes and whatever you use for the farm. So there's a piece of property.

[1700]

That is determined by the city hall — how much land they can actually carve out of the farm. Or they can decide whatever they want to do with it, because if they have ten tractors, they can have more. If they have one tractor, they have less.

Someone must be making some decisions. Is it the ALR, the ALC, or is the municipality saying: "Well, you've got a 30-acre farm. It makes sense for you to have maybe two acres that you can set aside to park some machinery or do whatever else you want to do related to the farm business."

The question is: is it someone with the ALC or ALR deciding that, or is it the municipality deciding you can take that piece? "That's what our bylaw says, but if you have 200 acres, you can have a little more. You need more room to park, because you have more machinery." Who decides that? That's what my question is.

Because my colleagues have a lot of questions and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, maybe you could also guide me. Those farmers who are suggesting, "Look, we can make a living on this farm if we are allowed by the municipality or by the ALC to park our machinery on the farm which is not being used now for farm purposes. But if I park my truck…?" That's the question that is coming from them. I'm not saying that I support it or that I don't support it. All I'm saying is that there is that issue there.

How do we deal with it? Who decides they can bring their truck home or not? It is not farm-related? It's a non-farm vehicle. It comes into the farm every night, because that's their second job and second business.

[1705]

Hon. P. Pimm: Basically, you are talking two different things here. One is your farm use, and that's where the farmer has the ability to park equipment throughout his land. There really is not too much restriction on that whatsoever. But when you get into the non-farm use, then you're talking….

The ALC and the municipality will work together. The ALC ultimately has the control on how much of that land can be utilized for non-farm use. You have to keep in mind that one of the major goals of the ALC is to protect the farmland and to protect good-quality farmland. That's where they're at. They try to work with the municipalities to give some flexibility, but ultimately, at the end of the day, it's the ALC that is going to govern that, and they'll enforce it as well.

N. Simons: The ALC has instituted a five-year moratorium on reapplications, and I'm just wondering how that process has impacted the commission and what the status is of the number of applications being received now. While I'm at it, what year will the first reapplication be permitted?

[1710]

Hon. P. Pimm: Basically, there is a five-year moratorium. It was brought in, in 2011. The legislation was in 2011. At this point in time there have not been any new applications that were reapplications. The first time you'll see that is about 2016. At this point in time it's probably too early to tell if it's having a real change in the applications. There are about 600 applications a year. So how many of those were reapplications? Time will tell.

N. Simons: The question is around the original maps used to establish boundaries in the agricultural land reserve. Could the minister inform this chamber where those original maps are?

Hon. P. Pimm: The original maps. The ALC has, basically, an archive. Those original maps are stored in a secure location off site from the ALC. They're not stored on their premises at this point. They're stored in a secure location off site.

N. Simons: The question is: will those maps be moved to the Provincial Archives?

Hon. P. Pimm: Those maps have been digitalized. The work has been done, and the ALC has that work done. They are in a secure location at this point in time.

You bring up a good point. It's one that we haven't talked about, but it's certainly something we'll take and move toward and talk about.

N. Simons: I appreciate that response from the minister. You know, it's a piece of our British Columbia heritage, and I think it gives them the stature that they probably deserve.

I'm going to move on to delegation agreements. I'm just wondering how many currently exist and how many have been audited.

[1715]

Hon. P. Pimm: There are basically three delegation agreements at this point in time. One is in Fraser–Fort George, there are two within the East Kootenay regional district as well, and there's a fourth one that's a delegation agreement between the OGC and the ALC.

The audits — they're currently in the process of gathering data to audit the regional district ones. The OCG one was audited three years ago.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain how much it costs to do an audit and what the projected timeline is for an audit?

[1720]

Hon. P. Pimm: There are two different ways to do these audits. The one audit — for example, on the OGC audit — was done by a third party. So that audit was separate from the ALC. That cost was between $60,000 and $100,000.

The other ones are being done internally by the OGC, so they're kind of ongoing, with the monitoring and that sort of thing. They're gathering the data now. It's a little tough to put the actual cost on those audits. It's a bit of a moving target, so I can't give you an exact actual figure on that right now.

N. Simons: Just a clarification. Did the minister say that the Oil and Gas Commission was doing their own audit?

Hon. P. Pimm: No, it's a third-party audit that was done not by the OGC but under the direction of the ALC to a third party to do the audit. The OGC, actually, was charged for that audit as well.

N. Simons: The audit on the Fraser–Fort George delegation agreement began quite some time ago. I'm wondering when that might be completed.

Hon. P. Pimm: What's been happening…. The data that's been collecting right now…. This agreement goes back all the way to 2001, so they're gathering all that data through that period of time. It's been taking a bit of time. This was identified in the report from the Auditor General as something that had to be done, as you're aware.

They're going to take their information to the regional district this fall, and they will have a sit-down with them, and they'll actually discuss the data. That could work into any changes that could accrue through the collection of the data.

The other thing I will say is that they've been monitoring all along. Rather than a full audit, they had been monitoring the decisions, so they felt like they were staying on top of it that way, through the report for the Auditor General. That's why they've gone into the actual audit. Then they'll discuss the findings with that regional district in the fall.

[1725]

N. Simons: For my edification, is the data collection part of the audit? Is it pre-audit, or is it separate from the audit? I'm just trying to determine what process is actually taking place. It seems to me like there's one thing — data collection — and the other thing is an actual audit. A little bit of clarification would be helpful.

Hon. P. Pimm: The data collection is part of the audit process. That was started about a year ago. The data collection — it has been collected. They've compiled the information. They're now putting that information into a report. They'll take that report out to the regional district this fall, and they'll talk about the report. They'll talk about recommendations that could make the agreement better-fitting for both parties. That will be part of the discussions this fall.

N. Simons: My understanding is that that audit has now taken over three years. Am I maybe wrong in that?

Hon. P. Pimm: Basically, the Auditor General's report was, I think, about September of 2010. This started after that at some point. We don't know the exact time. We can certainly get that exact chronology for you, if you would like that. We'll offer that up for you if that's what you'd like.

N. Simons: Sure.

Hon. P. Pimm: It has been sometime — over a year, for sure — but I can't give you an honest answer to that question.

[1730]

N. Simons: I'm sure the minister meant he couldn't give a definite answer.

Hon. P. Pimm: A full answer.

N. Simons: A full answer.

I wonder if, perhaps, the audit process is hindered by the lack of financial resources. Perhaps it could be addressed by some user fees. However, I'm going to move on to a slightly different subject.

Recently the Agricultural Land Commission has put forward a bulletin on the proposed medical marijuana growing on agricultural land. I'm just wondering: has the commission been approached by any municipalities or regional districts about the use of agricultural land for the purposes of medical marijuana?

Hon. P. Pimm: In answer to your question, yes, there
[ Page 613 ]
have been some municipalities and regional districts that have asked the question of the ALC. As you know, this is a federally regulated area. At this point in time the province doesn't have any real policies or anything in place, so it's a premature discussion. It's quite new, obviously, and we don't have anything in place at this point in time.

N. Simons: Yes, I hadn't finished my questions on the delegation agreements, but for some reason that was the next page on my desk.

My question is about the township of Langley. Has Langley entered into any discussions around delegation agreement?

[1735]

Hon. P. Pimm: There were some discussions in the past with the township of Langley and the ALC. Those discussions were many years ago. At this point in time there are no active discussions, and there's no agreement.

N. Simons: My understanding was that there hadn't been any last year — that there hadn't been any discussions at Langley. But that's okay.

Hon. P. Pimm: Many years ago.

N. Simons: Oh, many years ago. Okay.

Have there been any discussions about new delegation agreements with any other municipalities?

Hon. P. Pimm: There have been some discussions with one of the regional districts. It's the Peace River regional district. I've had some discussions along the lines of a delegation agreement.

The ALC chair and staff went up to the regional district. They talked about what a delegation agreement might look like. They left it in the hands of the regional district. That was last fall. The regional district has not pursued it since that point in time.

N. Simons: Was the minister involved in those discussions with the regional district?

Hon. P. Pimm: I think the question was: "Was the minister involved in those discussions?" The answer to that is no. I wasn't the minister at the time.

However, as the MLA for the region, I was involved in those discussions. I was involved, myself, with the MLA for Peace River South at the time, Mr. Lekstrom. We were both involved.

We talked with some local area stakeholders. We brought them together and had a discussion about some opportunities that they thought might make for a possibility for a delegation agreement that would work within the Peace River regional district.

We came up with some suggestions. We put them into a letter and sent them off to the ALC or to the minister. I'm not sure — to the ALC, I think. No, we sent them off to the regional district, and they pursued the avenue.

I'd have to double-check that to be absolutely accurate, but I believe the letter went to the chair of the regional district — to the regional district — and then they pursued it from that point. From that point on I have not been involved in any of those discussions.

N. Simons: If a discussion like that with the regional district were to move forward, would the minister have to recuse himself? Would the minister have a role at all to play? What would be the appropriate action should that delegation agreement discussion continue?

[1740]

Hon. P. Pimm: If in fact the Peace River regional district decided to pursue an avenue for a delegation agreement, that would be an agreement between the ALC and the Peace River regional district. The minister wouldn't have any part in those discussions, so there'd be no need for anything at all. It would be an agreement between the ALC and the regional district.

N. Simons: Just to sort of wrap up the discussion around the ALC. And I really appreciate the patience of all those folks who are helping out here. The goal of processing applications by the ALC is, obviously, one that takes up a lot of their time — you know, 40,000 applications since the ALC was established.

I'm just wondering: if the commission is going to be going from 80 percent of their workload being taken up by applications down to 30 percent of their caseload, how is the ALC going to prioritize those applications? It's not going to be just first in line anymore, apparently, so what are the priorities that the commission is going to establish to determine the priorities of those applications?

[1745]

Hon. P. Pimm: A few things. Number one, the 30 percent number that you talk about…. I think you said 30 percent, and that's right. That number, rather than 30 percent of $2 million, is actually 30 percent of $3.4 million. So there's going to be an additional amount of resources to be utilized there. That's one point.

The second point is that they're going to be doing more work with municipalities. That's where the focus is changing. They're going to work with municipalities and they're going to work with regional districts to, hopefully, streamline some of that application process. Obviously, that's going to take awhile for that to work into the system, but they're hoping to make some of that stuff happen in the future.

The third thing: they're right in the process of figuring out how to prioritize. Right now what it'll be is farm applications will be the highest priority. For example, if
[ Page 614 ]
there's an application for somebody that wants to talk about homesite severance or something to that effect, that would be of the highest priority for the ALC.

N. Simons: I appreciate that answer, and it concludes my questions about the Agricultural Land Commission. I think it's laudable that they are attempting to be proactive and to sort of stem some of the applications by being proactive with regional government. I wish them luck. I hope that…. It's one of those vaunted institutions in this province that's seen as progressive and one that we all, as British Columbians, really appreciate.

I thank the minister for the answers on that and thank Mr. Underhill for being here from the commission. We'll move on to another area, assuming that my colleagues don't have any further questions about the Agricultural Land Commission.

My next line of questions is around the local purchasing initiatives by this government. Could the minister outline what the foundations of that program are, if it is indeed a program?

Hon. P. Pimm: The local purchasing program is…. I guess we don't really have a local purchasing program, per se. You might have to be a little more specific for me on that. But one thing we're committed to is promoting local food within the province. We've been working with the diverse industries, working with their sector to create the Buy Local program. That's actively underway at this point in time.

[1750]

The Buy Local program has leveraged about $5.1 million. About $1.5 million of government money into that program has leveraged a $5.1 million investment in total through that Buy Local program. So that's certainly an area that we want to focus on and continue to grow.

N. Simons: When the minister says that he wants to focus on that and grow that, what are some of the plans that the ministry has to encourage local purchasing?

Hon. P. Pimm: First off, the Buy Local program has only been, basically, one year under our belts. It's been a good program. We're actually analyzing it right now. It's been successful. There's been lots of uptick from it. We're going to talk with industry. We're going to see where we can improve the program.

It's certainly had a great effect for farmers markets, for example. They've utilized that program. It's certainly helped out in all regions around the province. It's one that we're going to continue to work on — and work on the partnerships that go with it as well. We think it's something that's going to be successful and good to use for all areas of the province moving forward.

N. Simons: The B.C. Agriculture Council has referred to the government's plan as piecemeal. Perhaps the minister remembers the Buy B.C. program and the influence that that had on local purchasing, on British Columbians identifying products that are locally grown.

I'm wondering if this minister, whether it's specifically outlined in his mandate letter or not, will make sure that our programs for local purchasing will be high on his priority list.

[1755]

Hon. P. Pimm: A couple of things. First off, you make reference to the B.C. Ag Council. Basically, they are on the committee that looks after some of this stuff. In fact, they've just launched a big program that utilized about half a million dollars' worth of these funds into their advertising that's going out. I think you're going to see it coming up. It's going to be very good. They're working with the dairy industry and a few of their folks there. They're launching things.

Certainly, we're going to learn some things from the first rollout of the Buy Local program. It's a program that's industry-led. Industry is telling us where they want to go with the program, and we're going to follow some of their advice and move forward with the program. I think it is a good program. I think it has great potential. I know all the farmers markets that I've talked to already are getting their grants to do some advertising. They're enjoying that opportunity in a big way, and they're starting to see returns already as well.

J. Darcy: I just thought I would take the opportunity to ask a question as the Health critic. The question is about what kind of collaboration there is between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health around the issue of procurement of food produced locally — in health care, for instance, in hospitals, in residential care facilities.

I certainly find in my discussions with people who work on the front lines — let's say, in the dietary departments, nutritionists — huge interest in procurement of food locally in order to ensure the most nutritious food possible, but also because it's good economically, it's good environmentally, and it's good in terms of improving health outcomes. But they find resistance elsewhere that says: "Our mandate is health. Somebody else's mandate is environment. Somebody else's mandate is growing the local economy in terms of agriculture."

So I wonder if there are any plans of collaboration between the two ministries in order to ensure that we could move forward on this front — which only makes sense, from the perspective of growing our agricultural economies.

[1800]

Hon. P. Pimm: To the member: we certainly agree with some of the points that you're making. There are dis-
[ Page 615 ]
cussions between our ministry staff and the different regions — the health authorities and their staff. Obviously, there are some things that make things a little bit difficult. There are free trade agreements that come into play. There are some long-term contracts that come into play.

We certainly think that's a good avenue to utilize, and wherever we can, we're asking them to engage in those discussions. If we can use local products in our health authorities and, in fact, other authorities around the province as well, I think that's good utilization. It's a discussion that we're certainly willing to have and promote where we can. We're interested in those discussions.

L. Popham: I do have some questions, but I just want to make a comment on the minister's response. The trade agreements are not really an issue. If you look around in other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, that's not coming into play, especially when you're doing procurement for the hospital industry. I think that if there was an appetite for the ministry to be doing that, you would be making headway right now, because this is the time. The window is open. I hope that that's the direction the minister will be taking.

It's also a window that will close if we don't take advantage of what's going on right now and the interest of the public. When you talk about hospital food, there is a huge appetite to make sure that it is more fresh, more healthy. People understand the idea. If there's a 1 or 2 percent increase in the cost of purchasing that food, people understand that that's a good investment in British Columbia and a good investment in patients in B.C.

But my questions are around farm assessment and B.C. Assessment. I just came from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, which handles the B.C. Assessment situation. Every year I make my annual trip through the Ministry of Agriculture, that ministry and the Ministry of Finance, to talk about what qualifies as a farm product when people are trying to apply for farm tax status for their properties.

Every year I try and make the case, and every year the Minister of Agriculture agrees with me, that when looking at what should qualify for farm income, value-added products are at the top of the list. That's coming from the agriculture community.

That means if you are at your farm, you're picking blueberries, you make a pie, then that whole product would go toward your farm income. Really, what we're trying to do with the Ministry of Agriculture, I would hope, is encourage farming and to make sure that farmers are getting paid a fair value for their products. I think right now only the blueberries qualify, because they're grown on farm. But really, if we're trying to encourage production and value-added on farms, I think that that's something that should be looked at.

There are another couple things that I think we should seriously consider, and they are wild-gathered products. I feel like a broken record when I say that, but right now blackberries, for example, and mushrooms don't qualify. A lot of farms are very large, and they have a lot of natural areas, including natural forests where wild mushrooms grow. Farmers can collect those mushrooms and sell them at farm gate, but it doesn't qualify for farm income.

The other thing is that blackberries don't qualify because they're not grown in cultivated rows. For me, that doesn't make sense. Every farm that I know has a patch of blackberries, and consumers want those blackberries. Just because they're not cultivated doesn't mean that they don't take time for that farmer to pick. In fact, they probably have a lot of scars from doing so.

[1805]

I think that wild-gathered products should qualify if they're on that piece of property. I understand that there could be some confusion if people are harvesting things off of their farmsite and trying to sell them with wild-gathered products, but I think that we almost have to go down the route of trusting the farmer — that they're not going to be lying to B.C. Assessment. It's a huge opportunity, and really, it's a source of food that we should be taking advantage of.

The other interesting part of what's changed with B.C. Assessment is what does qualify for farm income. There are some new products that got added this year: maple and birch tree sap for syrup, breeding products — that would be livestock semen, ova and embryos — and also horse stud services.

I understand that these things might be applicable and qualify for farm income. But when you compare something that wouldn't be included, like, for example, horse manure, cow manure, chicken manure…. You can't sell manure products as part of your farm income, when really, they are a huge asset to other farmers.

To encourage people to have access to those products for sale to other farms, even just small gardens, not only is something that…. For example, on Vancouver Island we have limited supply, because we don't have the livestock industry that we used to have. Encouraging it for sale is a good thing for agriculture.

Also, it's a way of dealing with manure management. If farmers can actually sell the manure that they're trying to manage to go out into the community, to go into community gardens, it's an excellent way to deal with manure management.

Those are the questions that I had, and I'd like to hear the minister's comments.

Hon. P. Pimm: Thanks to the member for bringing up these points. I think they are good points. The wild berries and stuff — I certainly wasn't aware of that sort of thing. Some of the things you're talking about, I wasn't really aware of.

Is that part of a bigger discussion? I think it is. I think we can have that discussion.
[ Page 616 ]

Certainly, I think that we should be promoting the agriculture industry, and I think value-added is a part of that industry as well. I think you have some good points. I have no problem following up with some of those points, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to see if we can improve the industry as a whole.

[1810]

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer. I will take it that the minister will be a champion of those ideas. What I would like to suggest is that the minister and myself meet with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to have that conversation together. In my visits to the ministries individually, I get passed off to the other ministries that might be responsible. So I would say that if the Minister of Agriculture and I team up together, I think we could get this done.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Excellent points, and I really do appreciate the minister's response. I hope that the minister is able to go beyond his mandate letter. Perhaps this is going to be one of those ways. It does promote farming. It does promote the financial viability of farms.

I think that the points made were eloquently expressed by the former critic, who probably has a few other issues that she's tried to bring up with the four previous Agriculture Ministers. I'm pleased to see that we're off to a pretty good start.

Back to the buying, purchasing local programs. I'm just wondering if the minister could identify what specific barriers there are for the purchase, procurement of local food in hospitals and other institutions — perhaps even prisons?

Hon. P. Pimm: There are some challenges. We'll call them challenges. We spoke earlier about the long-term contracts that are in place. That's a challenge, obviously.

There are some free trade barriers. Your former critic says that they aren't there, but I would like to pass on an invitation to yourself and to her to come and talk with staff. We could talk about that and just see what that actually means. I offer you up that offer. We can talk about it. I have no problem with that.

[1815]

Some of the other problems are supply. And some of the pricing — you say it's only 1 or 2 percent, and if it is 1 or 2 percent, then that's something that is very, very reasonable that we could certainly work around. If it's more than that, then of course you're getting into a further discussion.

Certainly, we want to utilize the taxpayer dollars to the best degree that we can as well, so we've got to make sure…. Those are all things that we have to take into consideration and that are part of it.

Do we promote? We do promote, and we are going to continue to promote. We do try to get local producers in touch with health authorities and try and make those linkages, and we're going to continue to do that as well.

Wherever we can we're going to try and work those products forward in the future. It's something that I want to do. I want to push it forward, and where we can, we're going to.

N. Simons: I'm just curious. If some of those restrictions or impediments for local purchasing have to do with the long-term contracts with some of the multinationals and these institutions…. If those are the contracts the minister is referring to — that we're locked into contracts — is that where the free trade issue comes in?

As my colleague mentioned earlier, other jurisdictions seem to be focused on this particular aspect of economic development. I think most studies will indicate that local purchasing…. Even if it is slightly more expensive, the local economies benefit greatly from that. The farmers get some certainty in their market.

I think that if it's in fact the free trade agreements, is it because of the contracts that the provincial government entered into with those particular companies?

Hon. P. Pimm: First off, thanks again for the question. You bring up some good points. There's no doubt about that.

I think what I'll say, and I'll say it again, is that we'll work with yourselves. I don't have a problem with that. We'll look at different areas. If we can make headway in this, then we can promote the agriculture industry. If we can grow the industry, that's ultimately what we all want. I believe that.

There are challenges. If we can get by those challenges, work around those challenges, then we'll do that moving forward. It's something that I'm interested in doing. We're going to be looking at it. We're going to be growing the industry.

We're going to be doing what we can to help the farmers stay farmers in this beautiful province for many, many years, and not only increase the farmers but increase the ones that are coming up behind them, because that, in fact, is a huge problem in this province. Our average farmer out there is 59 years old, so we have to figure out ways of getting them on the farm, keeping them on the farm and moving that forward as well. So those are some areas we're going to work on.

That being said, noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and progress on the Ministry of Agriculture and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 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