2014 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Monday, April 7, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 4

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

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

IAN REID

J. Horgan: I rise with sadness in my heart to announce to the Legislature the passing of my friend and a very well-known colleague of those on this side of the House, Mr. Ian Reid. Ian passed away this past weekend after living for 12 years with cancer. He did so with dignity and with a sense of grace that one only discovers when you're in your final moments.

Ian leaves behind his son, Shamus; his daughter Jordan and other daughter Alexis; his dear spouse, Paul; and the mother of his children, Jane. He leaves a vacuum for me as a friend but also for those of us on this side of the House.

He started in politics working for Darlene Marzari. Those who are from the downtown Vancouver area know Darlene. The only person that could keep pace with her style and panache was Ian. His taste for ties and socks was legendary. He started as a constituency assistant and rose to the position of chief of staff for my colleague the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill — and every job in between. He did it, again, with passion and verve.

[1335]

He understood polling better than anyone. He was a business partner of mine when we were not involved in politics. He was much sought-after by industry, by municipal politicians and by politicians at every level.

But despite his professional acumen in the areas of understanding the art of politics, it was his passion for people and his understanding that what we do here, all of us, regardless of where we come from, is grounded in trying to make the world a better place and to ensure that we have the respect of our peers and our communities.

I think for all of us, regardless of our political stripe, that today we've lost an outstanding individual who always, at the forefront for him, were the people that we serve. I'm going to miss him tremendously. I would ask the Speaker to send the House's condolences to his family at this difficult time.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: Fire, floods, earthquakes and car crashes — we've been informed today that billions of dollars have been visited upon governments adjacent and, inevitably, our turn will come someday. The bearers of these glad tidings are 12 representatives of the insurance industry.

We have Gary Horga of Economical; Daryl Kochan of Peace Hills; Rick Howe of Intact; Graham Haigh of Wawanesa; Mark Rouleau of Aviva; three from the BCAA — Heidi Worthington, Patricia Stirling and Clayton Buckingham; and four from the Insurance Bureau of Canada — William Adams, Serge Corbeil, Michael Lee and Miranda Lee.

Would you please make them all welcome.

M. Karagianis: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce a very special group of people who have joined us in the gallery today. Some of the members are here, and some are making their way here.

I would like the House to please give a special welcome to Chief Vern Jacks and his son Vern Jacks Jr. from the Tseycum First Nations; Chief Andy Thomas from the Esquimalt Nation; Chief Ron Sam from the Songhees Nation; Councillor Charles Seymour of the Cowichan Tribes First Nation; Chief Russ Chipps from Beecher Bay; Yvonne Guessinghouse from Beecher Bay; and Chief Bruce Underwood from the Pauquachin; also Linda Bristol from the First Peoples Cultural Council; and Charla Hewber from the CRD aboriginal initiatives department.

These guests have joined us today in honour of the bill that I will be tabling shortly and as witnesses to that. Please give them a very special welcome for being here.

Hon. T. Lake: I rise today to introduce a group of 25 individuals who are visiting the legislative precinct from B.C. Transplant. The group consists of organ donors, organ donor recipients and B.C. Transplant staff.

Of course, B.C. Transplant does some very important work, and hopefully, members will have a chance to visit them in the Rattenbury Room today. Since 1986 they've helped direct, deliver and contract all organ transplant services across British Columbia. There are three transplant hospitals in B.C. — Vancouver General, St. Paul's and B.C. Children's — along with seven regional clinics across the province. I'd like to thank them for all of the hard work they do and for reminding us of the importance of organ donations. Will the House please make them very welcome.

J. Shin: For every one of us taking a seat in this House are hundreds of faces of people who we don't see — faces of the people in our lives who are the wind beneath our wings. Today I have the honour of having eight such people in my life who thought supporting me from back home wasn't enough, so they decided to make a trip over together to cheer me on in person.

Wonderful Catherine Porter is here with her partner, Glen Porter, who is also the president also of my association; go-getter Christina Batstone from Simon Fraser University Graduate Student Society; and the spirited
[ Page 2850 ]
Marshilla Zainal from Douglas College Students Union. My very good friend Allan Warner is here, who is also celebrating his well-deserved retirement with the trip. My two great constituents Henry Mwandemere and Graham Hallson are also joining us and, of course, the talented Ms. Hae Eun Jang from the Immigrant Services Society of B.C.

Would the House please join me in welcoming my dear friends here today.

Hon. R. Coleman: In August of 1974, I did probably the only smart thing I've done in my entire life. I got married to my wife, Michele, who is in the precinct today. Would everybody make her welcome.

[1340]

K. Conroy: On behalf of the official opposition I, too, would like to welcome the folks from B.C. Transplant. They're wandering around with T-shirts that have symbols of organs on them. I'm asking people to please go and talk to those people about the organs. They've either received one or donated one, and they want to talk about their experience. On behalf of all of us I want to thank you all for what you do and welcome you to the precinct.

Hon. A. Virk: Today I'm being visited by a past colleague from the RCMP in Calgary. With us is Staff Sgt. David Brown, in year 28 of service to Canadians. With him is his wife, Charlene, and their five home-schooled children — they're learning about government today — Mackenzie, Samuel, Brianna, Nathanael and, littlest, Olivia, who turned four yesterday. Would you please join me in welcoming the Brown clan to the House.

B. Routley: I definitely want to join in introducing to this House a fellow that I've known as Chuck Seymour. He's grown into the position of councillor. I knew him back in 2009 when I first started in this election business, and I actually travelled around a bit with Chuck and his wife, Hannah. He's now one of the outstanding councillors of Cowichan Tribes. I'm happy to see him here today. Can the House please join me in welcoming Councillor Charles Seymour.

Hon. T. Wat: Joining us in the gallery today is the vice-governor of the people's government of Sichuan province, China, Mr. Liu Jie. Mr. Liu is visiting Victoria with a delegation of seven people from his government. I met with them earlier today to discuss the investment relationship between British Columbia and Sichuan province and to further strengthen our relationship. Would the House please join me in extending a warm welcome to Vice-Governor Liu Jie and his delegation.

D. Routley: I would like to welcome a farmer to the House, a farmer from Duncan, Dan Ferguson. Dan has been a long-time essential part of the lobbying efforts of local farmers to affect policy and to affect the choices that people make in their own diets. Dan does a lot of sales to local restaurants. He's constantly at work on his farm, except when he's doing advocacy for farmers in general. This is a tough time of year for farmers to leave their farms — every time of the year is, but particularly now. Thanks, Dan, for coming to help advocate for farmers.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have the pleasure of introducing two guests from North Vancouver today, two guests and friends. Clive Camm is with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, and communications is part of his job. He's a regular viewer of question period. He's also a fantastic photographer. His son Connor joins him. He is in grade 12 at Carson Graham in North Vancouver. Yesterday they toured the University of Victoria, and today they're learning firsthand what goes on in the House. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Horgan: I just want to rise to make a correction in geography. I know my colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan said Duncan for the understanding of those in the House, but I know Dan would want me to say that he's from Cowichan Station in the Cowichan Valley.

J. Thornthwaite: In the gallery today is Naima Salemohamed. I first met Naima at the B.C. Privacy Awareness Day, where she was a youth representative speaking on youth and privacy. She's a UVic student and will be graduating with a bachelor of science in health information science. Would the House please make her welcome.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to join in welcoming Dan but also a couple other farmers: Erin Harris, a dairy farmer from the Kootenay area, as well as Oliver Egan, a vegetable and fruit producer. They're here, too, with Linda Geggie from the B.C. Food Systems Network. I just want to make sure that everyone in this House welcomes them on our behalf.

[1345]

Tributes

GEORGE LITTLE

D. Ashton: I would ask this House and all members in the House to recognize the loss of an incredible community spirit. George Little of Penticton passed away this weekend after a very brief illness. He is survived by his lovely wife, Mavis; two beautiful daughters, Tamara and Debbie; son-in-law Tom; and the light of his life, his grandson, Josh.

George had a very deep attachment to his community and to the province of British Columbia. His dedication,
[ Page 2851 ]
volunteerism and engagement for good governance will be truly and sorely missed.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: More and more lately it seems I'm getting up to introduce people all the way from my constituency in this House. I look up this afternoon and I see Erin Harris, who was just introduced as a farmer from the Kootenays. But she's not from just anywhere in the Kootenays. She's from Lister, which is a beautiful community in the Creston Valley.

Her family is producing some of the most amazing dairy products. They have a milk bottling plant as well as a cheese factory. Madame Speaker, just so you know what I'm talking about when I say it truly is the best, I will be happy to bring you some next week.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M208 — FIRST NATIONS
HERITAGE PROTECTION AND
CONSERVATION ACT, 2014

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2014.

M. Karagianis: I move that a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2014, be introduced for a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Karagianis: I'm honoured to introduce the First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act. As you may know, this is the fourth time I've introduced this private member's bill, and once again, I hope and urge the government to listen and act.

It was first introduced in October 2007, after excavation by a contractor unearthed a First Nations heritage site along the shoreline of my constituency of View Royal. I was deeply troubled to discover a lack of provincial legislation to safeguard First Nations heritage objects and sacred sites.

This bill will better protect First Nations heritage objects and sacred sites. The bill amends the Heritage Conservation Act to include a process by which First Nations can trigger protection acts when heritage and sacred sites and objects or remains are discovered. I believe that this bill amends the heritage act to better provide a set of guidelines and tools that First Nations, local government and the province need in order to implement protection, stewardship and conservation of First Nations heritage and culturally significant areas, their artifacts, their sacred history — as well, to provide for the creation of a program to accomplish that goal.

I would therefore ask that all members please read the bill and support it. I would move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION DAY

G. Hogg: Today is Child Abuse Prevention Day in B.C. Each one of us, indeed everyone in B.C., has both a legal and moral responsibility and role to play in protecting our children and supporting vulnerable families in our communities. We must be alert. We must avoid wilful blindness, and we must be aware of the signs of abuse and know what to do and who to call in order to help a child at risk of harm. Everyone can help to prevent child abuse and neglect.

In B.C. we have a toll-free 24-hour helpline for children: 310-1234. That is 310-1234. It can be accessed from anywhere in B.C., and no area code is needed — just 310-1234. Anyone can call: children or youth who need help, parents in crisis who are afraid they may hurt their children, or anyone who knows or even suspects a child is being neglected or abused.

By working together and by sharing information on how to recognize, prevent and report signs of child abuse, we can help protect our children. We can all help to give them an opportunity to achieve healthy, productive lives.

While today we formally recognize Child Abuse Prevention Day, we must be aware of the issues 365 days of the year. Each of us has an important role to play in making our communities and our province a safe and better place for all.

[1350]

ORGAN DONATION
AND TRANSPLANTATION

K. Conroy: B.C. Transplant has been dealing with all issues related to organ transplantation in B.C. since 1986.

It has been proven that not only are transplants providing a better quality of life for recipients, they are also extremely cost-effective. The cost for a person who is on kidney dialysis for ten years is about $600,000. The cost over the same ten years for a person who has received a kidney transplant is about $83,000, with a savings of $517,000, so a kidney transplant over a ten-year period saves the health care system over half a million dollars
[ Page 2852 ]
per patient.

To date there are close to 500 people in B.C. waiting for transplants. Why is there such a shortage of eligible donors? Eighty-five percent of British Columbians surveyed said they were in favour of organ donation, but to date only 19 percent have registered to be organ donors. Some factors contributing to this include: donors don't discuss their wishes with their families, many people don't understand that their organ donation will save or improve the lives of eight others, or people still think the driver's licence sticker is applicable. It's not.

I'm asking everyone to please become an organ donor, if you aren't already. Make sure you discuss organ donation with your family. Let your family know your wishes. And the registration is so simple. In fact, all you have to do is to go on line to transplant.bc.ca and click "register now." Type in your personal health number — something we all have on our CareCards — and it will tell you if you're already a donor or not.

I typed in my CareCard, and it told me I am a donor, and I registered on the 13th of January, 1998, at 9:43 a.m. My husband, who is well acquainted with being a recipient, has never considered he could be a donor, but he can. In just a few minutes he registered himself on line, which is amazing, as he's actually quite a Luddite.

Today, for everyone who works here in the buildings, you can stop into the Rattenbury Room. Not only will you get information on organ donation; you can get registered too. As well, you can sign up for quarterly updates to know how many people in your constituency are registered and how many are waiting for a transplant.

Please register. It's an incredibly simple process that takes very little time but can have such a powerful impact on people's lives.

G. Kyllo: Today we're reminded about the importance of organ donation in our province. Hundreds of British Columbians are current on the wait-list for organ transplant. Sadly, many patients die on the wait-list having never received a life-saving organ match.

B.C. Transplant is here today at the Legislature to raise awareness of the importance of registered organ donors. Despite the majority of British Columbians supporting organ donation, less than 20 percent have registered on B.C.'s organ donor registry, resulting in a chronic shortage of organs for transplant in B.C. Organ transplantation is vital, representing a total transformation of a recipient's quality of life and oftentimes saving lives.

Twenty-five years ago my former high school phys ed teacher and basketball and rugby coach, Tony Beeftink, was informed by his doctor that his heart was weakened by a virus and that he had only had six months to live. Tony was just 37 years old at the time, with a loving wife, Alana, and three beautiful young children.

Fortunately, on Christmas Day Tony received a call from his hospital, and on Boxing Day in 1988 Tony was B.C.'s second successful recipient of a donated heart, saving the life of a husband, a father and a brilliant and dedicated teacher and coach. After recovery, Tony was able to resume his teaching career in Sicamous and resume his passion for running marathons. Tony has always said that if you could be a recipient, you can be a donor.

B.C. Transplant supports the needs for patients and families of donors and transplant recipients and reminds us of the need for organ donation in this province. Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week occurs the last week of April. By registering to give the gift of life, we can contribute to healthier, longer lives for many remarkable individuals like Tony.

It only takes a minute to register as an organ donor on the B.C. Transplant website. This one minute can save a life. B.C. Transplant is set up in the Rattenbury Room today until 4 p.m., where you can sign up on the spot to become a donor. All you need is your CareCard.

I'd like to ask members on sides of the House to spread the word about the importance of registering for organ donation. Organ donors do save lives.

VOLUNTEERISM

C. Trevena: Our communities would be smaller places without volunteers, people who willingly give their free time to help out. Campbell River is blessed many volunteers, so many that the coordinating volunteer centre is moving from its basement office in the city hall to a more spacious location across the way in the Enterprise Centre.

[1355]

The range of volunteer activities are extraordinary — the people who take tickets at the Tidemark Theatre, the soccer and hockey coaches, those who help in soup kitchens and food banks to ensure that those who can't afford to eat in B.C. in 2014 actually have something to eat.

There is Monique Games, in her 80s, who is involved with ElderCollege. She's also been coming to my constituency office week after week for nearly nine years to go through the newspapers. There's Mary Lazarski, who, with the fabulous team at the hospital auxiliary, runs the gift shop and raises money for the hospital equipment that public funds won't cover.

There's Alyson Hagan-Johnson, who has been involved with North Island Community Services for many years. She participates in the provincial organization Board Voice and works on the Mount Waddington Health Network, which are trying, with volunteers, to improve some of the worst health outcomes in the province.

Naming people is a dangerous thing, as each one of these people would acknowledge how many others go to make their communities work — the volunteer firefighters who are there to help their neighbours at critical times in Oyster River, Quadra and Cortes islands, Gold River, Tahsis, Zeballos, Woss, Sayward, the Tri-Ports, Sointula and Alert Bay; the volunteers who ensure that May Day,
[ Page 2853 ]
Filomi Days, Orca Fest and Labour Day and Canada Day are times to celebrate; the unwitting volunteers, the parents who find they need to become fundraisers when their children go to school so that they can have books because there's no public money; the volunteers who step in at hospice — again, an unfunded service in our communities — because they know that people need to die with dignity.

Let us celebrate all the people who keep our communities going — unpaid, working hard, filling gaps and meeting needs. Let's all recognize the spirit of volunteerism.

MISSION ADOPT-A-BLOCK SOCIETY

M. Dalton: I rise in the House today to acknowledge the 20th anniversary of Mission Adopt-A-Block Society, a non-profit organization that supports litter abatement programs in the district of Mission. The society organizes and supports volunteer cleanups of adopted areas along streets, parks, trails and creeks. It gives families, schools and community groups the opportunity to cultivate social responsibility and to participate in projects that make a difference in our community. By increasing public awareness and community involvement, we can all enjoy a cleaner Mission.

Currently the society has over 230 volunteers from 150 different households. Together they have one trail adoption, three creek adoptions, 168 block adoptions and four park adoptions. Combined with special events cleanups, community volunteers collect or remove an average of almost 27,000 pounds of litter each year. That's over 13 tonnes of litter and junk.

I had the honour of attending the third annual St. Patrick's Day community cleanup on March 16. Together, in a few hours volunteers removed 837 pounds of litter from downtown Mission.

Thanks go to Mission Adopt-A-Block Society executive director Kristin Parsons; the entire board of directors, including chair Cindy Kelly and vice-chair Doyle Clifton; downtown businesses; and importantly, all the many community volunteers of the Adopt-A-Block program.

Thanks to all of them for being a great example of community pride by cleaning up litter on our public walkways, curbs, green spaces, parks and trails. They are a benefit to all of the citizens of Mission by making our community a cleaner and healthier place to live.

NANAIMO RECYCLING EXCHANGE

D. Routley: I am rising to speak of a lovely institution in Nanaimo called the Nanaimo Recycling Exchange. A timely idea in 1990, businessman and activist Jim Sloan approached his friend Bob Boxwell, a longtime conservationist and former Nanaimo city administrator, about creating a new recycling depot. There were many voids in recycling programs of the day, and this new enterprise would fill many over its time.

An ideal location was secured, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee provided initial financial support, and in September 1990, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee Recycling Depot opened for business.

Soon the city of Nanaimo committed core funding of $10,000 per month. A year later it became known as the Hub City Recycling Society, and finally, the name has been changed to Nanaimo Recycling Exchange Society, now simply referred to affectionately as the NRE.

We live in a consumer society that creates incredible amounts of waste through unnecessary packaging and so many other sources. More gold today is accumulated through recycling and reuse than all mining on earth. So the recycling industry itself is an essential service to all of our communities.

[1400]

The NRE operates a community market where the thrift store sells goods that are recovered from the trash flow. Work experience is given to clients of the ministry of Housing and Social Development. They accumulate, along with the city, lost and stolen bikes that are kept for a couple of weeks, at which point they're sold back into the community. They have extensive education programs, helping children in schools develop programs of their own. They do workshops on zero-waste composting, climate change and water quality protection for local community groups.

The NRE is an essential community-based service with its finger on the pulse, and we need to support it.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF MILL
EXPLOSION INVESTIGATIONS
AND COMMUNICATIONS

A. Dix: On January 10, 2014, victims and families of the Babine Forest Products fire and explosion were in a meeting with Crown counsel at the Heritage Hall in Burns Lake. The purpose of the meeting was for Crown counsel to explain why no charges would be laid against the mill's owner for a tragedy that killed two workers and injured 19 others.

Unbeknownst to the families, officials from WorkSafe were upstairs in the hall, listening in to the conversation. They would later come downstairs after the meeting with the Crown was over and give an alternate view, a contradictory view, to the families on that day, essentially blaming the Crown.

My question is either to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice, because one set of these officials reports to one and one set reports to the other. Can either of them explain why the families and workers were treated so shabbily on that day?
[ Page 2854 ]

Hon. S. Bond: What took place on that day was an effort, certainly, to inform families about what had occurred in terms of the decision of Crown counsel not to pursue charges. I'm not aware of the specific details of who was in what room and who said what specifically.

I can assure the member opposite that from the moment that the decision not to pursue charges was made, the Premier took specific actions to follow up, to involve the senior public servant, a highly regarded public servant, to follow up, set the fact pattern and ensure that there were recommendations that would ensure that changes would take place, not only at WorkSafe but also with the relationship with Crown. That work is underway, and we expect all of those recommendations to be implemented.

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

A. Dix: The minister surely can't be unaware of what happened on that day, because WorkSafe produced a press release saying precisely what they did, which contradicted what the Crown had done in its press release. The families had to deal with this circumstance in Burns Lake. They had to deal with the government agencies, one reporting to that minister and one reporting to that minister. They had to deal with them saying contradictory things on that day. Surely, I think, that's completely unacceptable, and it shows the preference of the government for spin over substance in this matter.

Now there's going to be a decision made in the coming days about Lakeland. Can the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice give us the assurance that we will not see a repetition of this shabby treatment for Lakeland workers?

Hon. S. Bond: It is very difficult in the House when the Leader of the Opposition stands up day after day after day and makes commentary and makes comments about the fact that people either in this House, people involved in the investigations or the people who responded to the investigations don't care about families in this circumstance.

He is absolutely wrong. There isn't a person, no matter what the outcomes were — not a single person — that doesn't feel absolutely horrific about what happened to those families in those communities and in those circumstances.

[1405]

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the most productive thing we can do at this point in time is work tirelessly looking at every single initiative we can think of, working constructively with forestry companies in British Columbia, working with WorkSafe and working with Crown, to make sure the most important legacy we leave is that this does not happen again in British Columbia.

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

A. Dix: Well, what matters is not how we feel but how we act. What's required here — in a case where there are significant fundamental questions left unanswered, where families have been betrayed by their government in their quest for justice — is a full public inquiry into this explosion and fire. That is what's required here.

The minister may think that it's just one of those things that officials of their government were sent to Burns Lake to spin two different sets of facts to the families who are suffering the shock of finding out that no charges would be laid. But what I want, and I think what people at Lakeland want and what people in Prince George and Burns Lake want is an assurance from the minister that this kind of behaviour won't be repeated this month.

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite is suggesting for one moment that ministers of the Crown intervene and give direction to independent authorities in British Columbia…. That is not what happened, that is not what should happen, and any commentary of that nature is completely inappropriate.

What we did was act. From the moment that the explosions took place, phase 1 of the investigations took place. The RCMP investigated. WorkSafe investigated. There has been a three-phase inspection process. In fact, today the fourth phase of inspection starts. We are going to continue to work tirelessly to ensure that the legacy we leave for this horrific tragedy is one that shows that we did take action.

In addition to that, there is a coroner's inquest, and that inquest, in the words of the coroner herself, assures us that that is the appropriate mechanism for ensuring that all of the details will be discussed and made public.

I can assure the member opposite that every single person in this House…. Well, the member opposite can roll his eyes all he wishes and question the integrity of people who are doing their best to ensure that families have some legacy, making sure that employees in British Columbia can go to their mill and feel safe. That's why we're working aggressively, and that's why we'll continue to look for every opportunity to find ways to ensure that mills are safer in our province.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS TO
FORMER LOTTERY CORPORATION CEO

S. Simpson: Michael Graydon submitted his resignation as the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation and one week after leaving government went to work for a Paragon subsidiary to head up the new proposed casino in Vancouver.
[ Page 2855 ]

The Finance Minister will know that government and Crown corporation employees don't usually receive severance when they resign their positions. For example, Dana Hayden received no severance when she recently resigned as the CEO of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. However, Mr. Graydon walked away with almost $86,000 in severance and bonuses. We know from documents the opposition has received that the Finance Minister signed off on this deal.

Can the minister explain why Mr. Graydon received such a deal from the government after he quit to go to work for the proposed Vancouver casino?

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. He will know from our previously having canvassed this issue in the chamber and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Graydon's departure that there are guidelines in place, guidelines that relate both to an individual's entitlements at the time of departure and guidelines regarding the nature of the behaviour and the ongoing fiduciary responsibility that continues between the individual and, in this case, his former employer.

I am advised that Mr. Graydon has complied. I am advised that those guidelines were abided by in all instances. With respect to the specific question about the amount involved, I'm happy to reconfirm that and report back to the member.

S. Simpson: We know, and as the Minister of Transportation told me in estimates the other day when speaking of Ms. Hayden, that the policy of the government is if you resign your position, you don't get severance, and that was the situation with Ms. Hayden.

A February 6 e-mail from the vice-president of human resources at the Lottery Corporation to the Public Sector Employers Council states: "Attached is a copy of the release, which outlines the conditions of his departure as you requested. This was agreed between our chair and the minister, and I understand he has a copy."

This gave Mr. Graydon two months of salary, about $50,000, and a bonus of more than $35,000 — all of this when the minister knew full well that Mr. Graydon would be starting his new job a week later. It's shocking enough that Mr. Graydon has essentially no cooling-off period before going to work for this company that he was intimately involved with as the president of the Lottery Corporation, but you have given him $86,000 to boot.

Again, why did the minister sign off on this sweetheart deal for Mr. Graydon?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member should be cautious about presuming what I may have known or not known about Mr. Graydon's future intentions. What we certainly were aware of was that the former president of the Lottery Corporation, Mr. Graydon, indicated his intention to leave, reported that to the board of the Lottery Corporation, the board chair.

The details of his departure were finalized. They included a financial component which, I have indicated to the member, I'm happy to obtain further information on, on behalf of the member and report back to him. There were details relating to his departure and his ongoing responsibility pursuant to the fiduciary responsibility he owed to the corporation itself.

If the member has an allegation he wishes to make that guidelines weren't complied with and that somehow proper processes weren't followed, then he should make it. But right now, the information I have and have conveyed to the House is that proper guidelines were followed.

K. Corrigan: The minister just made the statement that we shouldn't make assumptions about what the minister knew, but we have a copy of an e-mail to Tom Vincent of PSEC which says: "Tom, attached is a copy of the release which outlines the conditions of his departure as you requested. This was agreed between our chair and the minister, and I understand he has a copy." So the minister should know about this.

This sweetheart severance deal for Mr. Graydon after he quit gets even more outrageous. Even though he didn't complete the full year's worth of work, the Finance Minister agreed to give him 100 percent of his holdback bonus, and it doesn't end there. The almost $36,000 bonus was 75 percent more than the bonus Mr. Graydon received the previous year.

[1415]

British Columbians are on the hook for an $86,000 severance package for Mr. Graydon, who quit and immediately started working for a private gaming and resort corporation that owns and is planning on redeveloping the Edgewater Casino, a corporation that is directly going to have to be working with B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Again to the Minister of Finance, who agreed to this deal: why are British Columbians, many of whom are struggling to meet their monthly payments, paying so much for Mr. Graydon after he quit?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member and the members opposite may know that we have paid particular attention over the past number of years to developing and refining an executive compensation regime.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, what I detect is a reaction of satisfaction that we've actually managed to reduce executive compensation.

Parenthetically, Madame Speaker, I thought I should announce to members, so they don't read about it in the media, that members of the cabinet are actually getting
[ Page 2856 ]
a pay raise this year, speaking of executive compensation. That 10 percent holdback that we haven't got for four years, now that the budget is balanced, ministers are receiving.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order. Members will come to order.

Hon. M. de Jong: There is a strict set of guidelines in place. The departing CEO reported to the chair. An arrangement was arrived at that fit within those guidelines, as required under the guidelines. It was negotiated between Mr. Graydon and the board at the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and the B.C. Lottery Corporation continues to do good work on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby-Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: In a January 30 e-mail sent to the vice-president of human resources, Mr. Graydon outlines the total package he negotiated and the minister agreed to. "Two months' pay, holdback being paid and vacation reserve paid out, which I believe is about 32 days. Also, as requested, my laptop, phone and iPad."

Usually when someone quits, they don't get any severance package whatsoever, let alone $86,000 worth plus a laptop, plus a phone and an iPad. Can the Minister of Finance please explain why he agreed to such an outlandish deal for Mr. Graydon?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I will repeat what I said earlier.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hadn't expected to hear members on that side of the House talk about poverty and protecting people engaged in poverty.

I'll repeat, because apparently the hon. member didn't hear or chose not to hear, that there are guidelines in place that govern this, as well as a contract that guided Mr. Graydon's relationship with the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

[1420]

I am advised that in certain circumstances, though not frequently, when an executive member leaves the employ, a personal electronic device will follow them, although it is wiped clear of any data that is the property of the corporation — in this case, the B.C. Lottery Corporation. That's what took place here, again to conform with the guidelines that are in place.

GRACE ISLET DEVELOPMENT
AND FIRST NATIONS CONCERNS

G. Holman: Grace Islet, off Saltspring Island, has long been documented as a burial island and a sacred site for south Island First Nations. Two years ago the owners of Grace Islet began preparing the site for construction. Despite the fact it was required by law, the owner did this without archaeological and First Nations' monitoring. The Penelakut First Nation lodged a complaint with the archaeology branch and then with the RCMP. Charges were never laid, and First Nations' concerns have not been addressed.

To the minister: will he commit to working with First Nations and ensuring that Grace Islet is protected?

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the member opposite for the question. This situation is one that has had extensive review. It is one that has had the archaeological process and permits reviewed and issued in order to protect the archaeological values of that property. All of that process was undertaken and reviewed, and the development and the process is consistent with the application of the archaeological and the Heritage Conservation Act. The permits and the process that's in place were followed by both the developer and the archaeological branch.

Madame Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

G. Holman: If this was a cemetery, we wouldn't be talking about permits to build a house on it. Grace Islet is a First Nations burial ground. Our current legislation is supposed to protect these sites, but it's clear that political will is needed to make these laws effective. Will the minister halt the development on Grace Islet, work with First Nations communities and with the Saltspring community to resolve this issue?

Hon. S. Thomson: This government is committed to the protection of First Nations heritage resources. That's the provisions under the Heritage Conservation Act, in this case and in many other cases. We have followed the process. The permits were reviewed by the archaeological branch. Permits were issued to allow development to proceed, but they were issued in a way that ensured the protection of the First Nations heritage resources on that site.

ROLE OF B.C. LIBERAL PARTY OFFICIAL
IN ONTARIO GOVERNMENT
BREACH OF TRUST INVESTIGATION

B. Ralston: My question is to the Justice Minister. As B.C.'s top law enforcement officer, will she advise the Premier to ask B.C. Liberal Party executive director Laura Miller to cooperate fully with those police officers investi-
[ Page 2857 ]
gating the Ontario Liberal Party breach of trust scandal?

Hon. S. Anton: This question relates to an Ontario investigation. As the Attorney General of British Columbia, I'm not going to be answering questions about an Ontario investigation. In fact, I'm even dubious that the question has any relevance to this House at all.

This side of the House was elected to balance our budget, grow our economy, create jobs in British Columbia. The other side of the House has so few questions that they wish to draw an Ontario political debate into the chamber of this House to which it has no relevance whatsoever.

[1425]

Madame Speaker: Members, questions are not part of ministerial responsibility, and I would caution you as you go forward.

B. Ralston: In that case, then, I'll defer my question.

PROTECTION OF FARMLAND AND
AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

N. Simons: Two farmers from the Kootenays, Erin Harris, a dairy farmer, and Oliver Egan, who grows vegetables and fruits at his Edible Acres farm, stood on the steps of the Legislature this morning with a clear message: government should keep its hands off the agricultural land reserve. They showed that they can grow much more than just hay, as the minister stated.

My question is to the Minister Responsible for Core Review: will he listen and heed the advice of these Kootenay farmers?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm going to be careful in my response here and maybe seek guidance, to start, because I think the member opposite's question was specifically related to legislation that is before the House, and the member opposite knows that that legislation is before the House. So I seek your guidance in terms of responding specifically, because it was in relation to the Agricultural Land Commission, agricultural land reserve, and changes to that, which are before the House.

Madame Speaker: As members are aware, only a general substance matter can be discussed, not the contents of a bill. I would caution the member.

N. Simons: I appreciate it, Madame Speaker. Maybe that's the answer about the ALC legislation, but affordable agricultural land in British Columbia is critically important to young farmers like Erin and Oliver. If it's opened up for development, it'll become unaffordable. Will the minister responsible listen to farmers and to 85 percent of the population of this province and make sure we protect our agricultural land?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, that's exactly what we're doing with the changes. I have to be careful again, because I've just made the comments about responding directly to legislation, so I'll have to be careful.

What's important to recognize is that there is more land in the ALR today than there was in 1974. Between 2001 and 2007 over 48,000 hectares were added to the ALR. Approximately 8,000 hectares were approved for exclusion. In the 1990s the members opposite removed over 20,000 hectares from the ALR.

B.C. AMBULANCE SERVICE
CHANGES TO CALL CLASSIFICATIONS

J. Darcy: Last fall the B.C. Ambulance Service instituted major changes to the way it responds to 911 calls. Under this new plan, 30 percent of calls that were previously classified as code 3, emergency dispatch, and responded to by ambulance paramedics with lights and sirens were downgraded to "routine" dispatch. These downloaded calls include convulsions, second-trimester hemorrhage and electrocution by lightning.

These sweeping changes were made without consulting with paramedics, with firefighters or municipal leaders, all of whom have expressed grave concern that this reduction in emergency services is putting patients' safety at risk. Will the Minister of Health tell the directors of the B.C. Ambulance Service to put this plan on hold and carry out the kind of consultation that should have been carried out before this plan was put into place, not after?

[1430]

Hon. T. Lake: No, I will not do that, because what this is doing is making sure the right resources are available to the right patient at the right time. That is what this is about.

These changes have resulted in B.C. Ambulance Service responding faster to those urgent cases where people's lives are at risk. This is the right thing to do, for a number of different reasons, providing the best level of service to B.C. patients and also to protect the public and also the paramedics.

A newspaper story on the very same day talked about the resource allocation plan and the concern about the reclassification of calls. A second story on the same page of that newspaper talked about a $1 million award because a lady had been T-boned by a police cruiser running through an intersection, with lights and sirens.

This is about the right resources to the right person at the right time. We will continue to provide that excellent level of service to the people of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]
[ Page 2858 ]

Petitions

N. Simons: I have a petition from close to 100 farmers asking that the agricultural land reserve be respected and the commission be strengthened.

Michelle Stilwell: I request leave of the House.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Michelle Stilwell: I'd like to introduce a new constituent of mine, Candace Wu. She has recently moved to Parksville-Qualicum as a reporter for the Parksville-Qualicum News. I would ask that the House make her feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, the Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development with responsibility for Housing. In this chamber second reading of Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING ACT

Hon. C. Oakes: I'm pleased to move that the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act be read for the second time now. The legislation modernizes campaign finance rules for local government elections. The great work of…. People who diligently work in local governments throughout British Columbia know that the rules governing local elections need to be renewed, and our government agrees. The system needs modernization.

[1435]

That is why we worked together with the local governments through the joint B.C.–Union of British Columbia Municipalities Local Government Elections Task Force to come up with these recommendations needed to make changes people want and people need. I want to thank everyone associated with this tremendous work, which has been moving forward since 2009, when the task force was first convened.

I want to recognize the co-chairs of the Local Government Elections Task Force, Harry Nyce, former president of UBCM, and his co-chair, who is a member of this House, the member for Kootenay East. I also want to recognize the members for Cariboo-Chilcotin and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, who also served on this task force.

The task force work has benefited from the dedication and knowledge of some great local government leaders here in British Columbia. I want to recognize Barbara Steele, councillor with the city of Surrey; Mary Sjostrom, mayor of the city of Quesnel; and Robert Hobson, councillor for the city of Kelowna and chair of the regional district of Central Okanagan, for their great service to this task force.

Specifically, the proposed legislation will require all election advertising to identify sponsorship information. It will authorize Elections British Columbia to play a new, key role in local government elections, enforcing compliance with campaign finance rules. It will require third-party advertisers to register with Elections B.C. before sponsoring third-party advertising. This legislation will also require that campaign finance disclosure statements be filed with Elections B.C. within 90 days following the election instead of 120 days.

This legislation will authorize Elections B.C. to post on line all candidate electoral organizations and third-party advertiser disclosure statements. What this means is that citizens in British Columbia will now be empowered when they go to vote. They will know who is funding the candidates. They will know where that money is coming from. They'll know how much is being spent on candidates, where the money is come from and how it'll be utilized.

The Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, Elections B.C. and other key stakeholders involved in the administration of local elections will provide ongoing education and advice to help all election participants learn the new rules about campaign finance. This legislation will help bring greater transparency and accountability to local government elections. It will strengthen compliance with new campaign finance rules. It will establish a more formal process to guide educational resources to help candidates, electoral organizations and citizens to understand these new rules.

Changes to local elections captured by this legislation are based on recommendations of the joint B.C. government–Union of British Columbia Municipalities Local Government Elections Task Force.

Updating campaign finance rules in local elections is something that will benefit all British Columbians. Democracy must be transparent and fair. The rules have to keep up to people's expectations. This legislation will help local democracy remain a vital part of successful communities in British Columbia. Modernizing British Columbia's local elections is a goal I'm sure we can all agree on. I ask that all members lend their support to this piece of legislation.

S. Robinson: I agree that this has been a tremendous body of work. The minister did a great job of thanking those who were involved in the initial task force back
[ Page 2859 ]
in 2010. They certainly did work hard and made sure to bring forward some recommendations as they consulted widely.

[1440]

This piece of legislation impacts all local governments, school boards, Islands Trust, regional districts and parks boards throughout the entire province. Everyone living in British Columbia will be impacted by these legislative changes. It does some really great things in terms of making local government elections accessible, making them accountable and, certainly, transparent: tightening up campaign accounting; taking the Wild West of third-party election advertising and developing rules for sponsorship contribution and advertising; registering third-party sponsors; legislation for, as said, voting advertising; developing a substantial role for Elections B.C. for managing this Wild West of local government campaigns that include public access to disclosure information and enforcement powers when penalties for failure to comply to disclosure requirements appear. This is all good stuff.

I also want to acknowledge that government had the good sense to stand up to pressure to give business the vote. I know that there was some substantial pressure, and government understood that that would not be acceptable to the electorate. These are all good things that will make our local government elections work better and address issues related to transparency, compliance and enforcement.

I do, however, have some concerns with this piece of legislation, so I want to focus my time here in the House to speak to the timing of this legislation and what's not here in this bill.

Given that it was announced back on October 2, 2009…. The Premier at the time, Gordon Campbell, announced the creation of a joint task force to make recommendations to update this legislation. I was at that UBCM, and it was actually a very welcomed piece, a very welcomed announcement. This task force, with members from UBCM and the government, considered a range of election topics.

I would be remiss if I didn't note that not a single member of the official opposition was appointed to this task force, implying somehow that nobody on this side of the House would have anything of value to offer, which is a bit of a shock because, really, this would be a non-partisan issue. But clearly, that wasn't the thinking of the day. I hope it is different today.

The task force was instructed to consider campaign finance and tax credits, contribution and spending disclosure and limits, enforcement processes and outcomes, the role of the Chief Electoral Officer in local government elections, the election cycle, the corporate vote and other agreed-upon matters — matters that were raised by UBCM resolution, such as candidate eligibility of volunteers. What was also interesting about this was that government and the UBCM had to report by May 30, 2010, with the goal of making recommendations for legislative changes that would be introduced in the Legislature before the 2011 general local elections.

The work seemed to progress nicely — at first. A backgrounder was produced in January 2010, and the final report was delivered on May 28, 2010, just a couple of days before the deadline.

The task group noted in the report, from the letter from the minister of the day and the president, Harry Nyce, of the UBCM: "The vast majority of local elections are effectively administered. These recommendations focus on the areas where the task force found gaps — namely, campaign finance rules."

The recommendations included imposing expense limits on local elections campaign participants, requiring registration and disclosure by third-party advertisers, requiring sponsorship information on all election advertising, making campaign finance disclosure statements available earlier and in an electronically searchable form, establishing a key role for Elections B.C. in enforcement of campaign finance rules, and enacting a separate act for campaign finance rules.

It was reiterated in the May 2010 report that the goal was to bring in these changes before the 2011 general local elections, and it noted: "Legislation must be developed for consideration by the Legislature at the earliest reasonable opportunity" — and then in brackets — "which is expected to be in the year of the next general local elections."

The input to this task force was pretty significant. According to the report, there were over 10,000 indications of opinion, which I thought was a very interesting way to describe it, but I understand that to mean Facebook members, posts, campaign signatures and e-mails. These were all received by the task force.

[1445]

There were 920 written submissions — 802 from individuals, 58 from local governments and 60 from organizations. Four organized campaigns provided further indications of opinion of the task force: 972 "Local Campaign Finance Reform Needed Now" e-mails argued for contribution and expense limits, and 89 "choice of voting system should be a top priority" e-mails argued for voting system reform and other accountability measures. There were 2,354 people who joined a Facebook group against the corporate vote, and the CFIB submitted a petition signed by over 6,000 people in favour of the corporate vote.

Clearly, there was a lot of work and a lot of consultation that went into this, with the intention of certainly bringing this to fruition for the 2011 local government elections.

One of the key recommendations that also was brought forward by this task group, which did, I think, an outstanding job…. This task group really left no stone unturned. The fact that they even considered Facebook postings and Facebook membership I think really speaks
[ Page 2860 ]
to the fact that they embraced the technology and embraced whatever communications came their way and made the best recommendations possible — 31 recommendations in all.

One key recommendation was for the task force to consider expense limits. The rationale provided by the task force was that this would increase accessibility.

"The task force believes that expense limits would increase accessibility and fairness by levelling the playing field among candidates, encouraging candidate participation, and reduce the need for large contributions to fund expensive campaigns. Expense limits are expected to be more effective than contribution limits in promoting accessibility. Unlike contribution limits, expense limits reduce the need for large contributions, yet they do not limit the democratic discourse and the variety of voices that can be heard in an election."

With all of this there was certainly some clarity that expense limits needed to be part of any election reform that was going to come forward. These limits that were set up by the task force could surely have been set by now. It's been four years since we've seen this come forward. The focus at the time, I'd like to remind the Speaker, was getting ready for the 2011 local elections, which were three years ago. Lo and behold, nine months after these recommendations came forward there was a press release that came from the government. On April 21, 2011, the province announced that it would proceed with implementing these changes for the 2014 local elections rather than the 2011 local elections.

What was the rationale? We have to ask ourselves…. All this work had gone into this. We'd had over 10,000 submissions, 10,000 pieces of feedback. People volunteered their time, these folks who were on the task force. I'm assuming they didn't get paid extra. They volunteered their time. They went through all these submissions. They met, I would imagine, a number of times, and they mulled over all this information. They came forward with a set of recommendations, and lo and behold, government decides to put the brakes on it.

Now, we're just six months before the local elections for 2011. Everything's been going along tickety-boo, and we find out that no, we're not quite ready. The rationale…. This is from the government's own website: "Implementing the task force's recommendations for the 2014 local elections rather than the 2011 elections will give all election participants a fair opportunity to understand and follow the new rules when they are introduced."

Certainly government recognized with six months to go that it would be really hard for election participants to have a fair opportunity to understand these new rules that were going to be governing these new rules. They would have a hard time getting up to speed.

[1450]

The website goes on to say that they recognize that "the recommendations constitute the most significant changes to local elections legislation in nearly two decades." What it says there is that things have been operating for 20 years with these sorts of rules and that with six months to go before an election, it would just be too much to expect people to get with the new rules, get a firm understanding and conduct themselves accordingly.

The third bullet point notes that waiting to 2014 "should help avoid confusion among election participants about which rules apply in 2011 and the inadvertent errors that could result." So there was clearly some understanding that there would certainly be some challenges, that people would make errors, that given the short timeline, it would be quite difficult to get everybody up to speed.

The fourth bullet point notes that by waiting to 2014, we will "ensure that details of the most significant changes — such as expense limits and the rules related to such limits — can be more fully considered before they take effect."

When I read this, it really strongly suggests that in 2011 government had developed some expense limits. They actually had a plan. There was some concern that without having enough time to educate and inform the candidates and the sitting politicians who would be looking to get re-elected, without having enough time to fill them in on all these changes, there would be some errors made, and government didn't want that. Given that there were only six months to go, the decision was to delay.

I do have a question that I hope at some point the minister would be able to answer. What the heck has their government been doing since July 7, 2010, until these bills were tabled a few weeks ago, 3½ years later after these important fairness and level-playing-field values that governed all of this, that moved this whole piece of legislation forward…? We still don't have the expense limits.

It would seem that this work just simply fell off the table. It would appear that with the April 21, 2011, announcement that the changes wouldn't be coming in time for the 2011 elections, all work on these very important changes just ceased. If these changes were truly important to this government, there would have been an effort to introduce these changes in the intervening years. We're not talking about a couple of months. This hasn't been a delay of months. This has been a delay of years.

Once again, here we are, six months before an election, and government is introducing legislation that has huge implications, legislation that is good. I don't want to say that these ideas aren't good. But what happens, again, in terms of making sure that all election participants have a fair opportunity to understand and follow the new rules? What happened to the recognition that these recommendations constitute the most significant changes in nearly two decades? What happened to the concern about avoiding confusion among election participants about which rules would apply? What happened to ensuring that details of the most significant changes, including expense limits and the rules that relate to such limits, can be fully considered?
[ Page 2861 ]

Well, one of the things that certainly happened is that it would appear that back in 2011 the current Minister of Energy and Mines, who had some responsibility for this portfolio back then, was sitting as an independent at the time. He even noted, "Everything seems to be on hold within government for the last few months" when he was asked about what was happening with this legislation.

He noted that the changes will improve the integrity of local elections, and it has to do with transparency and accountability of people who go into local government. But clearly, he even saw that all work on this project seemed to cease from the government.

So here we are, six months before another local election, and this government is only tabling this legislation now. Three years have passed, and in those intervening years the most pressing recommendation — the one asking for expense limits — isn't here. It's not what's in here that I have a problem with. What's in here is actually pretty good. It's what's not in here that's a problem.

[1455]

From an accountability perspective, I want to know what this government has been doing for three years with this file. It would appear that they've been doing nothing. They are seeking greater accountability from local governments but are not being accountable to the promises that they made to local government in 2010. That's very disappointing.

Because this government dropped the ball, we will go through an intense period of bringing candidates for school districts, park boards, municipal offices, regional districts, Islands Trust…. We're going to be working to bring them up to speed very quickly on a whole host of changes — changes where they could make an inadvertent error and suffer consequences for that.

A significant outreach effort will have to be made to get those already on the campaign trail up to speed. I worry for those who are not yet elected to office. Those are the folks who might be a coach of a local baseball club, or they might be busy taking their kids to the hockey rink and talking to their neighbours and finding out that there are some issues, and they should be stepping up and running locally. How is this government going to reach out to these people in the next couple of months and make sure that they understand all of these changes?

I don't worry so much for those who are already elected. There are easy avenues to access those people and make sure that they are fully aware of the changes. It's the regular folk who are not yet tuned in to all of these changes, who don't even know how to open up an account, don't yet know even that they need to have a way to track all of their donations. These are the folks that I worry for.

The other thing I think it's important to note, in terms of what's missing from this bill, is that we're going to continue to see outrageous spending in some communities like Vancouver. It will continue unabated. Furthermore, there's nothing here that bans union or corporate donations — something that would go a long way to limit campaign spending and would make local elections more accessible.

In 2008 all candidates and parties in Vancouver alone spent $4.5 million, and in 2011 that went up to $5.3 million. This has to stop. This government said it would stop in 2010 when it brought forward all those recommendations.

People were hopeful. The electorate was hopeful that this government was going to step in and stop that ridiculous, outrageous amount of spending, making our local elections accessible. They were promised it was going to happen in 2011, and it didn't happen. There was a belief that it would happen for 2014, and it didn't happen. How disappointing. How unaccountable.

How could anyone compete with the thousands of dollars that get spent in some communities? Even in my own smaller community of Coquitlam, where 120,000 people live, they are spending more than $50,000 for some municipal seats. I'm just talking local councillors — $50,000 or more. It's way worse in Vancouver, but it's still something that…. Regular folks just don't have access to those resources.

What's the impact of that? The impact is that they don't get to participate. It's not a fair, level playing field. That was supposed to be part of this bill, and it's missing.

While this bill increases accountability, enhances transparency, strengthens compliance and enforcement, and even expands education and information — although I'm a little bit worried about how it will do that in the next six months — it utterly fails on increasing accessibility for the most accessible level of government for many communities.

D. Barnett: It is indeed an honour for me to stand here today and support this bill. I had the privilege with yourself, Mr. Speaker, and others, to be on the task force, to work with local governments and put together this legislation — not in this form, but to put together the information that has been brought forward to the minister to move forward with changes to an act that is 20 years old.

I find it very interesting listening to the comments from my colleague across the floor. Normally what I hear from across the floor is: "You didn't do enough consultation." Now I hear: "You took too long." So I'm a little bit confused, but I guess we'll move forward.

[1500]

There was much consultation put into this. We worked very closely with local governments. I come from local government. I had many, many years of experience in local government and in elections at the local government level, and to me, it's not about money. It's about being a candidate. It's about your connection to your community, your connection to the people that elect you.

The last election I ran in locally…. I spent a little more at the provincial level, but I spent $800. I think that was
[ Page 2862 ]
the year that I spent the most, and that was my sixth election. It's about you going out and connecting with your community, and it's not always about money. I feel that in a system, if people choose to spend money, that is their prerogative, as long as it's registered, recorded and we know who is supporting these candidates.

You know, the NDP, my colleagues across the floor, have said that there was no participation from them in the task force. Well, there was. Opposition members were invited to give presentations to the task force, and they did. The opposition leader presented. I have a letter here from the opposition leader at the time, and she thanked us very much for the….

Interjection.

D. Barnett:

"Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the Local Government Elections Task Force. The work of this task force is critical to building public confidence and promoting citizen engagement in a climate of low voter turnout and declining participation in civic affairs. It's imperative we take every opportunity to strengthen the connection between citizens and their democratic system. That means being open and transparent and making an effort to engage the public in a discussion of the issues."

It goes on. I commend the leader of the day for the work and the input that was given to us, the task force, from the opposition.

Local elections are where the grass roots of politics start. Those that run in local elections, in my opinion — and there are many in this room who have in the past — do it for reasons that I hope we all come to this House for. We come to work on behalf of citizens. We come to listen. We come to promote. We come to pass legislation that is going to be in the interests of all. There is always more in a piece of legislation that we can do, and there is always much more that will bring us closer together in keeping discussions open if we do things in a proper manner.

I know the minister will be moving forward with other recommendations as time goes on. I know it is difficult and causes controversy from time to time, but it will be done with open, transparent consultation with local governments, who basically need to put much of the leadership into all this legislation.

I'm not going to carry on any longer. This is a great step forward. This is a great partnership with our local governments, and I know that there will be, in the future, many more days when we will have much discussion with our local governments and continue to improve elections acts in this province.

L. Krog: Well, let's say something nice right off the bat. We're very grateful over here that the legislation has finally been introduced, very grateful indeed. By my calculation, it's only two periods of gestation for an elephant to get it from where it was three years ago to today — back to back, not concurrent but consecutive, gestations.

Now, I respect the fact that the bill is 101 sections long, so it's a fairly substantive piece of legislation. Lord knows that British Columbians who take an interest in municipal politics have been asking for it for a very long time.

[1505]

Gosh knows we have seen the millions and millions of dollars spent in campaigns in Vancouver over the last several municipal elections, where there has been a general public revulsion against a system that has no spending limits whatsoever, that sees that kind of money spent on what was until recently regarded as part-time work, if you will, and public service. So it's a good thing that this has finally come to fruition, that we have legislation in front of us.

But this is Canada, and in most Canadian jurisdictions now we accept and understand that the power of money in campaigns is just that — it is power — and it needs to be circumscribed. It needs to have limits placed on it. It needs to be dealt with in a way that protects democracy.

You don't have to be very old in this province to remember when we had a corporate vote, for heaven's sakes, where corporations got to vote in municipal elections. Now, I realize that may seem a very difficult concept for many members here — who are elected by living, breathing voters — but in fact that was the case. That was a great step forward, eliminating the corporate vote. That was regarded as progress.

In most jurisdictions, putting campaign spending limits on what candidates can spend or electoral organizations can spend is seen as a good thing. That's with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is dominated by Republicans — the same good people who denied Al Gore the White House and gave to it George Bush, the same good people who have decided that corporations are people and that you can't limit their rights to free speech, as if a corporation had a right to free speech under the Constitution of the United States.

Apart from the United States, there aren't a lot of jurisdictions that I'm aware of that don't accept and expect that that would be one of the signal points of good legislation.

It reminds me of when I was a kid in my first real job. I was working at the Chevron in Parksville. I was washing a car. I just didn't wash cars much, so I wasn't a very experienced sort of guy. I remember that the owner of the Chevron took me aside. He did indicate to me politely, and he said: "You know, a job worth doing is worth doing right." It's kind of a simple lesson.

When you're a teenager, you don't pay much attention to anything in the world, but those words have stuck with me. So when I see legislation come to this House, I can't help but think: "If you're going to do it, do it right."

Would it have been so difficult to include the banning of corporate and union donations or to place caps on spending in this legislation? I doubt it would have presented a singularly difficult hurdle for the legislative
[ Page 2863 ]
drafters to include that.

We managed to create, as I say, a fairly significant bill with 101 sections, very complex, dealing with all the complexities of municipal and local campaigns that will probably, in fairness and with due respect to the minister, have a significant impact on the number of people who will seek electoral office, because they'll be terrified by the amount of regulation.

I'm not opposed to the regulation and the legislation. I'm afraid, unfortunately, that unless you nail every loophole down, unless you cover it off, somebody is going to find a way around it. So if you're going to do it, you have to do it right, and that requires a fairly significant piece of legislation. Would it have been that much more problematic to go the other step and bring it up to date with where the people are at?

I mean, is the minister honestly suggesting inferentially that by not including a ban on corporate and union donations or including a cap on spending…? Is the minister, by inference through this bill, telling British Columbians that she's hearing that people want the Wild West show every municipal election, that people get to donate as much as they want, that there are no limits here? Is that what the minister is suggesting? Honestly, if the minister has heard that….

I realize she's had her chance in the second reading debate. She'll have an opportunity in committee stage to defend it.

[1510]

But I'd like to hear some of the Liberal members stand up and say their constituents are pounding their doors as we speak and saying: "You know what? We don't want campaign spending limits, and we love corporate and union donations to influence local government. We're solidly in support of that concept. That is what drives us. That is what inspires us."

Now, I am being a little bit cheeky, just in case the members opposite hadn't noticed, just a little bit cheeky. But I would love it if some member over there could stand up and tell me that that's what their constituents want. Instead of taking the opportunity, given the three years….

Three long years, and even a provincial election in between, and we couldn't just go that extra step and do something that you could say was an unqualified success, that the opposition wouldn't have to criticize, and we'd simply jam this thing through the Legislature quickly because we know it's a good thing. The government has had that opportunity, that very opportunity, and chosen not to.

You know, it's not like they haven't had requests from folks. Vancouver city council, which represents the most significant city in the province — indeed, has its own charter, as we all know — has asked on multiple occasions for an amendment to the Vancouver Charter to allow Vancouver council to set their own cap or ban on corporate and union donations. That request was supported by the UBCM in 2013, brought to the government by a UBCM executive in October 2013.

Why wouldn't you want to do that? What reasoning is there? Again I come back to the inference one must draw by the absence of the cap for the restrictions. The inference is that the B.C. Liberals like it when big money has a bigger voice in municipal and local elections. That's the only inference one can draw from this.

You can't tell me it's going to be more difficult to implement the legislation. You can't tell me it's going to make it harder on candidates. We have a bill with 101 sections that, yes, is going to make it difficult for local politicians seeking electoral office. It is going to make it more difficult. There is no question about that, and no one will pretend that it's not going to make it more complex.

If you go from a system without rules to a system with rules, obviously, it becomes more difficult. But you do that because you want to achieve something, because there is a wrong that needs to be righted, because there is a problem that requires a remedy. If this is remedial legislation — and I would suggest that is exactly what it is — then why not include the obvious remedy — the remedy that's included in other jurisdictions, the remedy which exists in our national elections?

I mean, if it's good enough for Confederation, so to speak, if it's good enough for the Dominion of Canada, why isn't it good enough for Pouce Coupe or Hope or Nanaimo or Pitt River? Why isn't it good enough for them to have resort to the same kind of legislation that exists where we have recognized that we don't want money to have an undue influence on our democratic processes?

My point is fairly simple, and the government, frankly, could surprise and shock all of us. It could go that extra step. It could actually make an amendment itself. It could seize the day — you know, carpe diem, just like the movie. The minister could introduce an amendment. I'm sure she has the authority, the support of her colleagues. Lord knows they've got the legislative drafters there who are ready to do it. Do the right thing. Just go that extra step, and make this not just an improvement but an almost perfect improvement. Make it the kind of legislation that wouldn't face criticism from anyone.

Make it the kind of legislation where the city of Vancouver could send a nice letter. The member who spoke earlier was talking about one of those nice letters. We love to quote nice letters in the House. Gregor Robertson could send a nice letter to the minister, saying: "Thank you for including amendments to the Vancouver Charter in this, and thank you for bringing in these kinds of limits. Thank you for giving everyone the opportunity to do this, and thank you for imposing the kind of legislation that people will support."

That would have been the right thing to do, because all we're really doing here is playing a little game of delay.
[ Page 2864 ]
I'm satisfied, in my own heart, that the minister knows it's the right thing. The opposition knows it's the right thing. The public certainly knows it's the right thing.

[1515]

When you have an offer of cooperation, when you have general public consensus on something, particularly around governance, particularly around elections, why would you turn down that opportunity? Why would you not work with the opposition to bring in legislation or amend the legislation that's before the House in such a way that everyone could support it without qualification? There'd be no need for any members to stand up in this chamber and criticize it because the government left out something that is major and important.

You know, I've just seen a release from the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods,which represents 22 residents associations. They've got two things to say, one about Bill 20 and one about Bill 21 — about Bill 20, the failure to cap spending, and Bill 21, the term limit being increased from three to four years. I'll deal with that in another speech at another time.

But when you have some of the most grassroots, democratic organizations in a major centre — the people who represent their neighbourhoods, who take an interest in civic government — telling you that what you've done is not what they want, why would you turn it down?

You know, there's an old expression. What is it? Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come. The public is way ahead of the government on this issue, and it astonishes me why the government wouldn't want to do what the people want. If they don't do it, someday somebody will. All that will happen is there'll be a debate in this place, and the people there will say, "Gosh, why didn't we do this a decade ago?" — or four years ago or eight years ago or whatever the case may be.

The opportunity is there for the government. They've heard from a couple of opposition members already. They know where we stand; they know they'd have our support. Let them do the right thing. They have that opportunity. Before this bill passes, make the amendment. Do the right thing. Do the right thing for voters and British Columbians, and let's make municipal campaigns look as clean and sparkly as everyone would really, truly like them to be.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do stand in support of this legislation. I do so not just because it's being introduced by government, but because as a person who served many years in local government and sat on the UBCM executive when the task force recommendations came forward, I'm patently aware of what was being asked of the government. One of the things that is very clear to me, which UBCM clearly said to the minister and to this government, is that they wanted a phased approach to this legislation. They did not want to see campaign financing done in a hurry.

There are many issues around it that were raised around that table. I sat there as a member of the UBCM executive and was very clear that there was not consensus around the table or even in the province with all of the stakeholders on where this particular issue should go.

I find it interesting that members opposite say that the public is in support of this and that stakeholders are in support of this, when in point of fact…. The fact is that there is no consensus. What they have asked for is to take a long and sober look at this so that whatever changes we introduce in legislation are changes that make sense and will be applicable.

What they did say is, "We want some consistency so that we have goalposts that we all understand — that the public understands, that all of the potential contributors to campaign financing will understand — and that there is a robust education program that goes along with it so people who choose to run for local office can do so in the full knowledge of what is allowed and what isn't allowed."

As I rise to this, I think the issues that the minister spoke about…. I'm not going to talk about the detail of the legislation, because I think that is very obvious and has been spoken about by the minister and other speakers. But the issue of accountability is paramount in anything we do here.

[1520]

Local governments have asked for that accountability. They want it to reside in this legislation, and it does. They want transparency — transparency not only in terms of financing but the entire process of local elections, so they feel comfortable, if they choose to stand up, that there is a framework that they understand that the electoral community understands. It is absolutely critical that there is equal accessibility to the office in local communities. Whether it be school trustees or local governments, they are asking for that accessibility, and this legislation goes a long way.

I think it's very important for the members opposite, who are standing up and criticizing this, that of the 31 recommendations that were made, all of them are being moved on. The financing was the only one where UBCM clearly said to government: "Please do not move on this too quickly. We would like you to take a longer look. We need more consultation. We need more time to be sure that when we agree to any recommendations, we've had the opportunity to look at that in depth."

That's what they've asked for. The minister has responded in this approach to give the UBCM and local governments throughout the province the opportunity to have that debate, to look at it in a fulsome way so whatever does come forward is manageable, is clear and meets all of the criteria.

It is absolutely critical, as we move into campaign financing at local government level…. It is different than provincial. It is different than federal. It needs to be sensitive to the diversity in this province and, as one of the
[ Page 2865 ]
speakers on the other side of the House said, that every person has a chance, should they choose to want to serve their local community, can do so and feel comfortable in the process and know that they can have the support that they need.

The education and advice that is going to be required for people who are thinking about moving into local government is absolutely critical as well. When I look at this legislation and I look at its intent, I recognize clearly, as a member of a local government for many years and UBCM executive, that we need to move slowly on the finance regulations. We need to take that time. We need to continue to consult.

Under the new rules there are clear examples. I remember one debate where there were questions about: if someone sends out a tweet, in this electronic age, is that part of campaign financing? Is that part of third-party support? We went around the table for over an hour and a half on that one question alone.

The diversity of opinion of people who represent local governments at UBCM around the table was quite diverse, and the opinions were all over the map. At the end of it, everybody looked at each other and said: "You know what? Let's not rush into this. Let's not move on something that we believe does not meet the reality of our communities and our province and the reality of the age we live in."

I think this legislation absolutely is going to satisfy UBCM, local governments, potential candidates. As we work together in the future to look at the campaign financing component of it, we are going to come up with the enhancements at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.

I've heard the comments from across the House. I'm not surprised that the members opposite, who don't even have policies on most things, want to stand up and criticize. But here the government listened to the local communities. They listened to local elected officials. They said: "We want to meet your needs. We want to meet your recommendations."

The task force that was put together did a lot of hard work, travelled throughout the province, listened to submissions. Every one of their recommendations, save the one that UBCM executive — and I'm repeating myself — asked us not to move on, is being moved on at this stage.

[1525]

If that isn't responding as a government to what we're being asked to do by those that we're in relationship with, and that is local governments, then I don't know what is.

You know, this is not a top-down process that we did. This is absolutely a bottom-up process. We've heard from the people who are in this position, who have said to us: "Please help us. The current rules are confusing. We want them clarified." We've done all of that, and we have looked at another recommendation, of course, on the anonymous contributions. We've responded to some of the feedback that came as a result of the draft documents that went out from the minister, and she has met with them. She has responded, and the legislation reflects that feedback as well.

I think that as we look at legislation in any form, if we have the kind of robust process that we did in this case and what we have been asked to do by their body that represents them, I can't think of a more clear example of government doing what it's elected to do, and that is to meet the needs of the people in the province and to respond with legislation that is both achievable and practical.

Rather than going on and on about it, I believe…. I have talked to my former colleagues at UBCM. They are delighted with this legislation. They're happy that we're moving ahead. They want us to work together on any future enhancements to the legislation, and we will do that. The minister is committed to that, and we as a government are committed to that.

I would ask the members opposite to take some sober reflection on what they're saying about what's wrong with the legislation, because they are criticizing local governments, who have said to us that it meets their needs.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I've been listening with open ears to see the Liberals justify allowing one person to make a million-dollar donation to Vancouver council parties in support of the chosen political party he wants as just being allowing people to have their voice heard. "Oh, it's just about letting people have their voice heard. One person wants to donate a million dollars. Well, nobody will listen more to that man than the man who donates a dollar, because this is just about letting people have their voices heard."

Well, just as we have one vote, I don't think anybody could justify saying that unlimited local donations in this upcoming election — be they corporate, union, personal — should have no problem. I don't understand that. That's not, to me, democracy. I think that's why in provincial elections and in federal elections we have campaign spending limits and we have campaign donation limits. In the federal election process we actually have banned corporate and union donations.

My council has been unanimous in making this request again and again and again, and the Liberals, I guess, refuse again and again and again. Even the Attorney General on the Liberal side voted in support of banning corporate and union donations. She stood strongly and said that this must happen. Her party, the NPA, said that this must happen. They were outraged, just as Vision Vancouver was outraged, COPE was outraged, the Green Party was outraged.

The citizens of Vancouver are the ones that were outraged by this — to say that you could donate unlimited amounts of money, to say that corporations who the city has to do business with, the unions the city has to
[ Page 2866 ]
do business with, could donate just about whatever they wanted. As we heard, in one case one man decided to donate a million bucks. That was over a third of what the political party he donated to used in their campaign — one-third of the election budget donated by one man to support him and his interests.

Now, to the person who also, at least according to the Elections Act, only has one vote, just as this man does…. Do you think that that person who donates $1 or who donates nothing at all but votes has that same influence on the people the one man donated a million dollars to? That's the kind of question I get asked all the time. That's why citizens of Vancouver–West End and citizens all across Vancouver have said this law needs to be changed.

[1530]

It needs to be stronger. We need campaign spending limits. We need a ban on corporate and union donations, just like we need that ban on corporate and union donations in B.C. politics.

The question is: who votes? People do. Do corporations vote? No. Do unions vote? No. People do. That's who democracy is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about from the bottom up. It's not supposed to be about one person having more might, more firepower, the ability to hire hundreds and hundreds of people in support of their political goal, to be able to overrun the interests of the citizens.

Democracy was supposed to be about the people having a voice, not the elite, not the super-rich, not the super-organized but the people. And this B.C. Liberal government has failed us once again. The minister says: "Oh, don't worry. It'll come, it'll come, down the road." Well, that's what they've been saying for years and years. Meanwhile, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local town councils, districts and others have been pushing for change. Citizens have been pushing for change.

We know that the best government is the government of the people, not the best government that you can buy. That's why we have campaign financing rules in the B.C. elections process, in the federal elections process. But unfortunately, this government seems to say: "Oh well, whatever. Go ahead." No, that's not acceptable. It doesn't lead to good democracy. It doesn't lead to good decision-making, and it leads people to question how decisions are made.

Now, I understand that in most cases people make decisions based on their personal beliefs, on what they've heard from citizens. But you know, I don't think it's wrong for citizens to question the source of how a party got elected in terms of how they make their decisions. It's not wrong to ask those questions.

People make donations to parties all the time because they want to support those goals. But to say that just because certain people are wealthy or their businesses have a lot of money allows them to have a bigger voice in the sense of how an election is run is just fundamentally flawed.

I think that the government has a lot to answer for here. They've clearly, clearly refused to listen to one of the key asks from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, one of the key asks the city of Vancouver has made. Not just one political party, not just two political parties but every political party currently in city hall in Vancouver, and political parties outside of it, too, have all made this request.

My constituents have asked me to bring this voice to the Legislature today to say that this is wrong, to say that the government has failed them and to call for change, because they want democracy to be respected. They don't want to have to question decisions — whether or not they're about bylaw changes, certain development projects, certain union contracts, what have you.

They don't want to have to question: did this person get a deal because they donated to such-and-such a party? They don't want to have to answer that question or ask it. They want to know that democracy is about the people, not about who financed campaigns, whether it be at a fancy lunch, whether it be in one cheque of $1 million to the NPA, as occurred in the last election. It does not make sense.

So if the minister is sincere about bettering the democracy that we have in this province, if she's sincere about listening to the Union of B.C. Municipalities and our elected representatives, she will listen to the city of Vancouver's unanimous request and bring an amendment in to give Vancouver the ability to ban corporate and union donations in our own municipal elections.

This is a request made by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. This is not a request which says that a small town where somebody runs on a $50 donation to get their name on the ballot and just goes out and shakes a lot of hands…. This is not saying they can't have their elections run as they want them. This is not about telling another city or another municipality in another part of B.C. to do what they have to do.

This is about listening to the people of British Columbia, and specifically the people of Vancouver, in their request to ban corporate and union donations and bring in election financing reforms.

It improves the democracy. It listens to the unanimous will of our council and, I'd say, the unanimous will of our council, election after election after election, all political parties, all candidates for mayor, all city councillors.

[1535]

So I hope that the minister will listen, not just laugh this off and come up with some justification about why she refuses to listen to a call to improve our democracy. But I fear she won't, because the Liberal government has a record of refusing to respond to Vancouver's needs, refusing to respond to our call for a better and improved democracy.

But if we want to inspire hope, if we want to inspire the people of this province to get more involved in local gov-
[ Page 2867 ]
ernments, if we want to deal with the cynicism which is eating away at our public institutions, we would ban corporate and union donations. We would make this about one citizen, one vote.

We would make this about donating a small amount but not so much to put it out of the reach of the average citizen — so that whether or not you get by on a minimum-wage job, don't have a job at all, or if you enjoy drinks at the country club, you each have an equal say in how democracy is elected and how our city halls and our town councils are elected.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the chance to speak to this. I appreciate my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville's studied response to this and her continued outreach to city councils, districts, town councils, etc., all across the province. I'm deeply disappointed in the Liberal government for refusing to listen once again to the unanimous will of Vancouver city council.

L. Reimer: It's a pleasure for me to rise in the House — as the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development — to support Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

I had the pleasure to do a stakeholder consultation for the white paper which preceded the introduction of this legislation. I realize and understand that there was much consensus on the 31 recommendations that came out of the Local Government Elections Task Force.

Our government is modernizing local government elections in British Columbia with a focus on campaign finance. It has been 20 years since the rules for local government elections have changed significantly. They've worked well, but they needed updating. So after getting advice from British Columbians, starting in 2010, about how to do it, we're bringing forward this legislation. It will increase accountability, transparency, accessibility, compliance and enforcement, education and advice.

The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act covers four of the five areas. The accessibility component, which focuses mainly on expense limits, as you know from the members opposite, will be addressed as a component of a future legislative package. I just want to take a few minutes to address that.

All of the task force recommendations are being implemented in this legislation, with the exception of those expense limits. They will be addressed in the second phase and implemented for the 2018 local elections. Expense limits set a maximum amount of money that candidates, elector organizations and third-party advertisers in local elections can spend on election campaigns.

The Local Government Elections Task Force recommended that expense limits be established in local government elections but didn't recommend what the limits should be. We fully intend to put in place expense limits, but we felt it would not be appropriate to add expense limits to the mix of the significant reforms that we already have in place in an election year. UBCM supports this two-phased approach.

The first phase is the legislation that we introduced already. The legislation, as I said previously, represents the most significant reforms to local government in more than 20 years. And of course, the second phase will be our expense limits.

I want to take a moment to address the contribution limits. The task force did not recommend contribution limits. They decided that expense limits would be more effective than contribution limits in promoting accessibility.

Unlike contribution limits, expense limits reduce the need for large contributions, yet they do not limit democratic participation. Candidates need to be accountable for the contributions that they accept. That's how to achieve transparency. That being said, I've heard a great deal about this subject during our stakeholder consultations.

It's a pleasure for me to support this legislation. I just want to provide a quote from Rhona Martin, UBCM president, in regards to this legislation. It says:

[1540]

"The legislation introduced today allows for the implementation of the majority of the recommendations delivered by the joint task force in 2010. Local governments supported all 31 of the initial recommendations aimed at improving the transparency and accountability of the local election process. Candidates in the November elections are looking for certainty for the rules that will govern the 2014 general local election and await the decision of the Legislative Assembly."

On that note, I'd like to express once again my support for this legislation.

A. Weaver: I rise to offer a few initial comments on Bill 20 with a wicked cold. I would much rather be in bed today, but I felt this was an important bill to speak to as we move to municipal elections this fall.

I recognize that the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act makes many needed changes in our local elections system. I was very happy to see that the legislation included further clarity around disclosure requirements and third-party advertising sponsorship. The added authority to Elections B.C. is also a welcome step in improving our democracy.

One noticeable absence in this bill, as alluded to by a number of previous speakers, is reform to the municipal spending limit for municipal elections. Now, I recognize the arguments put forward by the previous member with respect to the fact that the committee did not make recommendations on specific amounts, but the reality is that this is what people want. It's been an ongoing issue for many years, and my main critique of this legislation before us today is that such spending limits are not included.

The government has had many opportunities since
[ Page 2868 ]
the Local Government Elections Task Force introduced its recommendations for improving local democracy in 2010, yet it still has not acted to limit campaign expenses.

Here's a specific example. If we look at the numbers from Vancouver's 2011 election, we see that Vancouver's mainstream municipal parties collectively spent $5 million. That's roughly $12 for every eligible voter. Now, compare that with Montreal, where candidates can spend 30 cents per voter, or Toronto, where candidates can spend 85 cents per voter. I think it's pretty clear the difference — an order of magnitude difference.

It's important that we take steps to limit the extent to which money can currently impact our municipal election results. Just as in the provincial system, in municipal elections people vote, not unions or business. It's really time that we follow the lead that was set by our federal government in terms of putting campaign limits and also banning the donations from union and business interests — vested interests, I might add.

Because whose interests are ultimately served? Is it the voter, or is it the person with the biggest paycheque? Sometimes it seems to me that it's the person with the biggest paycheque, and if that biggest paycheque is unbounded, the person with the biggest paycheque is the wealthiest person.

It's particularly important in the context of this newly proposed four-year municipal election cycle. Some have argued that extending the term lengths for elected officials without introducing spending limits further tilts the balance of power in favour of those who can spend the most. While there certainly are merits for elected officials having a longer term in office — I support that — it's perhaps unfortunate that this proposed extension comes at a time when one of the largest issues facing local government elections is campaign spending.

Of course, I want to recognize that it would have been impractical and even somewhat unfair to introduce legislation that would change campaign spending protocol during an election year, but I come back to the fact that the government has had quite some time to actually develop this legislation.

That being said, the people of British Columbia need some certainty that this government intends to follow through with its promise and cap election spending before the next local election. To that effect, I am pleased to hear the speech by the previous member. The previous member spoke to the fact that this would, in fact, be the case.

The government has had a number of years since the task force recommendation. It's time to act expediently to bring these changes forward. I look forward to hearing from the government regarding the timeline for bringing in these reforms and will withhold further comments until the committee stage.

[1545]

M. Hunt: It's my pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill as a past president of the UBCM. I am well aware of the process of dialogue that goes on between member municipalities in the UBCM, and then the UBCM to the provincial government, and how long those processes take and how complicated and detailed they are.

So I am extremely pleased, certainly on behalf of Surrey council and all of the councillors and mayors throughout this good province, to thank the hon. minister for this great work, because it's a landmark. Although it's taken how many years, it's delightful to see the process actually happening and working and to see the response to those 31 recommendations.

Yes, there is one that is missing. I'll talk about the one that is missing in a moment, but let's look at the ones that we're talking about.

We're talking about ones where, basically, we are bringing the municipal elections, our local government elections, closer to what is going on within the provincial and federal governments, where third-party advertising has to be disclosed as to who's actually doing this. Disclosure from the candidates on line — certainly, many municipalities are doing that, but it's done as a voluntary thing. I think it's great that we are now making it compulsory that everyone puts their disclosure on line so that citizens can have very quick and easy access to it instead of having to go to city hall, freedom of information and all those convoluted processes to be able to get these things done.

Many of these things…. Also the reduction, for example, of the campaign financing reporting from 100 days to 90 days, because after 120 days most people have long since forgotten the election. They're on with life and business again. In fact, we have ones who still didn't disclose even at that time limit, so making it shorter, I think, is good for everybody in the process.

It's interesting that the focus of the members opposite is dealing on this disclosure thing and financial expenditures. I find it extremely interesting to listen to the discussion and the debate. When I was first elected as a school trustee — yeah, that was a long time ago — in 1984 the B.C. School Trustees Association had seminars for newly elected, where you get together and you start learning about the act, what you can and can't do and all of those sorts of things.

After the first night there was a group of us that went for a swim. We were between the pool and the hot tub. After your introductions of who you are, where you're from and how you got elected, it sort of quickly came to: "So how much did you spend on your election?" And it was most interesting because the majority of those there spent nothing, not a cent, on their election. Because these are local communities, they are known in their communities. They're going around talking to people in businesses — those sorts of things. They're known within the community because, in fact, the average municipality in B.C.
[ Page 2869 ]
is 5,000 people.

They are smaller communities. Everybody knows everybody. One lady said that she had spent $50 on a newspaper ad after the election to thank people for their vote. Another one from Nanaimo had said that he had purchased three signs and was moving them around the municipality so that it looked like he had more signs than he had.

Most people in grass-roots elections in B.C. aren't spending a lot of money. I can assure you that there can only be one person or one group that ever received a million-dollar donation. I mean, I find it amazing that we're wanting legislation for one person. This is really simple. If all of the parties unanimously in the city of Vancouver said we shouldn't do it, why did they accept it? Give it back to the guy and say, "I'm sorry. We're not interested. Our support isn't going to be bought here. We're…." You know, whatever. But somehow that came out of this.

You see, I believe the expense issue is really a Vancouver-centric issue. I believe they're the only ones. Surrey is the second-largest municipality. I ran as an independent councillor two elections ago. In fact, it cost me more to run as an MLA representing one-eighth of Surrey than it cost me to run as a councillor for the whole city of Surrey. My expense limit, by the way…. I never touched my expense limit provincially in either of those elections, so if we had the same expense limits for the local governments as we have for the provincial government, it would affect nobody except those running in the city of Vancouver.

[1550]

What we're hearing here is all about the city of Vancouver, but actually, if we took the Toronto numbers and we did…. Now, my friends opposite from Vancouver can help me on this because I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head. There are 11 members of council. There are — what is it? — nine or 11 on school board. You also have a parks board in Vancouver. You add those numbers together, and I'm sure you've got more than 20. You know, it's going to be more than 20, for sure.

If in fact $12 per voter was spent in the election, divide that by 20 candidates. We're now down to 60 cents, which was Toronto's limit, so Toronto's limit is actually what Vancouver already spent. Let's be honest with ourselves. No other municipality has the challenges that Vancouver has in having two "local" newspapers. They are actually provincial newspapers and cost you a fortune to be able to advertise there. But the real issue is for the rest of this province, and that's what this legislation is about.

This legislation is for the rest of the province. It's dealing with all of these people, and it's focusing on the issues that were asked for by the UBCM. It's open, it's disclosed, and it's getting out there and letting it be very clear who the candidates are, what they stand for. If there's advertising that's in the newspaper or on bulletin boards, you want to know who's doing it, how they're paying for it.

That kind of disclosure is great democracy, and I, for one, am absolutely delighted that the minister has brought this forward. I am so pleased she is working on the recommendations of the UBCM, and I congratulate her for that. I certainly will be supporting this legislation.

D. Donaldson: Well, I'm very happy to take my place in second reading debate of Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, where we can provide some general comments.

I'm especially pleased to follow the member for Surrey-Panorama, where I can actually point out some of the faulty logic in his argument so he can hear that, and also to talk about the rest of the province, seeing as he was a very knowledgable councillor for the largest city in the province.

I actually represent an area where the majority of the municipalities, when it comes to numbers in B.C., have their category, and that's small communities — communities under 5,000. I'm glad he attempted to talk about rural B.C. and small communities from his area of expertise from Surrey, but I'll be able to talk about it from having ten years' experience on municipal council in a community of under 5,000, a community of 350, and how the effects of this bill and some of the gaps in this bill will have an impact on the small communities of B.C.

First of all — and this is the way I like to address legislation in this Legislature and provide collaborative and cooperative comments — there are some good points in this legislation. I think some of the actions from this piece of legislation that will come into effect for 2014 will improve the framework within which local government holds elections.

For instance, candidates being required to file campaign finance disclosure statements within 90 days rather than 120 following the election — that's a good improvement. Sponsorship information is published on all election advertisements. That's not currently required, and it's currently required, as we all know, in provincial elections, so that, in the genre of transparency, is a very good part of this act. Third-party advertising sponsors required to register and disclose expenditures made within a 46-day pre-election period — that's another good part of this act.

One aspect of the act that I will have some concerns about, with the new changes, is the oversight. The oversight is for Elections B.C. to monitor this. We know that when the government has introduced previous legislation and added to the duties of agencies and government ministries, like the Ministry of Environment, the resources for monitoring when it comes to that legislation weren't forthcoming and therefore made the legislation somewhat toothless.

[1555]

An example I can give is with the Auditor General's
[ Page 2870 ]
report of a couple years ago on the ministry's environmental assessment office being able to monitor whether the mitigative measures that they put in place during an environmental assessment process were actually having the intended result and whether they were actually working. The Auditor General said that this was not the case. There wasn't the ability to have that kind of oversight.

If this bill passes and the extra load of work that is required to monitor and implement it falls to Elections B.C., I would expect to see a concurrent increase in resources to Elections B.C. to undertake that kind of work. Otherwise, again, it's toothless legislation, and we've seen that has been the pattern with this government in other legislation.

That's what I think are some good points of the legislation, but obviously, I'm also concerned about a big gap in regards to expense limits on candidates and third parties. I think this is an extremely important aspect, especially considering what we're facing in the northern part of the province.

In municipal elections, for most of the communities in B.C. which are under 5,000, it's true that sometimes not a lot of costs are incurred by candidates. I was a candidate four times over those ten years that I was a municipal councillor, and yes, in small communities people make their own signs. There's not often a lot of expenses. But unless you create a framework for limits, you could have a situation where third parties, especially, can have an absolutely undue influence on the outcomes.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think an example of this is happening as we speak. It's not directly connected to a municipal election, but it's an example that I think points out the need for expense limits for candidates and for third-party advertisers. That's in regards to the current plebiscite that's taking place in Kitimat. In Kitimat there's a plebiscite that will be held quite soon — I believe it's April 11 — on a question of the municipal residents' support or non-support of the Enbridge pipeline and the northern gateway proposal.

There is one volunteer organization that's out knocking on doors in Kitimat. They have a perspective on it, and they're encouraging people to vote no on the referendum, to not approve the plebiscite. From what I understand, from donations they have maybe several thousand dollars, and they're out there with volunteers knocking on doors. That's Douglas Channel Watch.

In the meantime we have Enbridge, a global corporation worth billions of dollars, and they're flying in staff members; they're flying in very high-ranking management people. They're spending a lot of money on campaign material, and they're going door to door, door-knocking. So you can see the imbalance here.

All people want is a transparent, fair, level playing field where they can receive information in an equal manner and make up their own minds. I have great respect for the people of B.C. to make up their own minds, around local decisions especially. But let's be realistic. When you have a third party who's able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars — that might even be low — and a local volunteer organization who can spend very little because their resources are more limited in how they can fund these kinds of things, then it definitely raises the issue of fairness.

I think that's what we're talking about, and that's why we have the task force report of the Local Government Elections Task Force. The UBCM and the government of British Columbia came together. May 28, 2010, is when they released their final report, and they made some recommendations around this specific issue. So when previous speakers have said that this government has listened and implemented the recommendations, that's just not true.

[1600]

Here's a specific, very important recommendation, not just for major cities but for all parts of the province and in the north. It's a recommendation that was not addressed.

The recommendation was to "implement expense limits for all campaign participants, e.g., electors, elector organizations and third-party advertisers." The recommendation goes on to say:

"Development of the expense limits should be guided by some key considerations. Expense limits should be high enough for campaign participants to mount reasonable campaigns and express their views but not so high as to allow a few participants to dominate election discourse.

"Expense limits need to work in different-sized communities, i.e., formula cannot be based only on an amount per number of electors or population."

That's in reference to the smaller communities.

"Expense limits for elector organizations should have a neutral effect on decisions to create elector organizations or not, i.e., formula should be based on the number of candidates supported."

That's nowhere to be found in this legislation that will come into effect for the next municipal or local elections in 2014. There is a promise by the minister and by this government to consider this recommendation — we don't know in which form — for the 2018 electoral cycle, but that will be eight years after the recommendation, a recommendation made by a balanced task force of municipal leaders and government officials.

We look at that and go: "Okay, eight years." Then when we look at what can happen between now and 2018, what do we have on the horizon? Well, we know that coming up for the 2014 municipal elections, the northern gateway project will be a major issue of discussion, amongst communities in the northwest especially.

Although the federal decision is expected on the joint review panel's recommendation before then, we know that, with the legislative challenges that have already begun, this will still be a hot topic for the 2014 municipal election. Without imposing any kind of spending limits for candidates or for third-party advertisers, the playing
[ Page 2871 ]
field will definitely not be level.

Again, I quote from the document. This isn't simply the official opposition calling for this. This is a document from the government task force. "In light of the recommendation to establish expense limits, also applying limits to third parties is important to ensuring that third-party advertising cannot be used to work around restrictions on campaign spending and, accordingly, transparency."

It's all about transparency. Nobody's talking about not having any ability to donate. What we're talking about is putting on a limit, and in small communities that is an excellent recommendation, as the Local Government Elections Task Force put forward. It's an excellent idea. It'll allow people to make their own decisions, the electors, versus being inundated by perhaps a side that's able to put forward a lot more money into the campaign.

Before 2018, lo and behold, we have the northern gateway decision that'll influence the 2014 election. Before 2018 this government has been definitely pushing their timeline around another fossil fuel–related project and industry, and that's the entire LNG industry that could spring up on the northwest coast.

This isn't just a simple little issue. This is an issue that is linked between the northeast in the production, the fracking, the cumulative effects of what looks like at this point four to seven different pipeline proposals…. Well, I think we're up to half a dozen LNG plant proposals the government likes to talk about.

This again is going to be an issue of major discussion in the 2014 election cycle and local government. And lo and behold, this legislation on expense limits to third-party advertising and local candidates is being put off by this government to 2018.

[1605]

If you were a person who believed in conspiracies, you would definitely be looking at why a significant part of the recommendation of the Local Government Elections Task Force is being put off to 2018 while other ones that I think are good ones are being implemented for 2014.

In the light of transparency, of giving a level playing field, as the task force pointed out, and giving people an opportunity to consider the pluses and the minuses of different proposals that are going to be put forward during the local elections in 2014, I think it's a good idea to listen to the task force and put in the expense limits for campaign participants, whether they're electors, electoral organizations or third-party advertisers.

I just don't see what the issue is with this government for getting them in place for the 2014 cycle. I think it's an excellent idea. We're just talking about a limit, mind you. There's nothing that isn't going to allow third parties from spending up to that limit, from volunteer organizations from having a struggle to even get a fraction of that limit.

All we're talking about is a limit. In the context of fairness, in the context of serious discussion when it comes to local elections around gigantic, really important issues for the northwest, in the context of open discussions and transparent discussions, I feel that it would be advisable for this government to implement the recommendations of the task force on third-party spending for the 2014 municipal elections.

Those are my comments for now.

D. Eby: In the 2011 municipal election in Vancouver a single individual, Rob Macdonald, contributed $960,000 to the Non-Partisan Association. It wasn't for just anybody. That donation went directly to the campaign of the current Attorney General when she was running for mayor at the time for the city of Vancouver. I think that's a very important detail, because I'm trying hard to understand why this government has not given the power to the city of Vancouver, under the Vancouver Charter, to implement municipal finance reform.

I agree, actually, with the member who rose and spoke and said this is a very Vancouver-centric problem. It is a Vancouver-centric problem. Fortunately, because Vancouver in many ways has many unique issues, they have the Vancouver Charter. It would be very easy for this government to amend the Vancouver Charter to fix this problem, but they have chosen not to do that.

When there is a member on the other side of the House who has received what may be the largest municipal campaign finance donation in the history of the province, possibly in Canada, and that same government, her government, is not putting limits in place on campaign donations in the city of Vancouver and not giving Vancouver the ability to do that for themselves, I think that's very troubling.

I'll use the words…. I'll quote here from city of Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer. The $960,000 donation "from a single corporation was a shocker, even in Vancouver. What I've learned from that is that in the absence of rules, be prepared to be shocked." I think many people were shocked. They continue to be shocked, because Vancouver has seen the donations for municipal elections climb 175 percent in the last eight years.

Why are those eight years important? It's important because it was in 2005 when the city of Vancouver first asked for the power to regulate campaign donations, to put limits on those donations, to put limits on spending around municipal elections. Since then they have asked not one time, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times. They have asked this government six times for this authority to regulate these kinds of donations, and still this government doesn't act. Still we see legislation coming forward that doesn't address this issue.

It is a shame. And frankly, as we go into yet another election without any rules, it is an outrage to the people of the city of Vancouver that they are living in essentially the autobahn of elections, where there are no rules. There are no limits. There are no speed limits. There are
[ Page 2872 ]
no donation limits.

[1610]

IntegrityBC came forward. They went to Vancouver's civic parties, and they said: "Well, in the absence of government action — because clearly, you've come forward six times in eight years, and you've asked the government over and over, and they're not giving you the power to regulate these things — will you agree to set your own election spending and donation limits?"

The NPA spent $2.5 million in the last election, $1 million dollars of that from a single donor; and Vision Vancouver, $2.2 million in the last municipal election.

These numbers aren't going down — as I said, up 175 percent.

I'm going to quote this time from the NPA executive coordinator, Natasha Westover, who said: "We feel that it has to be legislated, to bind all the parties to the same rules." That's reasonable, to ask the government to step forward, to have both parties who spent the most money come forward and say, "Please set some rules so that we have some predictability, so that we can run a fair election," and yet this government continues to let them down.

I heard what could only be described as some confusing math from the other side about spending in Vancouver compared to spending in other jurisdictions. Here are some great examples. In Brandon, Manitoba, there is a $16,000 limit for a candidate running to be mayor — $16,000. In Toronto's ward 7 there is a $27,464 limit for a candidate running for councillor there.

The spending limit for the mayor of Mississauga, a city just 1,000 registered voters short of the size of Vancouver…. The spending limit for that mayoral position was $319,664 in 2010. Now, keep in mind that in Mississauga as an individual donor, you're limited to a donation of no more than $750 to any one candidate, so in order to raise the amount that a single donor in Vancouver gave, a single donor, you would need 1,280 people to donate the maximum in that city to equal that one single donation.

Now, I love being in the west, and I love our image of the Wild West, but I don't understand why it is that this government insists that we be the Wild West of elections in an area free of limits and rules on campaign donations and spending in the city of Vancouver. I ask them, and I urge them to fix this problem — not tomorrow, not next year, not eight years from now but immediately.

J. Darcy: Thank you to my colleagues. Let me say, first of all, that they think that there are some welcome steps that have been taken in this bill, and it is certainly a step forward that candidates will be required to file campaign finance disclosure statements within 90 days rather than 120 following an election, that sponsorship information will be published on all election advertisements, a 46-day pre-election period with limits on the third-party advertising during that time, as well as a new compliance and enforcement role that is established for Elections B.C. But I want to speak to what I think is an opportunity lost.

My colleague has characterized it as the Wild West in municipal finance. I want to talk about it also as an opportunity lost for electoral reform, for increasing confidence in our democratic system. We don't, any of us in this room, need to be pollsters to know that for the average British Columbian, the average Canadian, there is a considerable degree of cynicism about the political process — about elections, about what happens before elections and people's ability to influence the outcome, people's ability to influence politicians after they've been elected.

Some of the cynicism that exists I believe absolutely has to do with people feeling that they don't have the same ability to influence what happens in an election, depending on their financial means.

[1615]

Now, one of the speakers opposite earlier spoke about the extremes and that what has happened in Vancouver is the case of an extreme. I don't want to dwell on Vancouver per se, but the reality is that we do, in fact, legislate to deal with some extreme situations. There are many things in our Criminal Code that are prohibited that are actions only carried out by, hopefully, a very, very small number of individuals. That doesn't mean that we don't establish clearly in legislation that this kind of action, this kind of crime, is a violation of the Criminal Code, for instance, and that other types of actions violate other acts in the province of British Columbia.

We certainly do have a situation in municipal elections where money does speak, and it speaks big-time in politics. The government had an opportunity to change that with this legislation. That is certainly something that in the city of Vancouver, which is governed by the Vancouver Charter, people have advocated for, for many, many years. The government certainly had the opportunity to look at that and to bring in specific amendments that relate to the Vancouver Charter.

Even more broadly, the fact that we have not seen the kinds of what I'll call abuses of the electoral process by that kind of investment of money or offers of money that we've seen in Vancouver totalling $1 million dollars doesn't mean that on a proportionate basis we might not see that in other medium-sized cities or smaller municipalities across the province. Circumstances may…. There may be development decisions that certain parties believe are really, really important to influence, and they would try and bring their influence to bear with enormous contributions at the municipal level.

Other levels of government have certainly seen fit to both introduce spending limits as well as to introduce caps on corporate and union donations — something that I believe in very strongly and that my colleagues on this side of the House believe in very strongly.
[ Page 2873 ]

A number of years ago when Jean Chrétien was still Prime Minister, he brought before the parliament amendments to legislation that would enshrine caps on corporate and union donations at the federal level. In several provinces across this country we have caps on corporate and union donations. Because the cap is very, very low, effectively it means that there is not any influence of corporations and unions in the outcomes of elections.

I think that this is a huge opportunity that is being lost, both the opportunity to implement bans on corporate and union donations, as has been requested specifically in Vancouver, but also to fail to put in place expense limits for spending in any municipalities, whether they be large or small, whether they're urban or rural communities.

The fact that we have only seen this kind of offer of a large donation, as I said, in one large municipality does not mean that that situation could not prevail, and surely it's our responsibility as legislators to not just look at that one example but to look at what we can do by way of electoral reform that will enhance confidence in our political system, that will enhance confidence in our democratic system.

There are certainly some very significant and important changes in this legislation that we support, but I also believe very strongly that there are opportunities lost. There was also plenty of time to introduce such changes, since this consultation has been going on for many, many years and since the task force charged at looking at these issues submitted its report a full four years ago.

It was said there wasn't time to do it in time for the 2011 municipal elections. Now there appears to be still not time to do it in time for the 2014 municipal elections. I think that is really very unfortunate. It is a serious failing on the part of this government not to introduce these amendments at this time.

[1620]

Surely it's in all of our interests to build the confidence — and to try and abate the cynicism that exists — about our political system at every opportunity that is presented to us.

D. Routley: I rise to address Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. I'd like to first acknowledge some of the positives we are recognizing that are being brought forward in this legislation — particularly, that candidates are required to file campaign disclosure statements within 90 days rather than 120 following an election, which is an improvement in transparency.

We support the notion that sponsorship information be published on all election advertisements, a measure not currently required. Third-party advertising sponsors will be required to register and disclose their expenditures made within a 46-day pre-election period. There are currently no such requirements, and we support that change.

We note that there's a new compliance and enforcement role established for Elections B.C., including publishing of candidate campaign disclosures, but we would also note the absence of any budget increase for Elections B.C. in order to accomplish that work.

Those are aspects of this legislation that deserve support and that answer some of the recommendations of the UBCM task force on local elections that was carried out in 2010.

But this side of the House has repeatedly moved private members' bills on the provincial scale to eliminate corporate and union donations from provincial politics. We feel strongly that that would improve the democratic participation in this province and essentially provide more confidence to voters that the process is not tainted by special interest.

So we would support that at the provincial level and have done, through the introduction of private member's bills, repeatedly — which have not been supported by the B.C. Liberal government — and we would support exactly the same measures being implemented at the local government level.

We believe that campaign expenditure limits should be included in this bill and that campaign donation limits should be included in this bill. Many colleagues before me have referred to one person in the city of Vancouver donating almost $1 million to the campaign budget of the NPA. That campaign donation — it was probably the largest donation in the history of this province by one person — essentially comprised approximately 40 percent of the entire elections campaign budget of the NPA in the last civic election in Vancouver.

The notion that a person could donate almost $1 million to a local government campaign and not affect the process and not affect the priorities of the party or the person that that donation was made to is simply naive, and I don't think British Columbians would accept that notion.

The person who donates $10 to a campaign cannot possibly feel that their priorities are going to gain the same recognition as the person who has donated $1 million to a campaign. That is simply ridiculous. That situation ought to have been addressed in this bill but, unfortunately, hasn't been.

There was a popular media personality, who I'm sure many members are familiar with — a scientist, an astronomer by the name of Carl Sagan — who used to be characterized by his speculation that there were millions and billions of stars out there. Well, one campaign donation of $10 is obscured by the millions and billions of the powerful in this province who can donate to such an extraordinary level and thereby affect process.

[1625]

Our previous speaker on the government side said that he didn't feel that it would be wise…. I think it was the Minister of Education who said that he didn't think
[ Page 2874 ]
it would be wise to rush into anything in terms of applying limits to expenses or campaign donations. Well, this is hardly a case of rushing into anything. The UBCM task force that made the recommendations to do exactly that did its work in 2010. In 2011 the then local government minister, Ida Chong, announced — in April of 2011 — that it was too close to the November 2011 local elections to bring in changes to the act. Well, here we find ourselves in exactly the same situation, exactly the same six months before a local election, bringing in changes.

What's happened? What's been done by the government? They've had these recommendations for over four years now. They told us in 2011 that it was too close to the election six months out to bring changes then. Now four years go by with no action taken. We're now six months from the next local election, and the government is bringing this forward, but without those significant measures that this side of the House feel are necessary to adequately reform local government elections in British Columbia.

The Minister of Education also said that this is a ground-up process and that they are listening to the recommendations of UBCM. He called that the bottom, so that's a bottom-up response from the government. Well, if they had been listening to UBCM and had responded as we believe they should have, these measures would have been brought forward four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, but not this late. There's no excuse for this being so late, and there's no excuse for the bill not including these significant measures.

If the Education Minister really wants to engage in bottom-up democracy, then perhaps the Minister of Education should listen to voters. I don't think I've encountered a single voter who has disagreed with the notion that there ought to be caps on spending and caps on donations at the local government level during elections. I have not spoken to a single person on the left, on the right, in the middle, undefined, who has not said: "That's a good idea." It's an obvious, obvious conclusion. It passes the nod test of every voter that there ought to be these limits in order to have a clean process free of manipulation, and yet these measures have failed to make their way into this bill.

I'm hoping that the government will reconsider this bill, that the minister will consider, during debate, amendments to this bill that would introduce these measures that would be so desperately necessary in order to give this bill full integrity. I hope that the minister will consider that the additional responsibilities implied for Elections B.C. be somehow supported through this bill or by her government in some other way.

While we have seen the task force from the UBCM make recommendations — some of them answered in this bill, those that we support — this bill also fails to include what we would consider some of the very most vital recommendations of the UBCM task force, the very recommendations that have formed the basis of private members' bills from the NDP opposition to bring just such caps on union and corporate donations to the local government process as we recommend for the provincial election process.

With those comments, I'll take my place in the debate and hope that the minister will listen favourably to the recommendations that are being made for amending this bill to give it integrity.

[1630]

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to take my place to speak to Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. We know that this is a piece of legislation that came from work that was done heading up into 2010, work that was done jointly by the government and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, looking through the establishment of a Local Government Elections Task Force and a report that subsequently came from the work of that task force. The task force took a pretty broad approach and addressed a whole range of issues.

Now, I would note that the task force reported out in 2010 — a number of things that we'll talk about, some of the specifics of this. I think one of the things that's most telling is that by the time we get to completion, from a legislative perspective, of the work of the task force, we will be eight years out from the time that that task force actually fulfilled and completed its work.

A little bit about what's in the bill. The bill does address some key issues. First of all, it does require candidates to file campaign finance disclosure statements within 90 days, rather than 120 days, post-election. It's always good to get that information out as promptly as possible and to do that.

It requires that sponsorship information be published on all election advertisements so we have some sense of where that sponsorship is coming from and that third-party advertising sponsors be required to register and disclose expenditures made within the 46-day pre-election period. We do have some requirements there.

The other piece that's significant and a change here is the new compliance and enforcement role established for Elections B.C., including on-line publishing of candidate campaign disclosures. Currently, as members will know, all of this is done by local governments. There is no role for Elections B.C. today. That will change after this legislation, presumably, passes in this session. All of those things are fine. There's not a problem with that. They come out of the joint recommendations, the recommendations of the task force — recommendations that generally are pretty acceptable.

What are the challenges around this piece of legislation? The challenges really are in what's not there — the pieces that the government and the minister have chosen not to put in place for this particular piece of legislation, pieces that, there's been indication, will be put in place for implementation possibly for 2018. I want to speak a
[ Page 2875 ]
little bit about those.

I think probably the most challenging and telling piece around this is spending limits and donation limits. As people will know, probably one of the best decisions that's been made around elections and election expenses — and it's in place at the federal level and at the provincial level — creates a formula, and it tells me how much I can spend as a candidate and how much every other candidate can spend in order to seek election.

This is a good policy. It's a policy in place, again, federally and provincially, and it levels the playing field. It helps to determine that in fact you have a situation where elections can't be just about money. They have to be about ideas. They have to be about engagement. They have to be about platforms. They have to be about candidates. They can't just be bought and be about money.

At the local level we don't have that situation. We have a situation where there is unlimited spending in place. Of course, in many communities that's not as significant an issue as it is in others, but in our larger urban communities it is an issue. It's a very real issue in the city of Vancouver, where I'm from. It's a growing issue in places like Surrey, a growing issue in other urban areas.

That's the reality of this. You have a situation where in Vancouver, for example, parties spend literally millions of dollars. The leading parties can spend well in excess of $1 million in order to elect candidates.

[1635]

That creates a situation where independents and smaller parties are not in the game at all. That's the political reality that we face. Part of the objectives of the task force was to try to level this playing field, to try to create a situation where that doesn't occur, to create a situation where people have the authority to spend enough money to get their message out, to put their campaign in place, to be able to have the infrastructure for their campaign that allows them to go out and successfully deliver their message and reach out to voters — all important and essential.

That's what happens provincially and federally. But at the end of the day, to create a situation by caps on spending, where no candidate can dramatically outspend another candidate, where money isn't the issue…. The reality is, as we know, that the municipal level of government is one of the few levels of government where you can make people wealthy overnight by rezoning a piece of property. You can make somebody wealthy in a minute.

We know, if we look at who makes contributions to campaigns, that the development industry does that. I don't have a problem with that. The development industry is there. They are actively supporting candidates across the political spectrum, in many cases, that they believe are in their interest. That's not the problem.

The problem is when that support can become so dramatic that other candidates cannot participate in a fair way in an election process. When you don't have some kind of cap on what people can spend, you create that problem and you create that circumstance. What we needed here was for the government to fulfil its promise to put that in place, and that hasn't occurred here. We need a situation where candidates have a limit on what they spend.

Let's be clear. In a place like Vancouver, if you created a situation where you limited the spending for each candidate on council and said, "But you can come together as a political organization, merge your capped spending and spend it in a collective way," which I would be supportive of, they'd still have lots of money to spend — lots and lots of money — but there would be some limits on that. This doesn't do that. This doesn't oblige that to occur, and that's problematic.

It's interesting that it's not only problematic across the province, but one of the important things here is we've seen the current administration in Vancouver raise these same concerns and ask for changes to the Vancouver Charter that would allow them to address this issue, would allow them to move forward on this issue.

It wouldn't require the provincial government to prescribe, other than to empower the Vancouver government, the council in Vancouver, to be able to make those changes. They have been clear on their commitments around spending limits and caps. It would be a good thing in the city of Vancouver.

I watch local elections pretty closely and have for a long, long time, and I know how problematic it is. I know how challenging it is when one or two political organizations spend $1 million plus, and everybody else spends $50,000 or $100,000 in total spending. That creates a problem, and that has to be addressed in some way.

This legislation had the opportunity to address that issue. It hasn't done that. We're told to wait, and it will come for 2018. We'll see; 2018 is a long way away. But the commitment was there to put it in place for this election. It's a commitment that was not fulfilled by the current government, and that's a problem.

The flip side, the other piece of this, of course, is the ability to make donations and capping how much you can donate. There is some merit in this. I think that organizations and individuals need to have the right to be able to make donations and to contribute and disclose those donations to any candidates that they choose, but at some point it makes some sense to say that we're going to put some limit on what the value of those contributions is.

It doesn't matter whether it's corporations or unions or whoever, but putting some limit on those donations just makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense in terms of ensuring that elections are fair and ensuring that there isn't the question — and this is perception as much as reality — about whether those donations are influencing decision-making.

I believe that in the vast majority of cases, there's no doubt that the people who are elected are making the determinations that they believe are the right ones. They're
[ Page 2876 ]
principled decisions, and they're moving forward, but when there are big donations, we know that that does create perception about things when decisions are made.

[1640]

You have to believe that when those decisions are being made — and they may be supportive of organizations, whether they're corporate organizations or unions or whoever. When a council and a local government make those decisions that are supportive of the interests of those groups, that people be able to see that that's based on merit…. It's based on those being the right decisions in terms of public policy and public interest, and not about a private interest. Perception is so important with that.

What we know is that's not just critical to those elected officials that their integrity is protected, but it's also important for those entities. Whether it's a union, a business, a developer or whoever, it's important for them. It's important for them to be able to not be painted or tarred with a brush that may be unfair.

If you limit the amount, you begin to start to address those issues. I think that's really important. It is the question of limiting how much you can spend, limiting how much you can donate and ensuring transparency so everybody knows what that situation is and knows what the circumstance is. Then people can be more confident.

We all know it here. We've seen it, and we continue to see it. There's a skepticism, maybe growing to be cynicism in some ways, about elected officials and the roles we play. We need to challenge that. But in order to challenge that, we do need to have the rules in place that support that. Having those rules in place…. All too often it's about money. One way or the other, it's about money. The key pieces here are about money, and that's what we need to put in place.

Sadly, this particular piece of legislation doesn't do that. The piece that's directly related to that is related to the city of Vancouver. We know the city of Vancouver has made the request. That request has been supported by the UBCM — that they have a charter change that enables them, empowers the city of Vancouver, to make some of these decisions, even if the government at this point isn't prepared to do it across the board and across the province.

There's an argument that this may not be a one-size-fits-all situation, where every municipality — in terms of size, capacity and all those things — needs to be treated the same way. I think that's a fair conversation and a fair discussion. But I don't think there's any question that a place like Vancouver, which has its own charter and is a pretty sophisticated and mature political environment — that they are prepared to put those kinds of limits in place. They have the capacity to do it, and they have the capacity to enforce it.

I think that it makes absolute and eminent sense to have done that and to have allowed the city of Vancouver to in fact have put in place the limits and the caps that they believe make sense — and to have had that public debate in Vancouver, where everybody who's interested in the municipal election process would have had the opportunity to have a discussion with the elected officials there about what that should look like, what the structure should look like, what the limits should be and how you structure it to allow people to work collaboratively in the political organizations.

That would have been a good and important discussion. Not just for the money; it also would have been an important discussion, I think, to raise confidence in our electoral process. Who knows? Maybe it might have helped to add 3, 4 or 5 percent to the percentage of people who vote. That would be a good thing.

We all know the challenges that we face and the frustrations I think we all feel that we would like more people to engage in the process and to vote. If you think it's tough for us, at the municipal level it's all the more challenging. Anything that would support, at the municipal level, enhancing and engaging more people in that process would be a good thing.

If people have increased confidence about the financial aspects of election finance and how election finance works and the fairness of it, I think it enhances the willingness of people and the desire of people to participate. We could have done that with this piece of legislation, but we didn't. That's a big, big problem.

Again, in Vancouver they weren't asking the province to prescribe a process and a solution for them. They were asking the government to give them the power and to enable them to have come up with a solution that made sense for Vancouver.

As I think I heard the minister say, it's not a one-size-fits-all situation. Well, that's probably true. Vancouver has that capacity to have done that for themselves, to have done it in a way that was professional and thorough and competent and created a structure that worked and was transparent enough that people who had questions about it could choose to do that and question it. The public debate would have been driven in Vancouver.

[1645]

That change could have happened. It hasn't happened. I would hope that if we don't achieve this, this time — and it's pretty clear from this legislation that the government doesn't intend to deal with this critical question — it will be put in place and the people in Vancouver will be allowed to make that change moving forward, whether it be to a 2017 or a 2018 election, depending on how the companion piece of legislation, Bill 21, plays out over the coming debate. That would have been a positive thing to do, and we could have accomplished that.

The other piece here that's a bit challenging is that Elections B.C. has been asked to play a much more significant role in compliance and enforcement. I don't have a problem with that. I think Elections B.C. is a very pro-
[ Page 2877 ]
fessional and sophisticated organization. It's an organization that has, really, something to contribute to this.

The problem I have is that Elections B.C., I think, is generally a pretty efficient and effective organization today, and no new resources have been applied to Elections B.C. in this legislation. We're not seeing, and we don't see in the budget, new resources that ensure that Elections B.C. has capacity — and if they have to add some resources to the organization to ensure they have the capacity to be able to go out and do the work that's contemplated in Bill 20 and accomplish the results and be able to provide some confidence around compliance and enforcement.

They certainly have all the ability in the world to do that, but they may take a little bit more resources. I would hope that the minister…. I'm sure that the critic will talk to the minister about this in committee stage — about how in fact that occurs and about how in fact Elections B.C. is presumed to have that capacity to do that and what discussions the minister and her officials have had with Elections B.C. about their ability to do this and about whether there are places where they've identified potential shortfalls in their own capacity and their own resources that will need to be reinforced or bolstered in order for them to do this.

Hopefully, the minister will have had those discussions. Where there are those areas where there may be shortcomings that need to be addressed, maybe the minister will be in a place to tell the critic during committee stage how in fact that's going to occur so that we have a situation where we know that Elections B.C. is going to be able to do the job that we all want them to be able to do, to support and improve the circumstance of local election finance.

Those are the pieces that jump out at me as pieces where there are the shortcomings of this. You have a piece of legislation that generally, for what it accomplishes here, is just fine. It's a reflection of a large part of what the task force had to say — just fine. The process to do that was just fine, and that has created the situation we have. But the holes, the omissions, in the legislation are significant and glaring because they exclude and omit the pieces that I believe most folks would have told you were some of the most critical pieces to the success of this legislation and to the work of the task force.

They would tell you that it, in fact, is about the money. People say "follow the money," and that's always true in elections too — follow the money. This is about the money, and it is about the ability to collect that money, how you collect it, who you collect it from and then how much you can spend. We simply need to put those limits in place if we're going to accomplish, I think, the kind of level playing field that I would hope everybody in this room would think was valuable, the kind of level playing field we all face, where we all get to spend the same amount of money come election time.

We don't have a situation where if you can raise $100,000 more than me, you get to spend an extra $100,000. We're all told at the beginning of the game, "Here's the spending limit, and you don't breach the spending limit," and that's what we spend. That's the right rule, it's the right law, and it's the right thing to do. And believe me, if it's the right thing do to do for our national government and it's the right thing to do for our provincial government, it is inexplicable to me why that isn't the right thing to do for our local government.

[1650]

I would hope that the minister will be able to explain why this didn't come into play. Again, I'm sure the critic will delve into these questions in some depth in the committee stage, but these are questions that have not been answered to anybody's satisfaction as to why these omissions are here.

Eight years — the government had eight years since they got this report to write these rules. Eight years, and we're still not there. They'll have eight years, I should say, by the time we're done and by the time they get them written. You know, they've had four years now, heading up to this election.

At first the hope was that they were going to get them in place for 2011. Didn't happen. Fair enough. You know, the report came out in 2010. Maybe it might have been the suggestion it was a little too rushed to get them in place for 2011. That might have been fair to say: "We just didn't have enough time to get this done."

I don't question that. I think that that might have been a fair position to take. If you knew that you wanted them in place, that you were going to accept the recommendations and that you were going to deal with the problem and you said, "We can't quite get it done for 2011…." Understood. But it's inexplicable as to why you couldn't get it done for 2014, in three years.

There was no shortage of time for the people to write and for leg. counsel to investigate and for all the analysis to happen, but the government simply didn't do it. They chose not to do it. It raises questions about: did they just drop the ball, or was there a conscious decision that this was simply not a change that they wanted to make? There are folks who believe the current system — with unlimited spending, few controls, a little bit of a wild west approach — is what people like just fine. Don't know for sure, but it raises a serious question of that, because it is not defensible to say that you couldn't have gotten this thing written in three years — just not defensible to say that.

I look forward to the ongoing debate around this. I look forward to committee stage. I look forward to hearing the minister explain how these shortcomings of the bill occurred and why the minister and the government weren't able to address these matters when they had the better part of three years to do it from the time they got the report — why they haven't been able to accomplish
[ Page 2878 ]
these objectives and what the roadblocks are that have blocked the ability of the government to find a way to deal with caps, with spending limits and donation limits, and why that hasn't happened.

Maybe we'll all be enlightened that there's some legitimate reason for this. But it's pretty hard-pressed to find one right now, pretty hard-pressed to see what occurred that didn't allow somebody to pay some attention to this and get it fixed over the last few years so that we would be running the upcoming municipal elections this November, the 2014 elections this November, under a set of rules that would have levelled those playing fields across the board. That would have ensured that candidates all had a fair chance, in terms of the spending side, to make their case, to make their argument and to be, hopefully, judged on the merit of their character as candidates and their ideas and vision for their jurisdictions.

Instead, we have a situation where that will not necessarily be the case, because of money. It's not acceptable, again, federally. It's not acceptable provincially. It shouldn't be acceptable municipally. This law doesn't deal with that. It's a significant flaw here. So we're going to adopt a piece of legislation that deals with a number of issues — and that's all good — but it's terribly flawed when it comes to the most fundamental issues of all, and those are the issues about where the money is and how you follow the money.

With that, I'll take my place and enjoy the rest of the debate.

G. Holman: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, Bill 20. I'll be echoing some of the comments made by my colleagues, and I do appreciate the comments made on both sides of the House on this issue.

This notion that somehow election financing may not be as important for local governments as it is for senior governments — which seems to be reflected in the fact that we're just now today discussing the kinds of things that are already in place provincially and federally — I couldn't object more strongly to that.

[1655]

I come from local government. I was Saltspring's CRD director for two terms. I don't want to disparage local government, but there's no level of government, actually, that is more susceptible or vulnerable to decisions made by elected officials that can make large amounts of money for developers, for example. Local government has become somewhat legendary for councillors that sometimes are unduly influenced by money, so I think it's in fact quite perverse. If anything, the rules around election financing should be even stronger for local governments than they are for provincial and federal governments.

I echo the comments made by my colleague who was just speaking that if it's appropriate for our provincial and federal governments, surely it should be appropriate for local, and, I would argue, even more important when you consider the power that local governments have over zoning, over land use. They can, essentially, create wealth out of thin air. In some respects, they have even a more powerful tool than the ability to print money.

Printing money can be inflationary, but the ability to create density in a local community is an incredibly powerful tool and can be used for good or evil. But it's even more reason why election financing at the local level needs to be strong. In my view, the very same kinds of provisions at the local level should be in place that are in place provincially and federally.

It has been stated repeatedly by colleagues on this side of the House about the importance of donation and expenditure caps at the local level. Without that change…. That, I think, is the most fundamental change that needs to be made at the local elections, actually. If you look at the system in the United States compared to Canada, in the United States it takes millions and millions of dollars, for example, for even just state legislators to get elected.

The key difference between election systems here in Canada and the United States is those spending limits, which ensure that candidates from modest backgrounds can run successfully and can compete successfully — that elections can't, essentially, be bought. Really that's the situation that we have right here with local governments, where there are no spending limits at all.

The other comment that has been made from time to time here — which I would disagree with, again quite strongly — is that while Vancouver provides the most recent and egregious example of a lack of a spending limit, where one donor…. By the way, Saltspring Island has a bit of a history with that donor, Rob Macdonald, who bought a large piece of land on Saltspring and proceeded to log it quite vociferously.

That is the clearest example and most egregious example of a lack of a limit on a donor. But make no mistake. This issue is every bit as important to smaller communities. It's just smaller dollars involved. There was an example just within the last several years in a municipality in my constituency on the Saanich Peninsula. A third-party organization made a campaign contribution. I think it was in the order of $17,000 — many times the spending limits of a typical candidate in those elections but, relatively speaking, several times the spending limits of individual candidates. A much smaller amount of money but in that context, equally influential.

That entity, by the way, did have a land use proposal that was before council in that case. So this is not an issue that just applies to Vancouver, although it's supplied us with the most outrageous example of how this lack of rules can be taken advantage of. It's every bit as important in smaller communities as well.

[1700]

I do agree with my colleagues who say that certainly in Vancouver it would be easier, in some sense, to make
[ Page 2879 ]
a change to this legislation, which is going to be passed within the next week or two, to allow them, because of their charter, to establish limits that they feel are appropriate. You don't have to deal with the one-size-fits-all problem. Obviously, Vancouver is one of the largest communities in British Columbia.

In my view, though, it would be very easy. I should know this, but I suspect that in other jurisdictions you could easily scale limits, for example, on a per-capita basis or per-voter basis. You could ensure that the limits are reasonably generous so that you're not unduly restricting the ability of citizens and third-party groups to express their views in an election. A rule around election spending would be easily scalable across community on a per-capita or a per-voter basis.

It would be, obviously, easiest to deal with Vancouver as a one-off. Even if government were to listen to that recommendation, I think it would be a real step forward for this legislation.

Please don't misunderstand. There are good things in this legislation, as several of my colleagues have said. This is definitely a step in the right direction. Greater involvement by Elections B.C., more stringent disclosure requirements — those are all very important changes. I commend the government and the minister for at least getting that done. But there is an opportunity here to take the next step.

It's my understanding that government really doesn't fundamentally disagree with the notion of spending caps. They're just saying: "Gee, it's too close to the election to do that." I think the comments of my colleagues have put paid to that notion, because of course there was the bipartisan task force in 2010 that was making a recommendation. Government has had a number of years, actually, to prepare for this. At some point you have to come to grips with this.

The suggestion that somehow now it's too close to the election — again, I would disagree with that. Yeah, the elections, both in Vancouver and elsewhere in British Columbia, are starting to percolate, but this legislation can be passed within a few weeks. Those rules could be in place without any problem at all, in my view. If that's not done, it really is an opportunity missed.

There was a suggestion by members opposite. I believe it was the Minister of Education who said something along the lines that this side of the House doesn't have a policy on most things. Well, that's debatable, of course, but on this specific issue, I think we are on the side of the angels.

As has been pointed out by colleagues here, this side of the House has put forward private members' bills banning donations from corporations and unions for the past several years. It was a very clear platform commitment in 2013. One can argue other issues, but on this particular one, I think this side of the House has been consistent over a number of years about the importance of putting limits on both donations and spending.

I don't have a lot more to say around this. I do think it's a bit ironic that government is saying: "We need more time to consult about, in particular, the donor and the spending limits."

I truly wish that they'd taken that attitude with respect to changes in the ALR and the ALC, changes in the Park Act, where this side of the House is strongly recommending that they slow down and go out and consult with the public as they promised. In fact, on the ALR and ALC we didn't even have any word of it before the campaign. I do think this argument that we need to consult more with the public…. I wish that had been applied to some other pieces of legislation that the House is dealing with.

That aside, I think this is a step forward. I think that without dealing with donor and spending limits, it's like fixing a bike without putting the wheels on it. It's fundamental. It's probably the most fundamental thing that you can do to make sure that elections are fair and are not going to be unduly influenced. This is a missed opportunity in that regard.

[1705]

V. Huntington: I would like to, in fairly short discussion, add my comments to Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, to those of other members of the House.

As other members have indicated, there are sections of the bill that are welcome. I think changing the 120-day, the four-month, filing period to 90 days is reasonable. I think it's a much better way of approaching it and gives the individuals within any riding or any municipality a much easier way of understanding what has gone on. Often it leads to a lot of impatience in trying to uncover who did donate to the campaigns at the local election level.

What I would like to have seen in terms of the 90-day filing period is perhaps some recommendation from the minister, or from the Minister Responsible for Core Review, to Elections B.C. that they look at their filing requirements. Some of the requirements, as we all know in this building, are incredibly complicated and very difficult.

Especially at the local government level, the financial systems required are very onerous, especially to candidates that are running on a shoestring or haven't got a large organization behind them. As we all know, taking your financial material to the auditor at the end of the election sends shivers up the auditor's spine simply because of the complexities of the filing system.

When the government looks at red tape, it would be nice to think, too, that Elections B.C. could look at some of their red tape just to see whether these filing requirements could have been made less onerous, especially on those candidates who are running alone and without fi-
[ Page 2880 ]
nancial backing to any large degree. But the 90 days is a good move, and I think everybody does feel that's an appropriate thing. Similarly, we all seem to support many of the requirements regarding sponsorship information and third-party advertising.

However, I would like to note that some of the NGOs have indicated a great deal of concern about the requirements that are being imposed on them and have asked…. Again, they can't comply without step-by-step guidance from Elections B.C. Yet again, we see that the requirements can be quite onerous, obfuscatory and very difficult to understand and, I think, to some of the smaller NGOs, very difficult to comprehend and satisfy.

Additionally, they have become very concerned that there are no limits to the advertising dollars spent, as there are in the federal jurisdictions. They have approached the government and suggested, through the task force, that the requirements for advertising and following the specific requirements of disclosure be narrowed somewhat.

For instance, in the federal jurisdiction it's a $500 limit. If you're providing advertising or a brochure, and the cost is not larger than $500, you don't have to register and disclose. Perhaps that is something this bill and the government should consider. It is very difficult on NGOs if they have to spend a great deal of time and money disclosing expenditures that are hardly noticeable in the larger scheme of the election.

I would suggest that the government consider improving, as they have asked, the design of third-party advertising rules so that they target and limit advertising by the big spenders and are more straightforward to apply. It can be achieved by introducing, as I mentioned, a reasonable minimum spending floor below which registration as an advertising sponsor is not required. I think that is excellent advice, and it is a request that I think the government should be looking at a little more sincerely and consider amending in this bill.

[1710]

With other members, I think the failure of the bill to introduce finance contribution levels, donation levels, at this stage is unfortunate. Yes, we can look at it later, but there's absolutely no reason that it couldn't be done before the next election. As a matter of fact, I think many candidates would find it an absolute relief to believe and to think that there could be contribution caps and spending limits applied at this stage. The major fundraising hasn't yet started for the next election, and I think it's an unfortunate excuse from the government in a failure of a major component of what this bill should contain.

Some members in the House will know that last year, in 2013, I introduced an election finance amendment act. It applied to provincial elections and finances. However, it can just as easily apply to the local government situation. I'd like to just make a few comments on why I felt that democracy in this province, one of the few provinces in the country that doesn't have contribution limits, needed to have British Columbia review its political donation process.

I'll just quote from my introduction of that bill. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court commented during a ruling that the integrity of an election to high office "must be guarded with assiduity." I agree absolutely with that comment. And we know that the Times Colonist — and this is where the quote "the Wild West" has popped up — was correct when it said: "In this province there are no rules to break…. The Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interest groups with lots of money to buy political influence."

When the member for Saanich North and the Islands says that local government is the most vulnerable of all government levels, he's quite right. It is easy to influence a local government decision at the zoning level. That ability to influence a decision ought not to be, and an amendment to this bill could stop it right now. We should be looking at capping donations. We should be looking at forbidding donations from corporations and unions. We should be looking at protecting the right of an individual to be able to conduct and participate in an election on a fair and even playing field, and you cannot do that when favouritism and influence of the kind that money can buy is permitted within our democratic structure.

You know, Mr. Speaker, our voters know that. They want to see this influence and type of influence stopped, and they want to see our government move to correct that loophole within the democratic system. I think when B.C. can realize it has the dubious distinction of being the largest Canadian province with no restrictions on who finances our political campaigns, then we can see that there's a real weakness in our system and process within this province.

Money talks, and democracy is increasingly bankrolled by special interests. All you have to do is look south of the border, when even the Supreme Court of their nation is saying that the public right to speak, freedom of speech, does not enable you to restrict donations. But at least we have in this country a much more mature attitude to understanding what democracy requires of us. It requires that we ensure a level playing field within our system.

So I am deeply regretful that the minister didn't see her way to presenting us a bill that deals with this problem now and not sometime in the future. And because of that delay that the minister is arguing is reasonable, we have no faith that the government is going to look at it in the future.

Perhaps that's why we're all talking about it now. We would like to see some indication that the minister and her government understand that this is a fundamental flaw within our process and within our democracy. It needs to be reflected upon by this government, and it needs to be fixed, and I have to say there is plenty of time
[ Page 2881 ]
to fix it before the next election.

[1715]

With that, I'll sit down, in the hopes that the minister is listening to some of this genuinely concerned debate.

M. Farnworth: I rise to speak to Bill 20, the local government election campaign reform act. It's an important piece of legislation. Most people may be surprised — in fact, are surprised — when they find out how elections are financed at the local government election level.

When you talk to them about it and ask them, "Do you think there should be spending limits in place?" they will say: "Of course there should be." "Would you like to see full disclosure of donations?" "Of course there should be." "Do you think that third-party advertising should be in place — notification of who's doing it?" "Of course it should be."

Yet when they find out that many of these issues, those safeguards, don't exist in our system, they get extremely concerned, and they wonder why not. They become even more concerned when they find out that we probably have the laxest local government election spending rules in the entire country. That's unfortunate, because there are a number of solutions that can be put in place that can address many of those issues.

Now, I'll start with the positive.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear one of my colleagues across the way say: "Yay." Well, there are some good elements of this particular piece of legislation — in terms of when you have to file your disclosures, reduced from 120 days to 90 days; disclosure around who's doing third-party advertising. Those are good changes, good initiatives. They will be in place for this election, and I think that's worthy of support, and I'm happy to support those changes, as are all of us on this side.

But I think, to me, what's important is the fundamental flaw in the government's white paper that was identified that's not been addressed. That is the issue of the ability around corporate and union donations and on spending limits on campaigns.

We have been talking about this issue since the government first recognized the issue back in 2010 and said there would be changes in place for the 2011 election. For whatever reason, that wasn't able to happen. Since that time, they have had four years to deal with the issue and have failed to do that despite UBCM convention after UBCM convention, despite resolution after resolution, after many communities.

As my colleague from Delta South said, the issue of campaign financing, particularly where land and land rezoning are involved, is extremely important. I ran for council in 1983, and I spent in that election $500. That's all. I got elected. I spent $500. I didn't place a single newspaper ad. I had one small leaflet, and I had some signs. That was it. I spent $500, but I probably door-knocked on 5,000 doors.

I won an election the way that they used to be won in this province, which was by knocking on doors, not by who had the biggest campaign budget and who was able to spend the most money on flyers and advertising, and who was connected to whom in terms of being able to raise money. Sadly, those times, I think particularly in larger municipalities….

I want to distinguish that. I think it's still very much the case in smaller communities in much of the province of British Columbia about door-knocking. But today in many communities it is about the size of the campaign budget that matters. It is about being able to raise as much money as possible and spend as much as you can. That causes people concern. That causes people concern, because they start to ask questions: "Well, where are you getting the money from?"

The disclosure rules that are in place and the limit rules that are in place — and the rules are in place at the federal level and the provincial level — are simply not there to the same degree at the local level. Your spending limits aren't in the bill. Your ability….

[1720]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Your spending limits are what I'm talking about. The minister can sit there and say: "Oh, it's in the bill." The reality is that the issue I'm talking about, the issue all of us on this side of the House are talking about, is not in the bill. This government has had four years since 2010 to address that issue, and they have failed every single opportunity. That's the issue.

The government says: "Oh, there's no time." Well, one of the most complicated things that this House has had to deal with is called a boundary redistribution. Now, I know that that's something the minister isn't really familiar with because she hasn't been in this House long enough to see what's entailed in one of those things.

That is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that you deal with, and guess what. Last time we had to deal with one, the government botched the process, and we had to come back for a second time on that particular piece of legislation. Elections B.C. was very concerned that there was not the time to put a new boundaries piece of legislation in place.

But guess what. Both government and opposition recognized the importance of that and said: "You know what? This has to happen. Our electoral system depends on it. The law requires it." Despite when many people said that the time was not there — guess what — it got done.

It is amazing what can get done when government decides that it's actually a priority to get something done as opposed to saying, and using as an excuse, that they
[ Page 2882 ]
really don't want to do it. They'll say: "Oh, we'll put it off now for another four years." So if they do finally meet the commitment around the key element of campaign finance reform, it'll be eight years after it was supposed to have taken place, after they first started talking about it. That's eight years too late.

There's no reason — as my colleague from Delta South has said, as our critic from Coquitlam-Maillardville has said, as other speakers have said in this House — why those changes cannot be put in place, why the government refuses to listen to the opposition and put in place an amendment that would be supported by this side of the House without hesitation.

Even if you wanted to allow the city of Vancouver to be able to ban corporate and union donations, it would be supported. Let them decide if it's a priority. The city of Vancouver has unanimously said: "Hey, give us the power to ban corporate and union donations." I mean, the problem isn't even the minister's. It's not even the minister's problem.

All she has to do is add a line to a bill, and she can say: "You know what, city of Vancouver? You asked for it; you got it. Now it's your problem." They feel confident that they can address the issue. They feel confident that there's plenty of time to be able to ban corporate and union donations, for example.

It's a shame that the minister doesn't have the confidence in the abilities of her government to be able to put forward a progressive change that is supported right across the political spectrum within the city of Vancouver. You know, the Attorney General's former civic party, the NPA — fully on board. COPE — fully on board. Vision Vancouver — fully on board. Green Party — fully on board. They're saying: "Let us do it."

Yet the minister doesn't have, as I said, the confidence in her own government's ability, obviously, to put together a simple amendment that would pass in the House and do that. That's a real shame because one of the things that came out of Vancouver's last civic election was the sheer amount of money that was spent, and there was a real desire to address that problem.

[1725]

We're seeing that in other municipalities, especially municipalities where there is significant growth taking place. Whether it's in Surrey, whether it's in the Tri-Cities, whether it's in Burnaby, whether it's in the Minister of Education's former council that he served on in Langley, there's a real concern and need for greater transparency around election campaign financing.

This bill, as I said, does some good things around third-party disclosure and the responsibility for filing or shortening the time period for…. But it fails on one fundamental key issue, and that is the issue of campaign spending, limits on how much is spent.

We have them here at the provincial level. It's not hard. They have them at the federal level. It's not hard. It's not rocket science. It's political science. But you just put a number, and you say: "Guess what. You can't spend more than this." You could quite easily say: "You know what? There are ten members of council in the city of Vancouver. There are ten MLAs." You could say for the sake of argument that the spending limit would be exactly the same as if you were running for a provincial election. That would be one way of doing it.

It may not be perfect, but guess what. The position would be there. Elections B.C. would know exactly how to deal with it, because the same rules would apply. You could do that. It's not hard. All it requires is the political will. You could phase it in, for example. You could pick communities over a certain size. But the bottom line is that it requires the political will to do that. That's what was missing in 2010 in time for 2011. That's what is missing here in 2014.

Had we sat last year instead of waiting 200 days, we could have done it. The government said: "Oh, there are more important issues for us to deal with." "I'm out talking to the people in the province," the Premier said. "That's more important than sitting in the Legislature."

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Those were her words. But the reality is I can't think of anything more important than having democratic institutions that people have confidence in. A key part of that is the electoral process and having in place rules and guidelines that people have confidence in but, most importantly, when it comes to the issue of money in elections and when there are controls on the amount of money at the federal level and there are controls on the amount of money at the provincial level, that there are also controls on the amount of money at the local government level. That's the big flaw with this bill.

As I said, I've made my point on that. I think it's a shame that that's not in this bill. There's much in this bill that is good. What could have been a great piece of legislation is, in fact, an improvement piece of legislation, but it is not the bill that it could have been. That's a shame because, as I said, the government has had more than enough time to address the issue that really is missing from this bill, and I think that's sad.

With that, I'm more than happy to take my place and hear what other members have to say.

G. Heyman: I was watching this debate on my monitor in my office, and I heard my colleague from Coquitlam and my colleague from Port Coquitlam speak at some length about what they and I believe are significant problems with this bill, despite the many good things contained within it.

I was particularly moved to come in here and speak when I heard my colleague from Port Coquitlam reference what I believe is such a fundamental part of en-
[ Page 2883 ]
gaging people in democracy. It's not about, in my view, advertising or significant amounts of money. It's about engaging the people who we ask to vote for us in a dialogue and a discussion about what's important to them.

[1730]

There is a saying that says the perfect is the enemy of the good, but to echo and paraphrase my colleague from Port Coquitlam, in this case, I think it's fair to say that the very good would not be the enemy of the good.

There are, as others have said, significant improvements to the local elections campaign financing contained in this bill, but frankly, it defies belief in many ways that in this day and age we do not see contained in the bill some limits on campaign financing at the municipal level when they're so common at other levels of government.

The government, in putting forward this bill, has chosen to yet again ignore the Union of B.C. Municipalities, to ignore the requests of the city of Vancouver and, potentially, the requests of other municipalities, to actually take some action to give them the freedom to decide for themselves, along with the citizens who vote for them, what is appropriate in the way of limits or what's appropriate specifically in the way of corporate or union donations.

We know that the city of Vancouver has called for — as we on this side of the House, in terms of provincial elections, have called for — a ban on corporate and union donations.

I think I first started to give this very serious thought, although I certainly had supported the concept previously, when I became aware of the huge expenditures that were made by the successful candidate for the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, in his initial campaign. It was just astonishing. He was able to do this because of his great riches.

It makes, in a sense, the democratic process, the campaign process, a bit farcical when people can be so influenced by a bombarding of television advertising and radio advertising and print advertising and whatever else it's possible to purchase with such significant amounts of money. That takes away from the direct engagement that is possible for anyone, from whatever station in life, to engage in on the campaign trail. My colleague from Port Coquitlam referenced that.

Perhaps the most profound thing that happened to me in running for election to this House was the interaction I had with the people who are now my constituents in Vancouver-Fairview — the importance of that exchange, how much they appreciated the opportunity to actually tell me what was important to them as opposed to have me tell them what I thought was important for them.

I believe very, very strongly and profoundly that the more of that kind of interaction and engagement that we can have, the less likely we are to have the kind of complete divorce or estrangement or apathy with regard to the electoral process that we see at the federal level, at the provincial level and at the municipal level so markedly.

It is a problem for democracy when people don't vote. It is a problem for democracy when we in this chamber and other chambers don't turn our minds very clearly to what it is that makes people cynical about the electoral process and what we might do to make them feel that anyone — be they rich, be they poor or be they a middle-income family — has the ability to run for office and engage with the electorate without being put at such a severe disadvantage.

I think when people are subjected to the kind of advertising we've seen over the last decade — starting in the United States, slowly infiltrating into Canada — that is so cynical, so divorced from real issues or policy or questions, all of which is made possible by large amounts of money being expended, that people just think: "You know, it's just about spin. It's not about people who care about me. It's not about people who want to engage me. It's not a process where my vote will really matter."

I think that is so profoundly damaging to the system that people for decades, well over 100 years, fought for — the kind of democracy we have in British Columbia and in Canada; the kind of democracy that's been exercised within this chamber by, I was told when I was sworn in, a little over 900 people, including those of us who are new in this term.

[1735]

We need to come up with an answer. I wish this bill at the municipal level did it. We accept campaign finance limits at the provincial level. We accept campaign finance limits at the federal level. At the federal level we accept the limit on corporate and union donations. I think what we have seen in the city of Vancouver, where I represent a significant number of constituents who vote in Vancouver municipal elections, is not a campaign limit but a growing campaign cap that keeps rising.

We see all of the major parties spending and trying to outspend each other, because of course, who wants to engage in unilateral standing down of their ability to influence the public? That's why it is important to allow municipalities or big cities but also small municipalities and regions around the province to decide for themselves either to abide by reasonable limits that are set in this chamber or to decide for themselves what is appropriate in terms of campaign financing.

As my colleagues before me have said, there is much in this bill that improves the process. But the absence of attention to what has been asked for by the city of Vancouver, what is desired by many municipalities around the province, what has been supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities is a significant absence in this legislation. So while the legislation might be good, it's not very good. It could be very good, and it should be very good.

It could be playing its part in building greater engagement among citizens by assuring citizens that the deck
[ Page 2884 ]
isn't stacked against ordinary people who want to work to represent their neighbours, the people in their community, that it's not stacked against anyone but the very rich or anyone but the large parties that have access to major corporate donations — or major union donations, for that matter.

I hope that the absence of the ability for the city of Vancouver or other municipalities to ban corporate and union donations in this bill is not a reflection of a fear on the government side that the next step is to introduce it in the provincial Legislature. That's not a fear, frankly, that I think should be held by anyone. It's an attitude and a position that should be embraced by all of us. We will be better off in our democracy if we have to appeal to individuals to support political campaigns, if we have a funding process that doesn't disadvantage low-income or lower-income or middle-income people and if we take big money out of politics.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no additional speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to thank everyone for your comments today. I very much look forward to having further dialogue in the House. But if I possibly may, just because it may help move things through in the House….

When we talked about local government and the member opposite for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned that it's not rocket science, I do in fact have to identify the complexity of the type of legislation we're introducing today. The member opposite for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Port Coquitlam talked about federal and provincial legislation that's been brought forward around expense limits and: why simply can it not be so simple here in British Columbia?

If you look at the province, we have 85 members in the Legislative Assembly that are elected. But when we start looking at the local elections which LECFA covers…. This is in contrast to local elections with over 1,660 representatives elected to over 250 government bodies. These types of government bodies include regional districts, local governments — so municipalities, parks boards, Islands Trust. There is a great deal of complexity.

The one thing that the UBCM task force raised is that they wanted to make sure the legislation that we bring forward today represents something that will work for British Columbians. They wanted consistency. They wanted something that could stand up for all communities. For example, if we talked about expense limits and we say it's not rocket science, should that mean that the expense limits set for the school board of, say, Fraser–Fort George be the amount that we set for the city of Vancouver? Or should we set the amount of Pouce Coupe, the municipality, to a parks board expense limit?

[1740]

When we went out…. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville asked what we have been doing. We have been going out, we've been meeting with stakeholders, and we've been asking important questions. We have heard, as I visited all of the area associations, as I went out and met with local governments in each of your communities…. Something that I said was it was important that I heard from small communities and large communities, that I talked to electoral organizations, that I talked to regional districts so that what we have on expense limits had consensus.

Here is my observation and, perhaps, my suggestion to every member of this House: come back on expense limits with a consensus on the formula. Come back to the House on a consensus in every single one of your communities for every single piece on how that is going to look — consensus on a formula.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Oakes: Should we set the Pouce Coupe amount to the city of Vancouver? Is that something that the member opposite is suggesting, that the capital cap for Pouce Coupe is now what we're going to impose for Vancouver? What we heard from the local elections task force is consistency. They wanted….

Do you respect local governments? Do you respect the task force?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

Hon. C. Oakes: Do you respect your local election task force, which members on both sides of the House, mayors and councillors participated on and made these recommendations? They wanted consistency.

The question was asked, and it was answered in estimates around Elections B.C. and the filing requirements. We are working towards how we can improve with that. We've met with Elections B.C. We've got ongoing work on that. We are also looking at….

Ladies and gentlemen, this legislation represents the voter. On this side of the House we believe that the voters will get it right. We believe that it's not just the highest spender that will get elected. When we did analysis from across the province of British Columbia, it wasn't always about the person who spent the most that was successful. Ladies and gentlemen, I spent $250, and I used social media on my last campaign. Members opposite, we have lots of interesting examples of how complex and unique elections are in British Columbia.

I also made the commitment in October that due to the fact that we did not have consensus and the UBCM asked us…. They came to us and asked us for a phased-in approach because there was not consensus across British
[ Page 2885 ]
Columbia, across the variety of different elections that we'd be moving forward with this legislation. They asked for a phased-in approach.

The member opposite from Nanaimo said to make sure that we do it right. Ladies and gentlemen, the work that has gone into it of so many members that are sitting here today…. I would just like to acknowledge the work of so many of you that have moved to bring this forward to make sure that the most significant piece of legislation — legislation that will allow the voter to make decisions on who is supporting local government elections. Who are the donors? How much are they spending? Where is that money coming from? These are pieces that are here.

The other question that was raised in some of the conversations was around disclosure between elections. Well, you have to now, under the donor regulations, be demonstrating where that money comes from.

Ladies and gentlemen, I look forward to the dialogue on this. I ask that you go into your communities and ask your school board, ask your regional district, ask your municipality, ask your parks board, and come back to us on what the expense limit amounts will be.

[1745]

I've committed to moving forward on that dialogue. That dialogue is happening right now. I've been travelling across the province on that. I look forward to your participation in that process.

I look forward to committee phase on Bill 20, and I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I'd now like to refer Bill 20 to committee.

Bill 20, Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Now I would like to call second reading of Bill 21, intituled Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

BILL 21 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. C. Oakes: I am pleased that the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act be read for a second time. The legislation is a necessary companion piece to the new Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. With the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act focusing on campaign finance rules, there were a number of other statutes that required amendment.

These statutes included the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter, the Community Charter, the Islands Trust Act, the Cultus Lake Park Act and the School Act. The proposed Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act also addresses the recommendations made by the Local Government Elections Task Force which were not specific to campaign financing.

These recommendations include: a change to four-year terms of the office for local elected officials — we are the last province in Canada to have three-year terms, where all other provinces have moved to four years — a change of the election date from November to October; a requirement that nomination documents include a solemn declaration that the person is aware of and will comply with the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act; and an enhanced oath requiring election officials to exercise their powers faithfully and impartially.

I want to note that both the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the B.C. School Trustees Association support the change to four years. UBCM has also endorsed moving the general local elections date to October. In addition, this legislation contains the rules which will govern the transition from the existing local elections legislation to the new campaign financing rules under the new Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

Lastly, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act addresses minor amendments and housekeeping matters. This includes giving regional districts and the city of Vancouver power to establish their own oath of office, as they do in all other local governments in British Columbia.

This legislation and the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act will bring changes that apply to over 250 government bodies in British Columbia, including municipalities, regional districts, Islands Trust, parks boards and boards of education. This legislation is a necessary step in modernizing British Columbia's local elections by adding greater transparency and accountability. I ask that the members lend their support to this important piece of legislation.

S. Robinson: I rise today to address comments to Bill 21, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act. This is a rather technical bill, with over 200 sections, and it deals with the implications of Bill 20 that we just had some debate on. It's clearly the companion bill that makes some of the good changes that were being proposed in Bill 20 come to fruition in this piece of legislation.

It goes line by line, making note of how the existing Local Government Act, the School Act, the Islands Trust Act, the Cultus Lake Park Act and the Vancouver Charter all need to be changed to accommodate the previous bill that we discussed, Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, and how it will be enacted.

It's really interesting, given the debate that we just heard in the House and the minister's comments about how everyone should be treated the same. In fact, she invited everyone on this side of the House to come up with
[ Page 2886 ]
a plan for campaign financing.

[1750]

We would all go back to our local communities, whether they be up in Terrace or in Nanaimo or over at Creston — and certainly go back to Coquitlam — and ask what sort of expense limits our communities would want. She invited all of us to go and work very hard among our colleagues to come up with a plan that would meet all the needs of the entire province around this.

The minister, who has certainly had years to come up with this plan, invited this side of the House to go and do it. I think that it's actually rather simple. There is the Vancouver Charter, which is being considered and opened to make some of these changes. It wouldn't, in fact…. For the entire province, certainly not. That might need a bit more debate, and that might need a bit more consultation. That might need a little bit more conversation, and that might need a little bit more consultation.

However, the Vancouver Charter is a simple piece of legislation that this government, as it opens up to consider Bill 21 changes, could easily just, say, put in the Vancouver Charter: "Vancouver, you have certain challenges. We've heard you time and time again at the UBCM. You've been very consistent" — they've been incredibly consistent, not like the rest of the UBCM members — "perhaps the most consistent in asking for a ban on union and corporate donations and asking for a limit."

In fact, they're prepared to not even ask the government, this Liberal government, to suggest what it ought to be. They're prepared to say: "Let us decide. We'll figure it out. We'll do the hard work of this government, and we'll figure it out and implement it so that we can have a fair and level playing field."

In this bill there's this real opportunity for the government. Given that they're already making amendments, already making changes to the Vancouver Charter, it would be very easy to just add one more little piece in there that makes it a fair and level playing field in one city.

On the rest of it we can have some more consultation. It's not as significant a problem in the rest of the province, although it is a bit of a problem in some communities. But I think we can all agree — I would hope that people on both sides of the House would agree — that in Vancouver it really has run amok, that the campaign spending is outrageous and really has created some problems for regular folk stepping up and offering their service.

Only those who have access to big dollars, to million-dollar donations, to $25,000-a-plate dinners, can participate. That's really not good for any of us. It's not good for the electorate. It's not good for voter turnout. It completely turns off our voters.

I would certainly urge this government to consider, when we start talking in committee on Bill 21 and they're opening up the Vancouver Charter, making those changes so that they have a level playing field over there.

I do think that moving the date from November to October is a very good decision. I remember being at the UBCM when this came to the floor of that UBCM. I remember it was one of the first times I actually got up at the UBCM — it's far more cavernous than this very room, and there are thousands, maybe, of people there — and having to stand behind the microphone and trying to figure out what it was that I was going to say. I really thought that it was an important decision.

As a woman who was door-knocking on her own…. Even though it made my husband crazy and made my parents nuts, I couldn't find enough volunteers who could keep up to my fast pace as I knocked on as many doors as I could, so I would often go out alone. Of course, darkness would come very early in November, and as a woman who was out alone, it made people in my life a little anxious. It probably should have made me a little anxious.

I have to say that making it more palatable for women as they door-knock…. I live in a city, so I didn't feel particularly vulnerable, especially when my husband insisted that I stick to lighted streets, that I wasn't to go into dead-end streets. I did listen to him — most of the time. But let's not tell him that, Madame Speaker.

Certainly, in smaller communities it would be more challenging and perhaps more dangerous and more frightening. So moving it to an October date is certainly welcome.

[1755]

The other thing about moving the date to October is that a lot of folks…. Even in my community, in Coquitlam where it's quite mild compared to the rest of the country, we have snowbirds. They often head south, and they miss the election. They don't get to participate. Having an October date will perhaps capture those folks who have the luxury and the opportunity to leave town for the cold dark months. So I'm pleased to recognize that there will be, perhaps, a bit more voter participation.

Finally, we have better weather for voters in October than we do in November. I think that all around that's a very good and welcome decision, and I'm glad to see that it's included here in Bill 21.

Moving from three years to four years is always sort of…. I think it's an interesting change. It's controversial, with mixed reaction. I know that the minister said that the UBCM welcomes it. It's really divided in the UBCM, and it really depends, from year to year. Over the last four years two UBCM resolutions supported it, and twice it didn't get supported.

What that suggests is that it's actually quite divided. It would have been really interesting to find out if it's divided among urban versus rural. But in talking with, certainly, my colleagues…. We represent, on this side of the House, really diverse communities. It's mixed, and it's all over the place. There are certainly some urban communities that would prefer three and some rural communities
[ Page 2887 ]
that would prefer four, so it's not really that clear as an urban and rural piece.

As a local politician I did spend two terms, three years…. It certainly felt like that last year…. Called, in my community, silly season — it would start typically seven or eight or nine months before the election. It became a little harder to wade through the rhetoric and the populist notions and to continue working.

The rationale that I've certainly heard from the government is that not a whole lot happens in that last year. You sort of have a year to get up to speed, you have a year of doing work, and then you're into the year of campaigning. So it's really hard to get a whole lot of stuff done, and if you go to four years, we'll get more done. We'll have a longer vision.

However, that logic is challenged, because it used to be that there were elections every year and then every two years. That would imply that nothing happened because you were always in election mode. Well, that wasn't the case. Lots of things happened. Good decisions and maybe not such good decisions were made, but decisions were made, and work did happen at local government.

So it's not the strongest of arguments to be made, because it certainly would suggest that those who, really, served the communities and were under a two-year term weren't getting any work done. That, we know, is not the case.

With that, I do want to point out one last piece that comes from the report of the Local Government Elections Task Force. I thought this was rather interesting. It speaks to some of the election cycle and a level of support from local governments, organizations and individuals.

In reviewing the report, this task force looked at the corporate vote, contribution limits, expense limits, campaign finance disclosure, role for provincial Chief Electoral Officer, public financing and election cycle or term of office. In all of those categories, the government, between Bills 21 and 20, went with the majority in terms of what the commentary was from individuals, organizations and local governments in all of these areas — except when it comes to the election cycle or term of office.

There were 61 comments supporting a four-year term and 93 for a three-year term. When it's broken down in terms of who provided comment on either side, in terms of local governments, 18 local governments spoke in favour of a four-year term, and 19 spoke for a three-year term. That's pretty divided to me. That's certainly not really clear, give or take.

There were certainly organizations, as well, that offered their comment about whether or not they preferred a three-year or a four-year term. Three organizations were in favour of a four-year term, and 11 for a three-year term.

[1800]

Individuals certainly wrote letters and shared their comments about this proposal. In this case, 40 individuals spoke in favour of a four-year term and 63 for a three-year term. So the majority here — local governments, organizations and individuals — all wanted to keep the three-year term.

In all the other areas of this part of the report from the task group — the corporate vote, the contribution limits, the expense limits, the campaign finance disclosure, the role for the provincial chief election officer and public financing…. In all of those cases, the majority of folks who were in support or not supporting of something — the majority is who the government listened to, but not in this case.

That sort of leaves me a bit puzzled. I look forward to hearing a little bit more, perhaps, from the minister about how they came to that, given that there isn't what I would call huge or significant support. In fact, I won't even argue that there is majority support, that that's really not the case.

Having said that, I take my leave in this debate, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.

L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to rise in the House. I'm not going to go on at length, although a bill with 213 sections arguably would merit a significant debate. But I'm conscious of the fact that much of it is the kind of thing that goes on in this place, that most people ignore and no one terribly cares about, obviously, except for the highlights. The highlights are what I wanted to address very briefly this afternoon.

I've been conducting my non-scientific, entirely local bit of polling in my community, speaking to various people, including a small residents association for a neighbourhood in my community. I asked them what they think about the extension of the three-year to the four-year term. Unlike what our critic just read out or explained to the House in terms of the numbers, in fact, I would say it's more likely 2 to 1 in favour of retaining a three-year as opposed to a four-year term.

Now, I appreciate what the minister says. We may be the last jurisdiction in Canada to have four-year terms. But I think there is also an aspect of what I will call more direct democracy to be considered here.

Certainly, in the major centres there's a sense that councillors in the city of Vancouver and to some extent the cities of Victoria and Surrey are fulfilling almost full-time positions. It's seen as full-time work. The mayor's job is seen as full-time work. Therefore, the consistency of a four-year term that is in line with both our federal parliament and our provincial Legislature is the more appropriate one.

But relying on a vote of the School Trustees Association, with all due respect to that as a provincial body, and relying on the vote at the UBCM, with all due respect to that as a provincial body, is certainly significant, and it's important. They need to be paid attention to — no question about that. But I think the greater question is not the people who get elected by the people, but what do
[ Page 2888 ]
the people actually think? In other words, are the voters in these communities satisfied that a four-year term is in their interests?

There's enough of a complaint now in our system that once you get them in, you're stuck with them for four years at the provincial and federal levels. Similarly, when you discover that, in fact, as elections sometimes do put the odd dud on the odd council around the province or the odd board of education, maybe a three-year term is somewhat more appealing. Then you can at least remedy the error you made three years ago, as opposed to waiting four years.

The other aspect of this is, and I throw this out simply as a piece to consider, that we are very fixed in our attitude towards things, in how we elect. We have a general election. Everybody gets elected, everybody gets defeated — whatever — but it's a general election. I'd remind the members of this chamber that the United States Senate elects a third of its membership every two years. It's a six-year term, but there is a rolling election, if you will.

Now, I'm not advocating, I might say. This is more of an intellectual discussion than an advocacy program on my part. There is some merit to that concept that you won't have that kind of dramatic change. You'll have an opportunity to elect people every two years. You'll have an opportunity to make the kind of change….

[1805]

If you've defeated someone who you realize now is probably a pretty good candidate, you'll have an opportunity to elect them again. Given that most governments at the municipal level in this province certainly aren't subject to the kind of partisan politics we see in this chamber or the federal House, maybe that's an approach that people should be talking about and considering.

Many significant boards of various community organizations, again, elect a third of the board every two years, so you have a consistency in terms of some people with experience on the board, others with less experience. Is there anything wrong with considering that proposition?

Candidly, as my friend the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville pointed out…. I mean, historically in this province there was a time we elected council members every year. Then it moved to two years; then, as she pointed out, it moved to three years; and now we're proposing that it move to four years. And at whose wish and for whose benefit?

Again, as the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville pointed out, of the submissions made by municipal governments in this province, 18 were in favour of four years, and 19 were in favour of retaining three years.

Without mentioning any names, I know one councillor in Nanaimo who is one of the most effective councillors bar none, without question — hard-working, pays attention; who is looking at their age and looking at the concept of being elected for four years; and who is seriously considering saying no.

That applies in this election. Obviously, when we get to another election, anyone who runs knows they're going to be stuck, potentially, with four years, but the commitment of four years to what is a part-time position for many people is significant. It is significant. It also leads to the potential of a greater number of by-elections, if you will, when people step aside.

I mean, we haven't even addressed the issue today of provincial elections and all those happy candidates who abandon municipal government because the lure of the Legislature is heard, the clarion call of greater power, and off they go. Suddenly you've got a by-election that the municipal government has to pay for. Clearly, that's going to be more of a problem when you're talking four-year terms as opposed to three.

Those are all considerations, it seems to me, that the government should be thinking about. I'm not satisfied that there's been the kind of consultation with the people in the sense that people actually got it, understood it and realized the government was serious and intending to do this. I'm not sure there's been that kind of consultation.

Do the people, in fact, want their representatives elected for four-year terms or three-year terms? This place and municipal government isn't for the convenience of the members who get elected or the councillors or the mayors who make it or the regional district representatives or the members of the boards of education or the Islands Trust. It is about service to those who have the right to vote and elect the membership.

Instead of imposing a provincial number, three years or four years, as we have done historically in this province, is there anything wrong with the concept of local governments themselves deciding whether they want to elect their members to council every two years or every year or every three years or every four years or every five years?

When you've got a community that might have 300 residents, where employment is difficult to secure, maybe elections every four years present some problems. Maybe the composition of council is such that those people can't stay in that community that long.

Then you're back to the by-election issue. Of course, by-elections cost money, and if you've only got 300 citizens in your community, that presents some issues as well. The point, one would hope, is to allow the people to elect the best representatives they can in a system that's seen as fair and transparent and open and honest, in which there would be campaign spending limits. We've already discussed that today, and that's not going to happen, clearly, from the attitude of the government.

We'll at least move into a more transparent system in terms of disclosure of campaign donations, but surely the system should function for and on behalf of the people. Proposing that it be a four-year term may provide a nice level of consistency across the province, but I'm not sure it serves the interests of everyone.
[ Page 2889 ]

[1810]

Before the House right now, we have the Electoral Boundaries Commission bill. If I recall the debate in this chamber, there's a great deal of concern on both sides and a great deal of interest in preserving rural representation, because members of this chamber seem to accept the proposition — or understand or at least appreciate the argument around the proposition — that the interests of the people in the Creston Valley or in Prince George or in the Bulkley Valley may in fact not be the same as the interests of the people from Surrey-Whalley or Richmond Centre or Vancouver.

We are quite willing, it seems, to adopt and accept the argument when we're dealing with representation in this chamber, recognizing that maybe the one seat size doesn't fill all, but we're not necessarily prepared to accept the proposition that maybe that similar thinking should apply to local government.

Again, a small community versus a large community. Is there anything wrong with that community deciding through its electorate what should be the term of the people they're electing to serve and represent them? I emphasize: to serve and represent them. Not a decision to be made by politicians in Victoria, but a decision to be made by the local electors.

It's the local electors that get turned to if it's a question of some sort of funding for a new community centre or something of that nature. It's the local electors you turn to. You don't get to vote in Langley if you live in Prince George. We accept that. Why is it such a difficult concept that perhaps local electors should decide how long the people they elect to represent them should actually serve?

I throw that out because if we'd had an all-party committee, perhaps, that had looked at this, gone around the province, undertaken the kind of consultation we did around recall and referenda — I was a member of that committee back in the '90s — listened to the people, taken submissions in small communities and large communities around this province, would it be such a bad thing? All-party.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member says we did. Yes, he's quite right.

Interjection.

L. Krog: No members from our side, Minister.

The minister seems to miss the point here…

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

L. Krog: …to actually hear and make it known so that the people who are actually going to be voting on the proposition, which are the members of this chamber, would in fact have had representation on the committee that heard all of these submissions or took this all into consideration.

But let's not get diverted by the minister from the Kootenays, because he'll have his turn in this debate if he wishes to take it.

I come back to my point. This may not represent the wishes of the people. It may not represent good governance. It may not represent logic. In fact, it may not be the best for people in every type of community across this province. The government needs to consider that proposition.

One final point on the question of moving the general voting day from November to October. It's amazing to me that it took this long. I think that there's a very cogent argument to be made in favour of having elections when the weather provincewide is somewhat more welcoming to campaigning and voting than it can be in November in various parts of our province — so compliments to the government for doing it.

But on the main issue, again, the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods, 22 residents associations and the city of Vancouver — their position is quite clear. They think that three is just fine, thank you very much. What have you got in Vancouver? Half a million people, an eighth or ninth of the province's population? I would have thought that would have had some impact on what the government has to say. As this debate continues today, other people are starting to write in and raise the issue, because it's suddenly become — how shall I say? — an item of news, so they're paying attention.

I'd encourage the government to go a little slow for a few days. Let's just see what the minister's e-mails show. Let's see what the people have to say when they're actually confronted with the proposition that, arising out of this session of the B.C. Legislature, we'll be moving to four-year as opposed to three-year terms.

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

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to thank the members for their comments. I look forward to having this dialogue about the discussion around why we made the decision to go to four years.

[1815]

It's interesting that in the previous dialogue we talked about the expense to Elections B.C. with this. Now we're talking…. It's interesting you hear the two years, because I'm sure that that will be quite an expense.

It's interesting also that we just heard to go slow on this legislation when I just spent the whole afternoon hearing about how we needed to move this along more quickly and: why hasn't it happened as quickly? It's interesting. I look forward to having more dialogue in the committee. I'm looking forward to the committee phase of Bill 21.

With that, I move second reading.
[ Page 2890 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I call second reading of Bill 27, intituled The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014.

BILL 27 — THE CULTUS LAKE PARK
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. C. Oakes: I'm pleased to move that The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014, be read for the second time.

Cultus Lake Park is a small community in the Fraser Valley with approximately 460 full-time residents. This community grew on the city of Chilliwack land, evolving over time from tenting sites to full-size homes in beautiful waterfront settings. The park board was established in 1932 to manage Cultus Lake Park as a regional park asset for the benefit of the Chilliwack area and to provide services.

At that time five commissioners were elected by the residents of what is now the city of Chilliwack. As the community developed at the park, so did the emphasis of the park board on services to homes and businesses. In 1982 the renters at Cultus Lake Park were recognized as a key constituency for the parks board services and provided two seats on the parks board.

This amendment reflects the need to make the board more accountable to leaseholders and residents at Cultus Lake Park. Under this legislation, a majority of the park commissioners will be elected by the residents and leaseholders and the total number of commissioners will decrease from seven to five.

The city of Chilliwack has agreed as landowner that it's the leaseholders who should have a greater voice in the provision of key services at the park. With local elections in November, this is a sensible time to bring forward these proposed changes. I ask that all members lend their support to this legislation.

S. Robinson: I rise in support of Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014. It think it's certainly been a long time coming. When I read up on it, I learned that there's been actually many years of lobbying to make these changes. I want to, I guess, just acknowledge the former NDP MLA Gwen O'Mahony, who wrote to the then minister back in November 2012 calling for changes to the Cultus Lake Park board and actually introduced a petition for reform last year in March 2013. She said:

"I rise to present a petition entitled 'Democratic Election Process' for the residents of Cultus Lake, supported by Cultus Lake Community Association and signed by 281 of the roughly 400 year-around residents of Cultus Lake. From the petition in regard to the Cultus Lake Park board: 'The board needs to be elected by the people they govern, like every other local government in British Columbia — a fundamental principle of our democracy.'"

I'm pleased to see this come forward. I know that my colleagues on this side of the House, from what I've heard, are also quite pleased. However, I do know that there are still some challenges that will likely continue, and I look forward to hearing how the minister will be handling those challenges as they come forward.

[1820]

L. Throness: It's a privilege to rise today on behalf of my constituents in the beautiful community of Cultus Lake to speak to the bill by which the government proposes to amend the structure of the Cultus Lake Park board that governs Cultus Lake Park.

I want to address the circumstances that gave rise to this bill. It's quite a story. Two years ago, during a provincial by-election, I was approached by Gary and Susan Lister, residents of Cultus Lake, who brought me a curious problem of accountability in their community.

The Cultus Lake Park Act was introduced in 1932, and it's a unique act. There's nothing else like it in B.C. At that time, in 1932, Cultus Lake Park was a campground for the people of Chilliwack, so it was natural for Chilliwack to elect a small board to govern the park, but hardly anyone lived there. Over the past eight decades a permanent community has arisen in Cultus Lake, and now about 1,200 people live there. Yet the general political arrangement, whereby Chilliwack still elects most of the commissioners for Cultus Lake Park Board, still remains.

This gives rise to behaviour by the board commissioners that demonstrates they are accountable to the people of Chilliwack who elect them but not to the people they serve in Cultus Lake. Now, this is not because the commissioners are bad people. In fact, they're very fine people indeed. They're just guided by the incentives that are built into the current democratic arrangement, in which you try, quite rightly, to please those who elect you. Unfortunately, the people the park board commissioners are trying to please are the people who elect them in Chilliwack. It leaves them less responsive to the people they serve in Cultus Lake.

It's a fundamental principle of democracy that people who are governed ought to be able to choose those who govern them or to eject those who govern them. But that's not the reality in Cultus Lake today. One would think it's a simple thing to fix this problem, but it's complicated by many complex and intertwined factors. Let me give you just an idea.

First is the fact that residents of Cultus Lake don't own their own land; they lease it from the board. Second, the
[ Page 2891 ]
Soowahlie First Nation nearby might lay claim to those lands. Third, the parklands themselves belong in trust to the city of Chilliwack. Fourth, the legal responsibility for managing that trust belongs to the board, so the city of Chilliwack has ownership over Cultus Lake Park lands and possible legal liability for what's done there but without legal control.

Fifth, the Cultus Lake Park Board has little authority on its own to do the things that a municipality would normally do, like pass bylaws and borrow funds. Every time they do some of the things that most communities normally do, they go out on a legal limb, and there's legal jeopardy there. If your head is spinning at this point, I don't blame you.

It's a bewildering and a frustrating situation on which the city of Chilliwack and Cultus Lake have spent several years in an intensive study to sort out these issues but without a final resolution. The record shows long joint meetings, even longer legal opinions, correspondence with the province and an eventual stalemate as of a few years ago. Yet there was a tremendous desire for change.

Gary and Susan Lister put together a small petition during the by-election two years ago that was supported both by myself and by my opponent at the time, Gwen O'Mahony, who became the NDP MLA. I want to note her support and to thank her for it, and I would remind our NDP members in the House that this was a non-partisan issue, because everyone wants better government in Cultus Lake. So I have high hopes that all members of this House will support this legislation.

Now, last summer after the provincial election I spoke to the annual general meeting of Cultus Lake Community Association about my ideas for change at Cultus Lake. I said that, given the many past frustrations on this file, I would concentrate on success, what would be actually possible to change, no matter how small that change would be.

Perhaps at this point, noting the hour, I will leave those ideas for change to a later date and reserve my time for speaking for a later date. I am moving adjournment of the debate.

L. Throness moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. S. Cadieux moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $20,249,000 (continued).

R. Austin: I'd like to begin by just asking some questions around some comments that have been made publicly around an issue that is very important to those parts of British Columbia where there are proponents, hopefully, going to come to a final investment decision either later this year or early next year. That's to do with the issue of industrial taxation.

I think in some way, judging from some of the comments that have been made by the minister and by the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, it may also be tied in with the whole notion of a regional fund to bring some benefit back to the northwest.

My question to the minister is: does the minister believe that there will be, or is potentially going to be, a capping of industrial property taxation in any of the communities in the northwest?

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been discussions, as the member knows, in the public realm, by me, with regards to concerns that British Columbia wouldn't repeat the experiences we've had with some other industrial taxes that actually lead on competitiveness for major industrial investment in British Columbia, particularly in the pulp sector.

As we've come through this, our intention is to work with municipalities, look at what infrastructures are needed and figure out how we can make the total basket be competitive on a tax basis worldwide so that we can actually attract final investment decisions. The challenge we face, of course, as the member knows, is as we do that, all of these things — whether it's a bridge, whether it's a road or whether it's an increase in a hospital facility, whatever the case — are all going to hinge on one thing. If there is no final investment decision, there is no infrastructure need and there's no conversation in regards to the tax rates.
[ Page 2892 ]

[1440]

We have in the past in the province done things with regards to the industrial tax base, port taxes and those sorts of things that are done in conversation with municipalities. We will enter into those discussions as we come through the final basket of costs here.

Certainly, it is an issue that has been identified by industry. They want to know that there's some certainty that this wouldn't become one of those situations that after the investment somebody would continue to ramp up the cost on them, when they've made a significant investment in the province.

We're going to strike the balance between all of that. That work's ongoing, and no final decisions are made on that.

R. Austin: I'm just quoting from a report on major industrial property taxation impacts by Davies Transportation Consulting Inc. They've done an analysis of the industry and point out that the percentage of property taxes is not a significant factor in investments in major capital projects, because anticipated costs are small relative to the total operating cost and potential revenue over the economic life of the new investment.

My question to the minister is this. I totally understand that the minister has the challenge of ensuring that whatever the total cost package is to a potential investor — whether it be local taxes, GST, the first rate of tax on LNG, the second rate of tax on LNG, export taxes, carbon taxes, anything — what the investors are looking for is the total cost package. I understand that.

Bearing in mind that industrial taxes are one of the few ways in which local communities can retain some of the value for these projects all around British Columbia, I would hope that he would recognize that municipalities should have the right to incorporate those taxes and to make those decisions for themselves. To arbitrarily make a decision from down here to change that would not only have an adverse effect on the municipalities, but it would also have an adverse effect on other industrial users.

For example, in Kitimat you have a situation where Rio Tinto Alcan has become, really, the sole large industrial taxpayer after Methanex shut down and Eurocan left. If there was to be a capping of potential LNG plants, then Rio Tinto Alcan would be quite fair to come forward and say: "Well, what about us?"

My question to the hon. minister is: does he recognize the potential in terms of putting other users or other payers off balance by proposing something like this?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's why we're trying to strike the balance, and that's why we haven't made any decisions on this with regards to it. But at the same time, on the one side of — not the member's mouth — the communities' mouths is, "We want to have this," but you watch how quickly they'll be back to the table saying: "We want a piece of the action too."

You can't double-tax this thing — or double-hit it either. I think that's important to keep in mind as we strike this balance. We'll strike the balance, and it'll be fair to the communities, it'll be fair to the region, and it'll be fair to the province.

The focus here at the moment is to make sure that each one of these boxes that's getting ticked off with regards to a final investment decision, which is really what drives the opportunity, is such that it's competitive on a global scale. We're doing our analysis on that basis.

Our work will be done that way. We recognize the taxation issues with regards to the local governments and those sorts of things and how they will be impacted, as they will be impacted with regards to when they're sited not on municipal lands.

For instance, we have two that are being sited on port lands in Prince Rupert. We have two that look like they'd be sited on Crown land, one large one that would be on Haisla land and two that would be in lands that would be either Crown or private lands with regards to some of the sitings in Kitimat. We're trying to look at that package to make sure that it's fair across that spectrum. That's what those comments are directed to.

R. Austin: Is it fair to say, then, that when he refers to a potential site being double-taxed, he's concerned about the fact that, for example, the district of Kitimat might have a project that's within their boundaries and would be able to take advantage of the industrial property tax while, at the same time, the government is also recognizing that there's to be a regional revenue-sharing program and, in that sense, one community might be getting double benefit?

[1445]

If that's the case, wouldn't it simply be better, in setting up the regional revenue-sharing part of this, to recognize a community that's already getting a large benefit from industrial tax and to change that formula in terms of how regional revenue is shared amongst communities in the northwest?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just a caution that we're going into a place that we really don't have any jurisdiction to discuss today. Community services are going to do the consultation with the communities, not the Ministry of Natural Gas Development. They'll report back in to us. And any taxation rules, I know, are very, very closely guarded, jealously, by the Ministry of Finance and any tax decisions.

What we're doing is putting the packages and the work and doing the complex work. The tax work and the negotiations and discussions that are taking place are taking place not through just this ministry but also through the Ministry of Finance. What that model might look at right now would be supposition, so it wouldn't be fair for
[ Page 2893 ]
me to go any further.

R. Austin: We did ask some questions to the Minister of Community, Sport and Culture. You know, in fairness, a lot of the answers that came from her were: "Go speak to the minister in charge of LNG."

So it's a little bit complicated. I mean, I recognize that this file crosses many ministries. But at the end of the day, we look to you as being Mr. LNG in this game. To the minister — correct me if I'm wrong — we look to you as taking the lead on this file overall and being the central governing body that brings all these disparate pieces together.

Yes, the Ministry of Finance will be doing the detailed work around the taxation. And yes, the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development will be doing some of the community consultation around a regional revenue-sharing model. But at the end of the day, I'm assuming — a question to the minister — that it is you and your ministry that is bringing all these pieces together. You are, after all, at the end of the day, sort of Mr. LNG.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's what I described already, but that work isn't completed yet. I can't tell the member what it will look like until I actually see it and how it works through. I mean, we're trying to get to the competitive piece on the taxation probably earlier than we would with any discussion in and around any type of revenue-sharing, should it ever take place.

I've been very cautious about entering into conversations with any of the councillors up there, any of the communities up there, with regards to any form of "revenue-sharing" or whatever the member wants to call it, because the reality is this. There is nothing to discuss until we get a final investment decision.

Our job right now is to focus, very much so, on the competitive piece of the package to make sure all the fundamentals are in place, like the labour thing that the Premier announced last week, and make sure we get the First Nations discussions completed and coordinated so that we can actually get to where somebody can sit in a boardroom — hopefully in the last quarter of this year and starting into the first and second quarter, in a variety of places around the world — where somebody makes a final investment decision.

Once that's done, then you know the size, impact, scope and those sorts of things with the communities of what's being announced. A large plant could be in the $15 billion to $20 billion investment level just for the plant. Some of the smaller ones could be as low as $1.2 billion, $1.5 billion.

So it's all the challenge in trying to get to manage expectations, which we're doing, but focusing, really, on making sure government's quoted in order to deliver to get the final investment decision. Then the rest of it gets worked out, and I think it will for the communities and for all the benefit of the communities across B.C.

I see this as a British Columbia resource, shared with all British Columbians and for British Columbians, so we shouldn't get parochial about it, either, with regards to it. It is important that, obviously, we have infrastructure issues and concerns, should these go ahead, that we're going to address with a variety of ministries.

The member is correct that all of the ministries with regards to this file do report into this ministry and into a committee chaired by the Premier, with regards to LNG. We'll continue to do so. And we will continue to work through all of these things, taking in what the member described with regards to a situation like Rio Tinto's, with regards to industrial tax rates in one community, what it looks like in other areas where it isn't a municipality that has the land, where it's actually a port or the Crown or whatever the case may be. Whether there's….

[1450]

When you get into that, you're into discussions about if there is a form of taxation, let's say at a place like Grassy Point, what's the consultation and accommodation with First Nations in the particular area, because it's Crown land — those sorts of things. So all of that complexity is being dealt with now. We're just not in a position to say what it'll look like coming out the other end, today.

R. Austin: I appreciate that. I realize that obviously, these are very complex negotiations, and they've been going on for quite a while now.

I'd just like to get the minister to comment on timing. Obviously, some of this detail work was supposed to have been finished last year. At least, that was the public statement. That didn't happen. Obviously, coming into this spring legislative session, I think many of us — both in the opposition and, I think, in the general public and in the media — hoped that it would be finalized in time for this session, and that hasn't happened.

To the minister, can he confirm now…? I think my reading of the public statements is correct, but can he confirm that we expect to see the final details of a tax structure announced over the summer, with us coming back for a fall session to actually pass legislation on the details of a tax structure? Can he confirm that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to the member opposite: the complex work was actually finished when I said it would be finished. Then it had to go out and be looked at in a competitive lens globally — to sit down with these companies and look at their models of their business, to work on those negotiations from the complex work going forward. It's actually been right on the track that I thought it would be.

The member is correct that the one piece of this thing…. We thought for certainty that for industry we should bring legislation on the tax in the future. I don't
[ Page 2894 ]
think it's necessarily the piece for the final investment decision. It's going to come down to the numbers and whether there are development agreements or whatever in place.

I can tell the member that we're intending to be, well in advance of any need for a fall session, having the fundamentals and those numbers announced and in the hands of the proponents so that they can start to make their final investment decisions.

R. Austin: That's good to know. I'd like to return to a topic that was canvassed last week. I realize that the minister doesn't have Housing staff here, but he knows this file so well. He doesn't need any staff around him.

I'd just like to go back specifically to some of the housing issues in the northwest. I know that the minister has spoken with folks in the district of Kitimat, and I know that he's been in touch with people in Terrace. I'm sure that they have told him of the housing crunch that's taking place today.

It's all well and good to say that we can't take care of a whole bunch of things until we get a final investment decision because, obviously, the government doesn't know what kind of revenue will be coming in, potentially, in the future, once we have an LNG industry. As the minister is, I'm sure, well aware, we have already — long ahead of any investment decision — some real challenges in the northwest with regard, specifically, to housing. That's certainly one of the major issues.

I just wanted to ask the minister. He was describing last Thursday to the Housing critic some of the innovative things that they've done around the rest of the province around housing issues. The specific problem in the northwest is that not only is there a housing crunch in terms of availability….

As the minister is, I'm sure, aware, Alcan built a plant for, I believe, 1,700 workers for the smelter rebuild. They've now found out that they had to bring in more workers on that than the camp was actually designed for. So of course, they've gone and brought in a former cruise ship from Sweden. That's now docked in Kitimat, and that's going to house 600 extra workers as they go to the final sort of phase of construction over the summer.

My question to the minister is: what within the minister's portfolio does he have the ability to do to help, either in the district of Kitimat or Terrace, to overcome their housing problem? What's happened is that it isn't just that there's no vacancy now, or almost zero vacancy. It's also the fact that it has increased the cost of housing to such an extent that folks who live in the communities and have been there for a long time, who are not part of these burgeoning industries and don't have high wages, are now being driven out of their ability to pay.

[1455]

What is it that the minister can do in Housing to assist us in the northwest, to help those who have what I would call a normal wage, as opposed to those who are coming from out of town, who are earning these fantastic wages and who very often not only earn fantastic wages but have housing allowances given to them if they're not already put into a camp? This is creating a big problem in the northwest, and I just would like the minister to comment on those things.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think, first of all, there are a number of aspects. Some of our folks from residential tenancy and what have you are going into the northwest to make sure people understand their rights around residential tenancy and those sorts of things. Sometimes in the marketplace when it's just been a stable market or even a shortage of clients, it's sort of taken for granted how people do their business. That's the first piece.

The second piece is that although the member is correct, it seems like there's a significant inflationary factor with regards to housing in the northwest right now. It isn't from a land perspective, from somebody who's looking at whether they can make a piece of land work — expensive even today with regards to land compared to other places around the province.

Interestingly, the return on investment for rentals and what have you in the northwest is becoming a positive as well as a negative. The challenge is that you want to attract investment for people who actually want to build, let's say, duplexes, fourplexes, apartment buildings or whatever the case may be. They're looking for a rate of rental or costs. They look at a piece of land, they look at the price of the land, and they look at the density they can get on it and whether they can make the numbers work. In actual fact, it's easier to make the numbers work in the northwest part of the province than in a lot of places across B.C. for that type of housing.

The interesting thing about the northwest part of the province is that it can learn from communities that have had to significantly challenge themselves when it comes to housing. I'll use one example of an area in Surrey called Clayton Heights. It was only three or four years ago that in Clayton Heights a two-bedroom basement suite was about $1,200 to $1,250 a month for rent. Today that same two-bedroom basement suite is about $875 a month.

Nothing changed in any subsidy program from any government or anything else. What it was, was that the city of Surrey said: "Let's allow this area of our community to have legal basement suites. Let's allow it to have coach houses over double garages. Let's drive the affordability by having options for people to have a revenue that lets them buy in."

You take a young couple that I know. They buy a house. They're able to buy the house and afford the mortgage because they have a basement suite that gives them the revenue of $875 a month, which then helps them qualify to be able to buy the home in the marketplace.

Communities are going to have to look in the north-
[ Page 2895 ]
west at how that sort of thing works. The advantage that the northwest has versus a lot of areas — like where this took place in Surrey — is that this is taking place on 3,000-square-foot lots. The average lot — I would suspect very much, having been in all those communities in the northwest part of the province — look substantially larger than 3,000 square feet. A coach house on a property as a second form of revenue to let people maintain their ownership or whatever — providing more supply and demand — can actually drive affordability into the housing market better than any program you could ever come up with. Simply, the market will actually dictate and balance it out.

At the same time we're going to spend some time up in the northwest, as well, educating people on things like SAFER and the rent assistance program. If we look at the numbers of people that are actually participating in rent assistance, for instance, which is basically a cheque every month quietly to someone who's renting in the marketplace so they can afford their rent…. We'll also look at the matrix that we put in place, which is the matrix we review annually. We're reviewing it now to see.

The matrix is basically…. What we do is take the average of the rents in the area for certain types of facilities — the rents for homes or basement suites or apartments or whatever the case; one, two and three bedrooms. Then we establish a threshold relative to the rent assistance program. We think it may be time to have a look at the particular area if it's really bouncing up, with regards to what thresholds we would accept with regards to rent assistance — whether we need to give it a bit more in that particular portion of the marketplace.

If I look at the community plans, which I've done with at least three of the communities up there, there is an opportunity for density and for innovation, like I just described, to be able to help them with those issues by changing some rules locally, which would encourage that type of investment to take place.

[1500]

Communities — and some of them are doing this now, I think, because I've spoken to them — from an economic development perspective are looking at: where could we put an additional motel? Where could we put some density for condos for people who want to buy something or rent it? Where can we do new subdivisions? Where can we do infill, and what way can we do it to attract that?

The challenge with anything like this, as the member knows — and we know it because we've lived through this in the northeast part of the province and watched the experience in Fort McMurray — is that there's a period of time where you get this bulge into the camps. Now, if the camps are closed, like the one camp like at Rio Tinto is, it has less of a significant impact on the resources of the community than a camp that's open, where people are coming into town to the restaurants and what have you, which is good for the community.

The challenge they've found on the Rio Tinto one, because they wanted to get more productivity out of their workforce or sort of get the productivity they wanted to reach certain thresholds, was to add to the camp. When we looked at their geographic piece, they didn't have the expansion area for the camps. That's a lesson some of the other proponents are actually learning from. We're all watching this experience as well as the experience of Chevron up in Kitimat.

You're starting to see some people start to design camps that take into recognition some density — like more than one storey so that we can have a different footprint on the ground, what we're going to put in for amenities to be able to make them function so they don't bring the same pressure to the communities.

In some cases we've got companies looking at legacy opportunities, where the camps themselves, similar to what we did with the Olympic projects when we did the Olympic village in Whistler…. We actually moved that village around the province of B.C. and re-established it into supportive housing right across the province in places like Chetwynd and Chilliwack and up in the Sunshine Coast and those areas. When we got into the front end with the people building that facility, we actually had them designed so that if we knocked out some walls and moved some things around, we could actually use them for another purpose after that particular time. Some of that discussion is also taking place.

R. Austin: Those are all very interesting things that are going on.

Can I just ask again, in terms of timing? With regards to looking at the matrix around SAFER grants and the rental subsidy, what is the timing for that work being done? Is it going to be done within the next three months, six months or nine months?

I know, having spoken to the folks up where I live, that they're already taking advantage of what the minister has suggested in terms of looking at their community plan and changing density, changing bylaws, allowing people to have secondary suites. In fact, my understanding is that in the district of Kitimat historically, when the town was busy, there were lots of secondary suites. They all, of course, went into a state of disrepair over the last ten to 15 years as the population sunk down.

What the district of Kitimat is now doing is reminding people of the fact. You know, that old suite that's now being left as storage for stuff that people collect — why don't you now go and fix it up again and use the secondary suite? So I understand that.

But beyond what those two communities are doing to change their own bylaws or encourage people to have secondary suites or carriage houses, could you give me a sense of the timing in terms of looking at SAFER grants or rental housing?

Again, I think the real challenge for folks up in the
[ Page 2896 ]
northwest isn't so much that workers are being accommodated. At the end of the day, whatever it takes, those companies will see to it that those workers are accommodated because they have to have them in town to do the work.

The challenge is for those people who have been living in the communities for a long time, as I've said earlier, who have very, very low incomes or modest incomes and find the rents having already gone up dramatically when they have to change houses. Or you have a lot of people saying: "Well, I rented to you a year and a half ago for $700 for a townhouse." They recognize that they can easily get $1,200 for that townhouse now. So there are a lot people being not forced out, but within the law there are ways to encourage people to move on or not renew their leases. What's happening is that people are then finding themselves without homes.

I'm just asking how that can addressed and what the timing is on these things.

Hon. R. Coleman: The work on SAFER and rent assistance, I believe, started today. We came out of estimates last week, and I know they had already started some work. So they were already doing stuff before estimates, and I think it would continue. We'll see that very shortly.

We do have laws in and around rental housing in British Columbia. You cannot increase your rent more than 2 percent plus CPI on an annual basis. We do have situations where people do what people call renovictions, where somebody comes in and says: "The renovation is at such a level that I have to have you move out."

[1505]

There are appeal processes for that too. Just because you're going to go in and change some carpet and paint some walls, it isn't enough for renoviction and not enough to be able to raise the rent on the way back in, under those circumstances. Our residential tenancy folks are very allied to that, and I think you'll see even more and more education with regards to it up in your particular area of the province.

The other piece of it is that we all know that when there's growth and the camp is gone, there are long-term, stable jobs for people. Those folks will be able to be in the marketplace for the next 30 or 40 years and so will the spinoff contractors and what have you.

The pressure is usually under the guise of the actual construction of the plant, which could take 5,000 or 6,000 people. Now, at a place like Grassy Point, for instance, it will have to be entirely self-contained, so there is no community except for Lax Kw'alaams, Port Simpson, which isn't very large from the standpoint of being able to provide resources.

If you look at Rupert, it's going to be the same thing. They've already identified where they will have to stage their camps there. Just because of geography and all the rest of it with regards to that community, people are going to be housed in camps, and I have seen the layout of the plans for both of the major companies down in Kitimat and others. There is going to be a laid-out camp there, too, simply because you don't put in permanent housing for people who are going to be here for four years.

You have this elastic-band pressure, I think, that happens with regards to housing. That's where we had to work with the communities to come up with the innovations to see how we can improve that through their community plans and what have you.

I think they're doing pretty well, looking at that, to be honest with you — Kitimat and Terrace particularly. When I've spoken to them, I think they're thinking forward. They're looking for those opportunities. I know that some folks that have been up in those areas looking to buy land to build motels or hotels, because they think there's an opportunity there, and are working with communities to see whether they can do it or not. It'll all be based on what is the supply and demand.

But even at that, you know, you don't build a motel on a four-year deal, right? You need to have enough time that you could know that there's going to be stability in the marketplace after. So although that piece of the housing is for people that will come in…. They won't be working in the camps. They could be consultants, could be engineers, could be executives of the companies that are coming through that'll be in and out.

For the most part, the labour force itself will be in the camps. If we can build a relationship around, I think we can get some legacy housing for the people who are left after the camp is gone to have the long-term, stable housing for themselves.

R. Austin: Are there pieces of Crown land within the city of Terrace which would be available for any kind of housing?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm trying to remember if there's any within the city boundaries exactly. I mean, obviously there's Crown land around Terrace. I'd have to ask the guys from Lands to give me feedback and get back to the member on that.

R. Austin: I'd just like to move to, without being parochial again, something that is an issue in my constituency. That is the issue of the airshed in Kitimat. As the minister well knows, with the Rio Tinto smelter being rebuilt, the very good news is that Alcan has always monitored for the last 54 years, I guess, for five noxious substances that come out of the production of aluminum. With the new smelter being built, four of those are going to go down drastically. That's the very good news.

The unfortunate news, really, at this point is just a fact. They're increasing production from around 225,000 tonnes all the way up to 400,000 tonnes of aluminum.
[ Page 2897 ]
As a result of that and the use of petroleum coke as part of the smelting process, inevitably SO₂ emissions are going up.

The government has announced a study of the Kitimat airshed in order to look at that. With so many potential plants coming into the Kitimat area, my question to the minister is simply: at this point can the minister tell me what the status of that Kitimat airshed impact assessment project has been?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: Sure. The Kitimat airshed study was undertaken to study the impacts of emissions in a confined space because of the way the geography is in and around Kitimat, as the member is aware.

That work is expected to be completed this spring. We will then take that and look at all the treatment technology that's available. They can significantly decrease the quality of air contaminants released into the environmental side of this thing, particularly noxious, which is emitted during LNG production. It's NO₂.

R. Austin: NOx and SOx.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, yeah, that's what everybody talks about. That's just the slang.

Anyway, the Ministry of Environment is consulting with the industry on all of this — the proposed turbine emission site and all of that stuff — as we go through this, and we're going to be looking at the capacity as a result of this study on the Kitimat airshed. Then we'll give them clear guidance on B.C.'s emissions guidelines relative to inform any facility design and costing with regards to that.

R. Austin: If after the assessment is done, they find that the Kitimat airshed is constrained and recommend limits on industrial emissions, could the minister tell us how he or his ministry would go about prioritizing the industrial proposals in his area?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're not going to presuppose anything here. Basically, when we get the study and know what the capacity is, we'll look at that, and we will look at whether there are things that need to be put in place to bring down certain levels of emissions so that people can share the space safely. I'm not going to prejudge that outcome until I actually see the study and the work that goes around it.

R. Austin: My understanding in speaking with Rio Tinto Alcan with regards to the issue of SO₂, is that the new smelter was designed with scrubbers to be put in place, designed to have them, but of course, they aren't there.

If, during this assessment, it's discovered that in order to allow the proponents access to that area, would there be some negotiations with industry and with Alcan to try and ensure that this original design actually has scrubbers put in, and will there be any assistance or guidance given to Rio Tinto as to what could be done if scrubbers are put in with the residue?

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason we're doing this study is so we can actually answer some of those questions the member has put forward. We don't have the study yet. We don't know the capacity. It would be really crazy, to me, to prejudge what that is and what we would be doing.

Obviously, the reason we're doing the airshed study is to inform the capacity of that airshed with regards to industrial growth. That will affect issues around standards that are put in place with regards to reducing emissions or whatever the case may be, if necessary. But we don't know that's going to be the case yet. I think we should let the technical guys do their work, get the study done, look at these things, sit down with industry, understand what the capacities are and what can be done.

R. Austin: Having looked at other LNG projects around the world as part of the analysis that the minister and his staff have been doing, could the minister inform us as to what kinds of pollution control technologies are used in other LNG plants around the world?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a tough question to answer. I'll tell you why. The first LNG plant in Bintulu was built in 1968. It had a different kind of tank in it. It had different insulation in the tanks. They were actually buried with dirt around them, whereas today they can build a tank that could probably take the capacity of four or five of the tanks that were built in 1968 into one tank — different insulation, different closings, which also affects any emissions and those sorts of things.

[1515]

What industry has told us is they will bring the best technology in the world to British Columbia to be the cleanest in the world. They will be able to compete on that level. They are always trying to improve their processes, and they will bring the best technology available that they're developing and anything that comes along in the meantime to British Columbia, because that's their goal.

R. Austin: I've talked about the air quality in the northwest. My question to the minister is: will there be similar assessments of air quality done in the northeast, particularly when it come to air quality near schools? Obviously, if we do end up with final investment decisions, they will be ramping up a huge level of production in the northeast. How will that affect the air quality of those communities in the northeast?

Hon. R. Coleman: Right now we already do air qual-
[ Page 2898 ]
ity monitoring up in the northeast part of the province. We have a mobile air monitoring laboratory that moves around the communities to get the baselines to be able to do that.

A comprehensive air quality monitoring system is going to be established as we come through that work and continue on. The system is going to be developed through the northeast monitoring project, which is a multi-year, phased-in initiative that is a partnership between MOE, the Oil and Gas Commission and the oil and gas operators of the northeast part of the province.

We've been monitoring the air up there for some time. We continue to do that. We actually look at the best available technology with regards to that, including committees that are there to be part of the advice on the locations of the three continuous monitors that we will probably eventually put in place once we…. Actually, we'll probably move to a second mobile lab initially, and eventually we'll determine whether any permanent air monitoring systems have to be put in place up there as well.

R. Austin: I would just like to move for a moment with regards to the potential of LNG and how it will affect First Nations groups. Of course, it doesn't have to be repeated here that the Haisla community are hugely in support of LNG. I know that Chief Councillor Ellis Ross has been on board with the companies and working with the government since day one, since early days, when the companies were coming to Kitimat and to Haisla territory probably six or seven years ago, long before LNG became something that most of British Columbia was aware of.

Of course, aside from the Haisla, there's also good news going on with the 15 First Nations who are a part of the limited partnership, FNLP, who are in partnership with one of the pipeline companies for the PTP project.

I think most recently…. Certainly, one of the First Nations that is becoming quite engaged has been the Nisga'a Lisims Government. I know, having visited their Legislative Assembly just a couple of weeks ago, that in fact they were, themselves — their leadership, the president of the Nisga'a Nation and others — heading over to Korea to meet with some of the potential buyers. I believe — correct me if I'm wrong — they may even have accompanied the minister or the Premier to Ottawa. Certainly, they were going to Ottawa on their own. They told us that.

My question is broader than that. Aside from those groups, my question to the minister is: in what way are this ministry and this minister working with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to discuss LNG? What are the working groups? How many people sit on them? What's the progress of these meetings with the First Nations?

[1520]

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, my ministry is closely related back with Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on this file. We have a variety of things happening. The member is correct. One of the folks from the Nisga'a was in Ottawa with us a week ago. It seems like it was longer than that, but it was only a week ago. So was their representative from the Haisla. I think the other person was from either the Metlakatla or the Lax Kw'alaams.

Each piece is a bit different. I can't actually get you a broad answer on First Nations consultation and accommodation, because it's a very complicated piece of the file. In the northeast part of the property where we have treaty 8, we have economic benefit agreements in place that we're working with them to improve and do others. I think we have some announcements coming shortly on some of those.

We have the First Nations Limited Partnership, as the member is aware of. We really need the 16th First Nation, so we've been doing quite a bit of work with the Wet'suwet'en with regards to sitting down and spending some time with them, which I did, with the minister, on Friday.

The minister was actually up in their territory a couple of weeks ago for a lengthy meeting. There'll be another one coming up in the not too distant future as we try and work out their understanding and their issues. Part of it is education — to get to an understanding of what it is. It's surprising — not with First Nations; it's surprising in general — some of the lack of understanding with regards to LNG and what it is.

I always start my presentations now by explaining to people what liquefied natural gas is. The reason I do that and what it is…. Obviously, we cool it down to minus 161 degrees Celsius, and it becomes a liquid. It also compresses down by 600 times, and we can now load it on ships and ship it around the world.

But I now make a point of starting from that point when I talk about the resource. I gave a speech in Prince Rupert last fall to a chamber of commerce, and I had a gentleman come up to me who said he grew up in Dawson Creek and had worked in the oil patch in and around natural gas, etc. Then he said to me: "I don't know where it comes out of the ground as a liquid."

I realized at that point that we sometimes need to be very clear what it is. It affects the conversation and the understanding of any environmental issues that First Nations or a community might have about their watersheds, their fisheries — those sorts of things — with regards to the safety of it, what it is, what it looks like and, when it's released, what happens to it. Does it go into the ground, or does it evaporate? Those types of things.

Part of our challenge has been…. We have a number of First Nations groups that are at different levels of discussion with us. Most of them are maturing along pretty well, I think. There's a couple that I'd like to see move a little bit better. Obviously, all of that piece we need to come together with the labour strategy and all of the rest of it,
[ Page 2899 ]
because the certainty of the ability to build your pipeline and build your plant and get your resource has to come in cooperation with First Nations, with the labour side, communities and the rest of it.

We have added additional resources to the ministry for negotiations for consultation and accommodation work to capacity-build, for people to be able do the work as we go through the permitting stuff and all of that. We meet regularly. We have a team of people that are focused strictly on that piece of the file, on the First Nations file. These are some senior folks in government and folks from outside of government who report in to both ministers and in to government as well with regards to their progress and how we're doing.

It's a lot of work, but more and more I think I'm seeing First Nations realizing what a great opportunity this is for their own folks — for jobs, economic development, opportunity for stability for them and their next generation of children and grandchildren.

It really is now about making sure people understand it. We really want the environmental monitoring on notice-of-work work being done by the First Nation locally to give the cultural information to the people that would be going out to go see things of stability and what have you — where the culturally specific areas are — so that they would have that understanding.

They want to hire First Nations in each of these areas to be able to be with them on the ground in such a way that, collaboratively, they can get to a good understanding of where and when these particular projects can go.

That will come through in a number of discussions that are going to take place in the next few weeks in a number of meetings up in the northwest part of the province, particularly, with some of the First Nations — and for groups to give them a better understanding and sort of try and kick-start some of the next stages of consultation and accommodation.

[1525]

R. Austin: To the minister, thanks for that answer. As the minister well knows, having been in public life for so many years and having worked with First Nations, a lot of the importance of reaching the goals that the government wants to reach with First Nations is about building relationships on a very personal level.

I'm going to ask two questions. First, is the minister himself sort of taking the lead on the First Nations file? Very often when First Nations leaders want to meet on something like this, they would rather meet with the person who's taking the lead on it, so first of all, is the minister himself meeting with all these First Nations groups, or is that being done through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation?

Secondly, could he specify as to the various groups that the minister has met with over the last little while and the future groups he's going to meet with in the coming months?

Hon. R. Coleman: I won't be able to remember them all and get them right, I'm sure. Basically, the lead ministry on aboriginal relationships and reconciliation is MARR, which is the minister responsible. I have been attending a number of the meetings with the Wet'suwet'en, the Carrier-Sekani, other First Nations where necessary or when I'm asked to do so.

My involvement is really in a partnership with that particular minister to work together on it. We do go to lengthy meetings with First Nations ourselves as ministers and with our senior staff along with us. We also have negotiators out there who are negotiating totally separately, working on the deals, but the member is right. We're out there building the relationships with people, as ministers, directly government-to-government, as best we can. We also have folks within the ministries that are also doing the same thing, so we have sort of a three-pronged thing with it.

We have the ministers involved in meetings with the senior folks, the Hereditary Chiefs, chiefs and folks from the First Nations. We have our negotiators engaged on specific issues that are relative to a specific discussion. The companies, as well, are also engaging with First Nations. They're also wanting to have a relationship with First Nations, and they're doing that.

Then of course, on top of that, our negotiators…. We also have our senior people who are sort of monitoring the file to make sure the dots connect and the pieces come together, as we come through it, for all the discussions we're having.

R. Austin: Would it be fair to say that none of these big projects, and all the discussion around them, happen in a vacuum? Of course, it's true to say that over the last six or seven years most of the First Nations that the minister is meeting with on a regular basis have been very heavily opposed to diluted bitumen coming through their territories as a part of the Enbridge gateway project.

To the minister, would it be fair to say…? This is my characterization of it. By and large there is huge support for moving natural gas to a plant to liquefy through most of these First Nations' traditional territories, in comparison to what we've seen on the Enbridge gateway file. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I think the member's description is pretty fair. We do have some First Nations, just small pockets within First Nations, that are concerned about any resource development at any time. That's work that's ongoing to get a better understanding for them, to know what LNG and natural gas are, relative to any comparison to any other commodity you wish to move across the landscape of British Columbia.

Our concentration has been, and will continue to be
[ Page 2900 ]
in this ministry, strictly on liquefied natural gas and the natural gas opportunity that faces us as a generational opportunity.

I think it would be safe to say that in all my discussions I've had with First Nations, there are always some questions. In communities it's the same — like, what about this, or what about that? — but in general, I would think that the description would be that they are supportive of natural gas and LNG for the province of B.C. and for the future benefit of all people.

[1530]

R. Austin: Speaking to the specifics of the benefits to the First Nations, have First Nations leaders been in on the topic of developing the tax regime, at least to the extent that it involves any benefits for First Nations? Are they in on those discussions?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, they're not, hon. Member — no more than even specific ministers can be in on those discussions either. Tax is really Ministry of Finance, and it's highly protected, from a confidentiality perspective, to not affect markets and those sorts of things. If the member is familiar with even a budget when it's presented, any taxes that are changed or adapted are not released to anybody until the actual budget speech starts to take place. That's how closely guarded that is.

It really doesn't matter what that tax is because in any accommodation or revenue-sharing or whatever discussion that takes place with regards to the resources, which is what we've been doing ongoing with First Nations for probably a good decade now, it really is about whether we can come to a business arrangement that actually moves the resource to the ports to send to Asia so that everybody can benefit, and the benefits are multiple.

The benefits could be revenues. Some First Nations, as you know, hon. Member, are not actually where the ports are or anything, but they think it's going to have some impact on them — like some of the coastal First Nations, who are looking at: "What are you going to do with regards to us and spill response, green energy, those sorts of things?"

Then on another piece you might have somebody that says: "What taxation can I have for the pipeline that might come through the land in my territory? What benefit do I get there, but also what are we going to do about environmental monitoring? Can we be part of that and that relationship?"

In the northeast it can be about economic benefits coming out of the royalty programs and downstream. With the ports it could be like the Haisla, who have a relationship and a business relationship on there. Some of the others might make other business relationships.

There's no one size that fits all on this one. Certainly, they're all keen to know that there is going to be a benefit — short term, medium and long term — for First Nations communities, as much as for other communities.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

V. Huntington: My questions — a couple of them I sent to the minister's office last week. If I could just quickly go through those and maybe get your answers for the record, it would be helpful.

The first set of questions dealt with the water usage in the gas drilling industry. If I can just ask, for the record: how much total fresh water was used in 2012 for all natural gas drilling? How much of the total water used in fracking operations in the Peace was obtained from saline aquifers? How much of the total water used was from recycled or reused sources — brown water or recovered fracking solutions?

Hon. R. Coleman: On the fresh water used in 2012, short-term approvals were for 20.4 million cubic metres of water. Actually used was 7.1 million cubic metres. How much water in the Peace was obtained from saline aquifers? Today just 290,000 cubic metres out of 2.65 million cubic metres. How much water from recycled that is reused is 7.1 million cubic metres or 18 percent. Just so the member…. The water that's used for drilling in the Peace is 0.002 percent of the total runoff in the Peace.

[1535]

V. Huntington: Thank you. It's helpful having those figures. Could I ask, too: has the ministry done assessments and long-range plans for where the natural gas needed for LNG exports will be obtained? Is it all going to be from B.C. wells? Or will it come from elsewhere?

Hon. R. Coleman: Our projection is that about 70 percent of the natural gas for LNG will come from British Columbia's reserves and about 30 percent will probably come from Alberta — and maybe a little bit of that from Saskatchewan.

V. Huntington: How is the government anticipating obtaining additional revenue from that coming from Alberta and Saskatchewan? Or will we? Have we worked out a royalty system or price for moving it through the gas pipelines? How are we going to benefit from that?

Hon. R. Coleman: I love the question. That's why we have an LNG tax. That's where we'll catch it. We'll catch the benefit for British Columbians at the plant level as the gas is liquefied.

V. Huntington: There won't be any royalty agreements at all for that moving through? It'll be strictly a tax structure?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's correct. We have a roy-
[ Page 2901 ]
alty structure on our gas. They have a royalty structure on their gas. Gas freely flows today between jurisdictions through pipelines coming out of Alberta into B.C. and also down south through B.C. out to the U.S. So we don't do it in the pipeline. But because it's a new industry, we felt it was important to find a way to make it fair for British Columbians on the industrial development and growth. That was determined to be the LNG tax. That way, everybody is treated fairly, no matter where the molecules come from.

V. Huntington: Just for my edification, then, could the minister try…? The tax, then, is on the export — the bulk export — so that we know what the volume is?

Hon. R. Coleman: We can't do an export tax. This is an income tax. It's based on the income coming off the price on a calculation. Export taxes are not in the purview of the province.

V. Huntington: I know that, so I don't know why exactly I asked.

I'm wondering if the minister…. Well, the minister will know that in 2010 the Oil and Gas Commission issued a safety advisory for communications events. I think they had said that 18 such events had occurred that it was aware of. How many communications events or kicks has the OGC noted since the 2010 advisory?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just one.

V. Huntington: Is there any information with regard to a possible event that occurred near the Hudson's Hope–Dawson Creek areas?

Hon. R. Coleman: Could you be more specific on that?

V. Huntington: Is that the one event that is noted? Or have there been others that have not made it to the OGC website? Where can it be tracked?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have that readily here, so we'll track it down and get it back to the member.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much, yes. Where on the OGC website can we find information on the communications events? My understanding is that there has been more than one. If that's not correct, can I be pointed to where it's discussed on the OGC website?

[1540]

Hon. R. Coleman: On our website now we post any gas pipeline incidents. We're working through some of the…. Basically, I should start out, first of all…. You might have an event that could take place. We send out our investigators, and it's actually something small. It's not an incident, so it doesn't go any further. An incident is when something is a bit bigger and we have to do a more fulsome investigation.

Our challenge in that is only in and around a couple of issues. We're working on how we could actually post the completion of the incident on line. During the investigation, obviously, it's kept like any other investigation. It has to be handled properly and with independence. We're looking at…. That's the only thing, actually, at this stage — that one incident that hasn't been posted, because we haven't worked out how we can do that and also protect the freedom-of-information and privacy stuff, which is what we're going to try and solve.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I could ask the minister and his staff: how are you defining communication incidents, then? My information is that it happens more often than is being recognized here. As you know, it's a significant potential safety issue. Is there a different definition of communication or kicks that I have than you're working with?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: Communication incidence is when there's a potential safety issue. That's when we would use the communication protocol. An event is when there have been no safety issues in and around…. That could be something like a pressure fluctuation that really wasn't a safety issue at all. You just get some pressure fluctuation on a gauge. That wouldn't require an investigation on the communications side. We communicate on safety issues.

V. Huntington: When a communication event occurs, when there is, as you call it, communication between two fracking operations…. You say if there's no safety issue involved in that communications event, then it's not reported as a communications event.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct.

V. Huntington: That's very interesting.

If I could then, please…. I'm sorry I didn't bring this up under the water issue. Under water, could I ask how the NorthEast Water Tool is working? Is it working to your satisfaction, to the expectation? Is there anticipated to be any further work done on it? Are there gaps that are being identified and that need filling? I'd just like sort of a dissertation, if you will, on how that tool is working, because I think it's a very important part of the exploration in the northeast.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's working really well. Obviously, we continue to update our data as we do more of this. Basically, what the tool does is enhance our water management and protection to ensure that resource values affected by oil and gas are sustainable for future genera-
[ Page 2902 ]
tions. That's why we can tell you how much of the percentage of runoff was actually used.

The other thing I think people should know is that when we look at our water uses through this tool and elsewhere — the consumptive water uses in the province — oil and gas operations use a small fraction of the total water that's actually permitted to them. They don't use anywhere near the water that the permits and the volumes would be, and yet we're still way below, down to 0.002 percent of the runoff with regards to the amount of water that is used with regards to the oil and gas piece in British Columbia.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could tell me when the OGC expects to be able to start refining the permit levels. Do they think the tool is going to be effective enough that the permit requirements can be brought down, or the allowances can be brought down, rather than these huge amounts that are not used by the industry?

[1550]

Wouldn't it be better to be able to control that permitting level a bit further?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's happening now. Actually, it's gone down year over year as we refine the tool and refine the amount of permitting that is required for the actual use, and that's what this tool is helping us do.

R. Austin: My question is sort of following on from the member for Delta South's question. My sense is that there's a huge discrepancy between what the minister and the government say in terms of the government being very comfortable with the amount of water that's used in fracking processes and there being a debate out there with others who say: "Oh, we're using way too much water in this, and if we increase gas production, we're going to be running out of water."

My question is: why is there such a large discrepancy? And what, perhaps, can government do better so that people are informed as to the facts? Like I say, you read lots of reports. You read things in environmental magazines and reports saying we're running out of water, and if we increase our gas production we're going to have real trouble. Yet, as the minister says very often, we are using less than 1 percent of the available runoff water. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. R. Coleman: In some cases it's because some of these folks that are out there telling these stories don't want to be confused with the facts. I mean, the fact of the matter is that we do use a very small percentage of the water. We're not going to run out of water because of the growth of natural gas development in the northeast part of the province. Our northwest water monitoring system is improving all the time. They don't want to talk about the stories about saline water being used from deep in the earth. They don't want to talk about the fact that in British Columbia you can actually go on line to FracFocus and know how much water was used in any single well driven in B.C. That's how refined we are in our information here with regards to it.

In addition to that, we also have a plant that is taking grey water out to the Montney. From the city of Dawson Creek we're using grey water. It really is, I guess, that some people just don't want to understand how environmentally well this is being done in British Columbia and how well the water is managed. They would rather not have that because it dissuades their arguments and their opposition to such activity.

I'm very comfortable with how we manage the water, how we know what our percentages are, how we're handling it, and how little we're actually using compared to what some people would like to have the narrative be.

R. Austin: The government spends a lot of money advertising. Sometimes those of us on this side of the House don't like the use of those advertising dollars. Why doesn't the government spend some of their advertising dollars taking aside some of this misinformation by giving the facts out to British Columbians so they have an understanding of the industry? If LNG is going to be all that the government hopes it's going to be and it's going to be a major industry here in British Columbia, surely British Columbians should be made aware of the reality of it. So why hasn't that been done?

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: We work on communication with our partners, the companies, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, on that side of it. We have all the information on websites that's produced quarterly by the OGC with regards to water use and those things.

I think one of the challenges is that we have been doing it a long time in British Columbia. I think the light's shining on it a bit differently because of the conversation around LNG, but we've been doing this safely and managing water very responsibly for a long time in B.C. and continue to do so.

We'll look at other ways we can communicate with regards to it, but at the same time, our industry relationship is pretty strong. I know we've had some conversations with industry — I have — about where they'd like to take it next with regards to some public engagement. We'll work on that over the next few months. The challenge is that some people don't want to be confused by the facts, and they will continue to tell a story that isn't correct or isn't true. We have to continue to say: "Here are the facts." Every quarter we put it out there so people can see it.

R. Austin: The minister alluded to the fact that some of the companies are making use of saline or brackish
[ Page 2903 ]
water, large quantities of it that they discovered, I believe, several kilometres down.

Could the minister just give us a little bit more information about what it is they're doing with some of that brackish water and how they're storing it?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, we used about 2.1 million cubic metres of water in the Horn in 2012, which was at Debolt, with Apache and Encana, who have developed a plan to be able to go get this water and make use of it. I believe there's actually a new plant that's opening up here in the not-too-distant future.

In Montney we only used about 290,000 cubic metres because we don't have the same resource there the same way. Basically, what happens is the water is brought up. It is stored in an engineered pit so that it can be recycled. It is recycled until it's no longer useful as recycled water because of its shrinking and probably evaporation and that sort of stuff. Then it is deep-well reinjected back into the area where the source came from.

R. Austin: I'd like to move on for a little while to the issue of possible coordination of LNG infrastructure. I think, living in the northwest, where this is still a relatively new potential industry, people over the last couple of years have been overwhelmed. We started with one company coming in and speaking in Kitimat.

[1600]

Originally, in 2006 that original company which later on became the Apache-Chevron project — it was in fact, I believe, in 2006 when I first spoke to them — was to actually import LNG from another part of the world and regassify it. Then, of course, everything changed in the markets here in North America. Since that time, we've now got a whole plethora of potential plants in the northwest.

As I say, I think people sometimes get a little bit overwhelmed thinking of all these projects. They may not realize that it's a very competitive industry, and even though there are seven or eight potential projects in the northwest, at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, we might get one, maybe get two. Who knows?

I'm just setting up the context for this question. In Australia they had an experience, and I'm going to use this particular example, where there was no coordination. It happened in Queensland. In that particular instance, three LNG plants were built in one location by three different companies, each having their own separate pipeline. That particular instance caused unnecessary environmental and economic damage, but it also increased all of their individual costs.

In the 2000s in the state of Western Australia, the government there was seeking to process natural gas from the Browse Basin in various separate onshore facilities. The state government there, and I'm quoting: "recognized that it was in the best interests of the pristine Kimberley environment to choose one location at which multiple companies could establish gas-processing facilities." The state government intended that the common user infrastructure would reduce costs.

Just using those two as examples, I was wondering whether the government has been doing any coordination to look at all of these proposed projects in the northwest. I recognize these are all competing companies, but I guess I'm thinking specifically around them bringing multiple pipelines that have to go through a lot of northern B.C. in exactly the same route and then head off to Rupert or head down to Kitimat.

I'm just wondering whether the ministry has thought about doing any kind of coordination from government to encourage these companies to work together — notwithstanding that they are, at this point, of course, all competing projects.

Hon. R. Coleman: Everybody is very familiar with the Australia situation, including the proponents that are here. A number of them were actually partners in projects over there together who are now here pursuing individual projects. I do know they talk about and have worked with us with regards to a number of things that were the factors.

The factors over there weren't so much about a pipeline corridor. However, you can only do so much in a single quarter, depending on the distance between the pipe. When we go through the mountains — like the more mountainous areas going over to Rupert or the coast, that particular area — these pipelines can't be beside each other. It's so difficult, the terrain they're working through. It's expensive to go through, so somebody would take a bit of a different route.

On the whole thing, when we went to Ottawa a week ago with the Premier and companies and First Nations, it was really about addressing the other issue in and around those three plants in Australia, where the skilled labour shortage was such that the country didn't actually figure out how to move people there, how to get the training from across their continent or whatever to people.

[1605]

Now, we have an advantage there, because we have more people than Australia, but we're also not locked into a sort of island continent, as they are. We have a relationship south of us into a very large workforce that can work through that.

That's why the labour groups came together with the companies and all the other contracting groups to say: "Let's figure out how we can do this on that piece." More so than a pipeline, the single largest expense that went out of control was the labour cost because there just wasn't enough labour. It got whipsawed, and it caused delays and cost money and those sorts of things.

That piece is why we're concentrating on that to sort of solve that. At the same time, I can tell the member that
[ Page 2904 ]
some of the companies are looking at a corridor where two pipelines can coexist in certain geographical areas to have some efficiencies and to work with that. The pipeline companies are working on that together.

What we're trying to do is work with them to make sure they understand the coordination. Particularly, there will be some coordination even during construction. You'll also see a couple of the companies that are moving along at their pace, who are looking at it and saying: "Actually, we think those guys might go before us." What we would do is be…. They would look at an offtake for gas and what have you, given the pipelines, but what they will do is say: "We might want to lag two years behind, pick up that workforce and just move it onto our site and build our plant." Some of that goes on as well.

Because there are so many of them, and you don't know which ones are going to do FID today necessarily, you don't have the ability today to say: "Well, one should go here; one should go there." You have two at Grassy Point, for instance. There's lots of space and land north of Prince Rupert for one of the companies. The city owns some land there on the port side, and then the two port side ones in Rupert have got enough land to do theirs. So the constraints are a bit different. Obviously, in Kitimat it's the same situation. So who knows how many?

I think there will definitely be more than one. I wouldn't be surprised if there were as many as five or six or seven over time, simply because you have this resource that if you can get the stability of supply, you can serve a marketplace and know you've got long-term supply and control over supply and pricing. Because you know what your financial piece is, you can make these things work for a long period of time, knowing that you've got a system in place with a supply. The gas is there, the infrastructure is in place, and now you can move the gas to markets.

At the end of the day the whole thing depends on a couple of things. It depends on us, certainly, getting the labour thing straight. That was the big cost in Australia that makes everybody sort of stay awake at night. The other piece is, quite frankly: what's the price going to be? Will the price be such that the level of investment can get a return so that the company is prepared to make that investment in Canada or Mozambique or central Africa or anywhere in the world? That's going to be what will drive the balance of this particular file.

Certainly, on the coordination piece, we have really encouraged the companies to sit down and work together and talk to each other. I think a lot of that does go on — even seeing them in Ottawa together. They're in Ottawa. These companies are effectively competitors, but they're sitting at the same table, saying they want to work together in the labour and all the other aspects of LNG to make sure that they get it right in B.C.

R. Austin: I think what I'll do is, then, move onto a topic which I think is crucial. The minister has alluded to this already. That's to do with the LNG working group and the recommendations, specifically around labour. Could the minister just outline, for those of us who don't know the details yet, what the specific things are to fulfil the recommendations that came out of the LNG working group and their consultations in Ottawa last week, in terms of how we are going to make sure that here in British Columbia we don't end up with some of the problems they had in Australia, notwithstanding that we have access to a large marketplace in the United States?

The Premier has said often that any LNG industry that takes place will first of all provide jobs for British Columbians, then Canadians and then, presumably, Americans and then temporary foreign workers. Yet the headline coming out of the talks was, of course…. The media went and said: "Well, they have gone to Ottawa to lobby for the ability to bring in temporary foreign workers." I'm sure the minister would agree that that would be an absolute last resort.

[1610]

I would add another line. That is this. What we have seen in the northwest, with the current projects that are taking place — the northwest transmission line, the Alcan smelter and some of the pre-work that's being done by LNG companies — is a huge influx of folk coming on planes, working in camps, while there is still quite a large number of untapped resources in terms of — particularly First Nations but not just First Nations — people who have been living in the northwest who lack the skills today for the projects that are happening today.

If the minister could describe in detail how we can avoid this scenario in three, four, five years' time when, hopefully, we have an LNG industry being built, whether it be pipelines or plants being built concurrently. How are we going to avoid the fact that we do not want to see planeloads of workers coming in while we still have unemployment in the Nass Valley that is probably 80 percent. Unemployment in Kitselas and Kitsumkalum — the other two First Nations on this side of Terrace — is probably well over 60 percent. How are we going to figure out ways that we don't just see workers coming from outside the area and actually can train the people there to do some of these jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, it's not unusual that the media would actually misreport what the mission was that we took to Ottawa. We weren't there to pursue foreign workers to come to Canada. We recognize that this country was built on immigration. Some skill sets can be improved and augmented in Canada. We, maybe, have a shortage. If we have a shortage, we have to be alive to that.

But the real trip to Ottawa was…. The comment that was made, from one of the senior people from one of the major companies that's here looking to invest, at a meeting where it was a round-table discussion between First Nations, companies, labour, federal and provincial gov-
[ Page 2905 ]
ernment, was basically this: "If we had done this type of relationship-building in Australia, we wouldn't have had that problem."

What we were there for was to make sure the skills-training programs federally, through an agreement with our minister, were such that they could meet the demand and be flexible enough to be able to meet what we were going to be facing. The mandate here for us — the ministries that affect skills training, which are Education, Advanced Education and the Ministry for Labour and the Jobs and Skills Training Ministry — is to find out new and coordinated methods to improve how we can deliver the training.

The companies themselves tell me, as well as our people, that we will be going right into those communities that the member just mentioned and saying: "Here is the opportunity. This is the training you'll need to be part of this opportunity, and this is where you can get the training." We will do that along with…. I think you'll see some changes where people can get some skill sets that will get them entry level into this industry during their high school years — grades 10, 11 and 12.

I also think you're going to see how we train a bit differently. One of the challenges that faces companies: if you have a camp of, let's say, 4,000 people and you have, out of that 4,000 people, 2,000 apprentices, those apprentices, theoretically, today would have to leave the job site for two months at a time to go get their annual education over a three- or four-year period.

There's no reason we can't bring that education to the camp to allow them to accommodate their education pieces and get their logbook and their training and their academic stuff done while they're there and be able to augment that with a lesser period of time, maybe, at another institution. Or you can bring in some…. In some cases, like some certain skills, welding — we have welding centres that can teach them, so we'd have to coordinate that. But certainly how we deliver it is going to be different.

It has to be different. That's why the conversations took place with labour. That's why the Premier actually engaged with labour early on after the election to say: "Look, we all need to get our hands on deck and coordinate what's important in how we do trades, how we will deliver them, where we can get them trained."

We know that if we can train the folks in the northwest — First Nations and non–First Nations alike — and they can get their training and their job up there, they're going to stay. That's what you want if you want the long-term stability of an industry. You want a workforce that actually wants to live and stay in an area after the plant is built, because those are the long-term jobs that stay in the community.

That also means that if you can build those skill sets, you can also build the contracting sector, which is important to support the industry long term. It's not just the people that actually run the plant that are the jobs, but there's a number of contracting jobs on pipeline and maintenance and gauges and those sorts of things for the plants. The experience in Bintulu in Malaysia was that probably an equal number of people, if not more, were actually contracted to support the plant as there were actually working in the plant once it was up and running. We know all of that's the case.

[1615]

At the same time, there are opportunities that people don't always talk about. There's going to be opportunities in shipping, with regards to the cargo and to the working on the ships and the training there. There will be opportunities in the northeast part of the province in gas plants that will have to be developed to move the gas down the pipeline and then, of course, all the environmental monitoring up and down the pipeline.

We've always said that we want to get there. The mandate in the last discussion I had with the minister, as the minister responsible for this, is you need to have shortly — and they're working on it, because I said this a while back — a plan to go right into the First Nation community — not just go to Terrace but go right into the community itself and have something not complicated. You don't need a big PowerPoint presentation to say that these are the ten or 15 marketable skills you need to work in the LNG industry and this is where you can get the training for any one of them.

If I was giving anybody advice today with regards to any industry like this and how it was going to grow in B.C., if I had a young person, even as young as 15, 16 or even less, I'd be telling them to go get an industrial first aid ticket. Go get that entry-level thing, because that opens all kinds of doors in the industrial sector, not just here but in mining and everywhere else.

I think it's about educating the people on what education they need. It's about us making it simple so that people can understand where they can get it and then making sure we back it up with the training that we can do. That was the whole reason for the labour group to get together and look at this thing as a group with the companies. It was the reason we went to Ottawa — to make sure they understood we want it to be coordinated in Canada. We will continue the same conversations with our friends in the other provinces with regards to skills training as well.

It's a national opportunity, because it's not just about.… In Canada we have an aging workforce. We're going to have to replace it with skills training anyway. If we can show some innovation here that can be used elsewhere across the country from our learnings, I think it would be a benefit to everybody.

It's a big job. The minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour has a significant part of this portfolio for delivery, and I have every confidence that she's going to do it.
[ Page 2906 ]

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for those comments. I recognize what the minister is saying in terms of this being an opportunity for kids in school who aren't necessarily looking at an academic future but would like to do something more hands on.

I just want to bring to the minister's attention that part of the reason why we have such high rates of unemployment in these communities, like the four communities in the Nass Valley and Kitsumkalum and Kitselas, is that there is a large population of folk — men, in particular…. There's a higher level of unemployment amongst men than there is among the women in First Nations communities. I'm sure the minister knows that. These are folk in their 20s and 30s, even in their 40s, who have never worked. They did not succeed in school when they were young. They haven't found any opportunity. They've been living on subsistence, on social assistance.

I think to talk about the training opportunities, one really needs to go to one of the line items in the recommendations from the Premier's LNG working group, and that is this. Number 4 is: "Identify and remove barriers to entry into training while supporting literacy and essential skills development to support local and B.C. work-based training and employment."

The challenge is to go and create training programs that aren't traditional training programs, because these folks have never been in the workforce, did not succeed in school. They now have a lack of confidence, don't have essential skills. I think the challenge for the government and for the ministry is to actually go in and recognize that there's a whole slew of people, hundreds if not thousands, in these communities I mentioned which actually need essential skills to begin with. Once they have those essential skills…. They have to be sort of pre-trained for training, because they don't have the confidence to recognize this.

I'm just wondering whether the minister recognizes what it is I'm saying here and realizes that the large pool of unused, untapped labour is a lot of these folks. Hopefully, the minister can comment on this, as to how are they going to go and access them. It's one thing to go into the schools. Yes, those kids are in school right now, and hopefully, they'll see the potential for them getting a job if they were to go and do this.

[1620]

But that's only a small percentage of the population up there. We've got huge numbers of people who are sitting at home doing nothing, who, I think, if they were given an opportunity, would just be fantastic at doing work like this. I hope the minister can comment on that.

Hon. R. Coleman: We recognize that as part of this whole jobs plan. I think that's why the recommendation is there. We do recognize that there is a gap between those who might be in the present school system and those that weren't successful in the school system. If we could get them to get to some basic understanding and training where we could progress them through to the opportunity, it's a benefit to everybody.

How the member described it was almost exactly as how one of the First Nations elders explained it to me not too recently: "We really see this opportunity for our children and our grandchildren, but we do have some people in a gap generation that we really think need to be given some other opportunities for training before they get into training."

I've mentioned this to all the ministers relative to this file and said: "Let's try and get a handle." First of all, I want to understand how many and what it is and then what it is we've got to bring as a basic for them to be able to step up and move into the opportunities that face them.

There are obviously lots of jobs in this side of the industry. They will also not necessarily be an electrician or a plumber or whatever the case may be. They can be equipment operators. They can be trucking. There can be all kinds of other job opportunities as well, which require different forms of training. If you understand your workforce, I think you can start to build those modules around that so that you can actually build it for success.

It's not going to be easy, but I think everybody wants to do it. The communities have told us they want to do it. We're going to get into those communities and see how we can do it.

R. Austin: I realize I'm probably going into an area of detail that's not really particularly the ministry's mandate. But I just want to emphasize this.

If we're going to achieve the things that we've just been talking about, one of the things we have to overcome is some of the rules that are currently imposed in terms of people's ability to go and access training. If you're on social assistance, you then cannot go and apply to go to college or school and get funded to do that while you're on social assistance. Yet the vast majority of these people that we're talking about are living on social assistance and have done for five, ten, 15 years.

Does the minister recognize that this is going to require fundamental changes, not just in terms of trying to figure out new ways of training people but also to recognize the reality of a lot of these people's lives and figure out how the government can also make policy changes down here that enable these people to then go and access essential skills training first of all and then training in the communities? A lot of First Nations people don't also like to have to go away or to a college atmosphere. They like to be able to be trained locally.

The other thing I would say is this. It isn't simply the trainer and the person being trained. There's a whole slew of support systems. I've heard the minister talk very often about his dealings with people in the Lower Mainland — particularly with mental health, addictions — who were difficult to house.
[ Page 2907 ]

The minister has often quoted how it wasn't just a question of giving them accommodation, a roof over their head. The only way for them to succeed once they had a roof over their head was also to have all these other people in place — whether they be social workers or addictions counsellors, whatever — in order for people with those deficits to be able to succeed in the house that was now being given to them.

Similarly, I would say that a large percentage of people in northwest B.C. — not just people living on reserve, not just First Nations but also those who are non–First Nations and who live in the local communities but who didn't succeed in school — require a whole level of services in order for them to succeed, if the government wants to even start giving these essential skills trainings. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I was the Minister of Social Development at one time, too, so I'm familiar with that piece of the file as well. That's why it's every minister and every ministry on deck with regards to this opportunity. Our Minister of Social Development has a number of job-training programs that he's looking at and looking at how these things can be adaptable to some of the things the member just described.

We recognize that…. We would really like — I think all of us would like — everybody that could actually seize an opportunity to have an ability to seize an opportunity with regards to this industry if we can attract it to B.C., and particularly the people in the northwest part of the province and the northeast part of the province who live there. That's their home, and that's their community. They're going to be there a long time, and their families are going to be there a long time.

[1625]

So it is about giving people the opportunity to upgrade skills or probably to go back and get some skills in some cases. But certainly, it's all about having a plan on this piece that includes what the member described. I can tell him that we're working on that. That's why we want to go right into the communities and sit down and have this understanding.

The member is right. There are folks who could be in their 30s and could have literacy issues and that sort of thing. We found that, even on the Housing portfolio, sometimes it was something as simple as literacy problems. They couldn't even read to find out where to go get a job or apply for a job or for help with things like a resumé or filling out an application.

You do need to have supports with it. That's why some of the work we're doing with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en…. With some of the programs we've done with them, they have a very good group of people who try and build that support and want to do even more of it.

I think it'll be that relationship with each community that will make that work. Obviously, as we do that, the member is correct that we probably have to look at how our programs are applied, given what your income comes from or whatever the case may be.

Certainly, we have already engaged at that level within government to have these discussions cross-ministry with myself, with regards to what else we think we can do. I think that as we get into the communities and start to go through this, we'll find what the real issues are, obviously, but we'll also then be able to define what the solutions could be.

R. Austin: I'd just like to ask the minister how they're going to accomplish this goal. This is specifically recommendation No. 9, which is to "aspire to a goal of having 25 percent overall of the apprenticeable trades workforce on LNG-related construction projects and whether the funding for apprentices can come from industry and/or government. In addition, government should consider having a minimum number of apprentices on public infrastructure projects."

How is the government going to accomplish that very worthy goal?

Hon. R. Coleman: The good part of this relationship that's being built…. I mean, industry signed off on these recommendations too. Industry is telling us they want to actually be part of the apprenticeship and the training because they see it as a long-term benefit to the industry. They want to be part of that recommendation, as did the folks from labour and the First Nations. They're all at the same table, and they all agreed on these recommendations. So that's the good news.

The next thing is that as the Minister Responsible for Labour takes a look at how the ITA is going to, in future, deliver the training programs to make it work better in a different, modern type of workplace…. That's what's going on now. That'll be done in conjunction with this group.

This group will now, as I understand it, be formulated into a more formal group with other participants so that we can drill down into all the recommendations in here and see how we're going to implement them and work on them on a regular basis. Then those things will come as we go through that.

I mean, the one recommendation on infrastructure projects is obviously a policy discussion in government. That just makes the recommendation that we look into it. We will, and I think that'll be part of the discussions within government. At what stage and when — that's not in this ministry. But I do know we're pretty focused on the fact that this is all going to work. The reason for putting this report together and having those folks to the table is so that we can get a coordinated relationship across all aspects.
[ Page 2908 ]

As the Premier said at the press conference when this report was released, it's about organized labour, it's about non-union labour, it's about companies, it's about contractors, it's about government, and it's about the major corporations involved in this, First Nations — all recognizing and working together to build a skilled workforce in British Columbia to be able to handle this generational opportunity.

[1630]

R. Austin: Is there going to be a reporting-out process as these recommendations are in the process of being fulfilled? Is there going to be a process so that we're all going to be able to know that this is actually taking place?

Hon. R. Coleman: I would assume we're going to track it and that we will somehow measure the outcomes. Otherwise, there would be no reason for bringing and expanding the committee further and follow up on all the recommendations. This is a living document that will actually be followed up on with the committee as it expands. This group did the initial work, but there's going to be more work done. That group is what I would assume would be the group that would be tracking the outcomes.

R. Austin: My final question on this particular report. I just wanted the minister to outline, again going back to temporary foreign workers…. What was the deal made there to ensure that we're going to limit temporary foreign workers and that's going to be, really, the back end of the queue? There's an article in today's paper here in Victoria around, I believe, a McDonald's franchisee who has taken advantage of the temporary foreign workers program.

I live in a community where we have temporary foreign workers managing our local McDonald's restaurants. Now, I'm sure they follow the rules. But my point is that we live in a country where to be bringing in people from another country to work in something which I think most people regard as fairly simple work…. Certainly, it's the place where most teenagers start and then learn basic managerial skills and work their way up in the management of a restaurant in the restaurant business. As process-oriented as McDonald's, to think that we've had to go, in Terrace and Rupert anyway, to the Philippines to bring in workers…. These are not highly skilled workers.

My question to the minister is: how are we going to ensure that if we do have to resort to temporary foreign workers, they are really the most specialized people that we don't have anywhere in Canada before we end up with them coming over here?

Hon. R. Coleman: I resist getting into the conversation around the incident in Victoria right now, and I think I will. There are two types of workers that British Columbia needs to attract. There are some skill sets that British Columbia will need because we will have a shortage of them simply because of the sheer volume of jobs and skills required as we go through and are successful on LNG — because of the size and scope of pipelines, gas plants, drilling. Maybe I'll sort of confine my comments to that.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Our conversations with this group of labour leaders that were also part of it was…. They actually said to us, "We recognize that there are some skill sets. We think we can help you with that because we have relationships within labour across North America and around the world," with regards to being able to attract some of the skill sets if we don't have them, or we have a shortage of them here. That was the whole idea — to make sure we could work together on that.

I think what happens sometimes is it gets caught in the mix of this thing. People move to the temporary foreign workers title right off the bat, when in actual fact sometimes it's actually about immigration and people bringing skills to our country. Actually, we are all immigrants in Canada. We've been built on immigration. Labour forces have changed over a generation. Sometimes you do attract a group of people to your economy who actually want to stay rather than just be a temporary foreign worker.

In addition to that, in the industrial construction complex around the world there are some people who have very transportable skills — a very specific type of welding, those types of things that they know how to do. You will find in a lot of jurisdictions that they don't have those skills because they haven't had projects to learn them. If you can harness that energy, you can actually teach people here that skill, as well, by using some of that expertise as a teaching. Then that entire group of people also get transportable skills because they can now transport that to other projects in Canada or elsewhere. That's one piece.

The temporary foreign worker that the member described, which is in the service industry or the farming industry and what have you — there are specific rules around that in Canada. I don't think I know enough about those rules to enter into that sort of debate today on that. I do know that the companies and labour….

[1635]

When you have Jim Sinclair and the other labour leaders sitting here, saying: "We recognize this. We want to work on this solution with you…." They recognize that this could be a benefit long term, too, if we could solve the skills shortage and actually improve on some of the skills. That's the whole intent of that document: to put that together.

As the member knows, wherever we see growth, we see pressure on other jobs. It doesn't matter if it was Brooks,
[ Page 2909 ]
Alberta, in 1974, when I got stationed there as an RCMP officer. We had a bit of an oil boom going on, and the challenge was the same thing. You had labour coming in from all over the country, coming in to get jobs there. At the same time, there were jobs you were having difficulty filling because you didn't have that workforce available in a small community like that.

Back then we didn't really have a temporary foreign workers program that could help with some of those pressures. I think the discussion here is really about making sure that we have the skilled workforce, in a coordinated way with labour, to be able to deliver on these plants in a way that makes sense and makes them not have the Australian experience that we talked about earlier. We think we can accomplish that. That's why the partnership has been put together, and a relationship with these guys, to be able to do that around the table.

You had the companies and, like you say, organized labour and First Nations there who came up with this report and now will be the same body — with some people added, probably — to then follow through and deal with it.

What happens on some of this is the two discussions blend because somebody just wants to talk about one piece of it, which is temporary foreign workers, when in actual fact there are opportunities here. It's not just about that. It's about skilled labour. It's about us being able to learn other skills.

We actually have companies that have training facilities and that are here wanting to do LNG, and they will take people from the northwest part of the province over to their country or over to their plant somewhere else in the world to teach them so that they're in a position to run a plant when the plant gets built in British Columbia and they can take those jobs. That's really what this is about. It's really about that. It gets muddied when you just go over and talk about temporary foreign workers, because that's really not what this is about.

R. Austin: Thank to the minister for that.

I'd like to, next, get on to a question around cumulative impacts. As the minister probably knows, when the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services went around the province doing their budget consultations, they heard from a lot of different communities and a lot of different people.

They came up with a recommendation. The select standing committee made recommendation No. 11, which was that the committee recommends that government consider undertaking a cumulative environmental assessment of LNG projects, one that includes overall project assessments and consideration of a common energy corridor.

We've talked about the common energy corridor, but aside from that, could the minister address the other issues around this in terms of having a cumulative impact study on an environmental assessment?

Hon. R. Coleman: We do a lot of things. We talked about the air quality assessments and all of those things earlier, when we were having the debates in and around this conversation. But the environmental assessment office, when we get the applications, are the ones that take into account the environmental assessment process, the value components of cumulative effects — which are environmental, social, economic, heritage or health. They are considered by the proponent, the public, the First Nations, the environmental assessment process. It considers all of that as part of its process on the cumulative effects question that comes up.

[1640]

We would be no different in doing that in this particular case, as these things go forward. We do know, after doing some work early on…. For instance, at Grassy Point, where we have two proposals on the land, we've basically split it in two, for two proponents on Crown land up at Grassy Point.

Our research told us that we could easily handle four there if we had the land base. So we did some of that work going in — on plants and siting and those sorts of things. Each one of the companies has done their assessment on pieces of property, where they think they can locate a plant. They have already done a lot of that sort of pre-environmental work to know whether it was something that they thought they could do in that particular location.

They don't want to actually go and try and build a plant where it's not going to be able to meet these tests. So they're already assessing these tests on the cumulative impacts when they're looking at their EA process right now.

R. Austin: Then, from what I'm hearing from the minister…. I mean, currently an environmental assessment would take place on each of these projects on an individual basis. Can the minister, then, confirm that what's happening is that there's going to be a strategic environmental assessment on these projects — that is, one that takes into consideration, as the minister just referenced, there potentially being four projects on Grassy Point — if there were four projects?

Can the minister confirm that it's going to be a strategic environmental assessment — that is, a cumulative assessment rather than just an EA process?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, not what the member describes, because the environmental assessment process is an assessment of cumulative effects and looks at the likely impacts from the proposed project combined with the impacts from prior development, existing activities and reasonably foreseeable future development that is sufficiently certain to proceed.

Basically, they look at the environmental impact and what's on the ground today, with the size and scope, if
[ Page 2910 ]
this one will have an effect on the environmental assessment process. They look at what would be foreseeably possible in the future. You're not going to say no to an LNG plant because you think maybe ten years from now something might happen. That one will have to be assessed with its cumulative impacts with what's already there when it gets there.

Each plant, each one…. Right now, with an EA process, for instance, let's say, in Prince Rupert, I think it'd be reasonable to assume that the BG and the Petronas proposals are both getting worked on. If you come in with your environmental assessment, they're going to do their cumulative impacts of that project and potentially the project next door, because those two would be advanced along to where there might be a need for discussion around that.

But if somebody said, "I think I'll option a piece of property," hadn't done any work and wasn't doing anything, it's pretty tough to know what the foreseeable impact would be. Then you would treat this one that way, do its EA, and if one came along five or six years from now, it would be caught up in what the cumulative impact of the previous project within its environmental assessment has had.

R. Austin: Really, I think what the minister is saying is that the first ones that get to a final investment decision have the best opportunity to pass anything that's put in front of them. One that comes on further down the line is going to have considerably more challenges because they haven't been looked at together as potential proponents.

I mean, these things may all happen in a similar time frame — when I say similar time frame, within two or three years. If they are still being looked at on an individual basis, just based on the past of what's there, then presumably, if one wants to come in and do an environmental assessment two or three years later, it's going to be much harder. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, not necessarily. It could be that the airshed or the area can handle it quite easily in an environmental assessment. It's part of the environmental assessment process to look at the cumulative impacts. It doesn't mean that it's harder. It just means that the information is different than when the first…. You have more information on what size and scope had been built there.

It has to be taken into account in the environmental assessment process, which I am no expert on, because I've never had that ministry. I would be careful about how I'd couch it. But my understanding in reading the information is….

As I read it before, it's pretty clear that the assessment of the cumulative effects looks at the likely impacts from the proposed project combined with the impact from prior development, existing activities and reasonably foreseeable future development that is sufficiently certain to proceed. It would be crazy to say….

[1645]

Let's take a mine. Because it has a certain footprint on the land base, you say: "This mine has been approved on the environmental assessment process. Maybe we won't do that, because there might be ten other mines here twenty years from now."

The environmental assessment process on the next mine should take in the cumulative impacts of the mine that's there. You have to have some foreseeable thought that something is going to proceed in order to actually impact on the environmental assessment of what you know today, because you can't know the future.

Let's say one plant got built in Kitimat. It was being built, and another one came in behind it in the environmental assessment process. That would be now an addition to the cumulative impacts, which obviously would be part of the environmental assessment process as I described it.

R. Austin: That wasn't a particularly good example, though, I don't think, in fairness. We know today that we have multiple projects in very close proximity to each other, whereas I can't think of any situation where we have several mines in a small geographic area. But I'll move on.

I have a couple of questions in regards to power. There's been lots of talk in the public domain around the power requirements of LNG plants. I know it's the government's position to allow each of the proponents to decide how they will power up their own plants. Most of them, presumably, will burn their own gas in some form.

My question is this. Is the government actively pursuing opportunities for there to be some hydro brought in, at least on the ancillary side of these LNG plants? If so, could he tell us what that is?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, that's taking place now. There have been some agreements made with regards to some grid power. Unfortunately, they are covered by non-disclosure agreements between Hydro and the proponent. Although I know what they are, I can't disclose them under non-disclosure, so I'd best not do that.

Hon. Chair, I wonder if we could take a five-minute recess and come back.

The Chair: We will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:56 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for that. I understand and appreciate that some things here are confidential, but it is good to hear that there is a potential for renewables at least entering the picture here.
[ Page 2911 ]

Another question related to electricity or to power in general. The Premier often cites that one of the reasons why Site C needs to take place is because we need it for the LNG industry. I must be missing something here. If the minister could explain the timing of things to me. I don't understand how Site C is connected to the LNG industry.

My understanding is that by the time Site C goes through all of its processes and is built and is delivering electricity to the grid, we're looking at 15 years from now. That's way beyond the time when we would either have or not have an LNG industry up and running and requiring power, so I'm not quite sure of the connection between Site C and the LNG industry. If the minister could elaborate on that.

[1700]

Hon. R. Coleman: It is part of it. I mean, as this thing builds out over the life of the projects, you're going to need electricity. First of all, you've got to remember, the grid itself is going to need additional power because even in the northeast part of the province, on top of the growth we're going to see in the gas and the gas plants and the pipelines, all of those things require some electricity and gas plants to run them and function — all the sorts of things.

In addition to that, you're going to see some mines in the northeast. You've got power requirements that are going to be across a growth of a province. So site C is part of the LNG solution to make sure that you can have the backup to make this thing work. It may take a number of years to build it, but you have to remember that over time you will be able to move that power within the grid to be able to balance it off where it's coming from for the rest of British Columbians and for the other pressures.

It was always seen when we looked at site C that it was part of the solution to basically trying to build a foundation for jobs and industrial growth in B.C.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the critic for the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of the minister.

I'm curious as to the role the minister and the ministry play in facilitating a positive climate for socially responsible development of British Columbia's natural gas and petroleum resources.

That's the overall framework of what I am going to ask, but I have a very specific example that I'd like to have the minister provide some answers to. That's directly in relation to the Prince Rupert gas transmission project, PRGT, and the pipeline section of it, which is, as the minister knows, headed up by TransCanada.

I've been in receipt of some documents here that were produced on behalf of TransCanada in February of this year. They outline four potential worksites in the Hazelton area: two camps and two stockpile yards. The purpose of these is in relation to the PRGT project and a potential building out of the TransCanada pipeline.

Under these timelines provided to TransCanada in this work that they're doing for their environmental assessment, the first camp is slated to begin construction in January 2015, eight months from now, and would house 300 to 400 men in about 150 trailers in the Suskwa area near Hazelton. It's a small camp utilized for pioneering HDD and aerial installation work. The second camp, again slated for construction and development in January 2015, only eight months from now, initially is a pioneering camp for 200 to 300 men in about 100 trailers, and then up to a camp housing 800 to 1,000 men and around 275 trailers.

The two stockpile areas, one on the Big Slide Forest Service Road, which is up Salmon River Road north of Hazelton, is to stockpile, amongst other things, 25,000 metres of pipe. The other area, up the Kispiox Valley where this 1,000-person camp is scheduled, proposed to be built, is to stockpile 60,000 metres of pipe, amongst other things, as well as the men.

Again, it's the timeline that is of concern — January 15. The camp in the Suskwa is approximately a four-year camp, and the camp up the Muldoe Forest Service Road area north in the Kispiox Valley, north of Hazelton but quite close, is for three years, starting in January 2015 and ending in January 2018.

The concern I have is that the timeline the ministry and the government are pursuing on behalf of industry, and pushing that timeline, doesn't necessarily mean good decisions for communities. I'll give an example of that. If those two camps go ahead — and that's the proposal that TransCanada is entertaining at this time — we're talking about potentially an influx of 1,400 people into the Hazeltons. All the Hazeltons, as it stands now, is about 1,400 people, and the services there service an area of probably 5,000 or 6,000 people.

[1705]

What I want to ask about is the facilitating socially responsible development angle of this potential huge development near the Hazeltons. There's a model called an accordion model in community economic development when it comes to big projects. I'm sure the minister is familiar with that analogy. It's the ability, as an accordion expands quickly, to add capacity quickly to deal with these kinds of camps — capacity in hospitals, in counselling, in transportation, in operations.

For instance, on the policing end, although the camps are self-contained and often have high security — although those standards aren't necessarily across the board — there's often a need for increased policing in communities where some of the workers end up living during these incredible phases of development. RCMP takes a year, at least, to get extra RCMP in place. These camps are proposed to be constructed starting January 2015, less than nine months away.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise on his
[ Page 2912 ]
discussions with service providers in the Hazeltons regarding what plans the government has to add emergency nurses; to add a representative, for instance, from the residential tenancy branch; to add land use and design planners; to add community services and counselling — those kinds of additions in that accordion model to deal with this kind of potential overwhelming development to a small community.

Also transportation infrastructure. We have a one-lane bridge called the Hagwilget Bridge, and we're talking about transporting 85,000 metres of pipe across that bridge, potentially. I don't know. I doubt if the companies would be flying them in. But even if that's not the case, we've got 1,000 workers changing shifts.

Yes, could the minister advise: pursuing a socially responsible development of LNG — the discussions he's had with service providers and the local municipalities in the Hazeltons…?

Hon. R. Coleman: I won't put these words in the member opposite's mouth, but it never surprises me how the opposition — not necessarily this member, but others — come up with reasons not to do LNG because they don't want to say they don't support it. But they don't support LNG. Then the opportunity comes along, and they say: "How could we possibly do this, because there might be people who will actually get jobs?" I don't know what the unemployment is in Hazelton, but if I could go to a camp from Hazelton and have a job, if I was unemployed, I'd be pretty happy about that.

At the same time, as the member is aware, in development and construction of these things, these camps are self-contained. They bring in their own nursing. They bring in their own security. Very seldom are they open. There's one open camp that's being tried down in Kitimat with one of the projects, but not the Rio Tinto one. I haven't had any feedback yet on how that's working out because it's pretty early. But usually these things are self-contained, so meals, food, structure, social stuff is all built into the camp, and the workers rotate in and out.

The reason for a camp, in a pipeline project in particular, is because there's no permanent operation that stays behind other than some of the monitoring stations that have to be there, and those are local jobs provided, in this case, probably, mainly to First Nations communities so they can make sure the integrity of the pipeline is there all the way through in the future.

There is a northwest community readiness project which is focusing on the communities across the area that could be affected by this growth. We are going through and working to understand the infrastructure, the health and safety, the social services needed in communities in northwest B.C. A camp doesn't actually bring pressures on residential tenancy because the camp is where they live. So they don't actually rent in the community. They actually have to live in the camp. By doing that, they have a way of controlling their safety and their quality and what have you — the way they'll do it.

This particular operation, the staging areas…. Obviously, if you're going to build a pipeline, you've got to have somewhere to put the pipe down. And obviously, they've identified by their own work to define where the best place for that was, based on geographic location and all of the rest of the things that would go into a project like this.

[1710]

Each pipeline is between $4 billion and $6 billion of investment to British Columbia and to the regions — people buying goods and services in the regions where these particular operations are located. I guess I look at the northwest…. When I talk to the folks in the northwest, they are pretty excited that there could be a sea change in unemployment and economics and all the rest of the stuff in the northwest part of the province.

Any time I've talked to anybody from most of these communities, it's: "Can you be successful and get it? We really need it. We really want it. We think it would be great for our communities." We've said yes. Because we're going to have the readiness project going through with our ministries that are working on this entire project together, we're pretty confident that we can work through the community issues with them.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer, to the minister. I'm sorry he might have misinterpreted my question regarding providing him with the opportunity to expand on his government's knowledge of the accordion model to allay concerns of people in small communities around the disruption, and therefore provide a better argument for the government getting to yes. He didn't avail himself of that opportunity.

I wanted to say that in the Rio Tinto project, 50 percent of the workers stayed outside of the camp — 50 percent. I don't understand the minister. I know he has a lot of knowledge about these issues. It's not just the workers who come on behalf of TransCanada, in this case, but at a certain level the subcontractors don't have the privilege of staying in those camps. They have to stay somewhere else close by.

These are the communities of Hazelton and perhaps Smithers. Perhaps other small communities are going to end up housing these. There could be good economic spinoffs from that. There's no denying that. But the communities need help in trying to address these kinds of pressures. With only a nine-month time frame, I'm giving the opportunity to the minister under these budget estimates to describe, if the work isn't being done, what he plans to do in consulting with the communities that could be affected by this.

Hon. R. Coleman: I already mentioned the northwest community readiness project, which is focusing on these
[ Page 2913 ]
communities with regards to their needs. I'm well aware of the mix in the camps. I'm well aware that contractors come into them. I'm also well aware of the fact that the last time I was in Terrace and I was in a restaurant, the restaurant owner said to me: "Just keep it coming, because I've actually got more business now than I've had in a decade. This is good for this community, because we've been suffering for a long time, and we really are happy that this opportunity is coming to British Columbia."

I know that with opportunity comes challenges, but I sure would like to be able to have the challenges than not have any challenges at all. I am familiar with, as the member describes, the accordion approach. Communities — as we had extensive discussion earlier about housing and about communities and working and looking at their community plans and all of that stuff…. That took place two hours ago. I don't know that we need to get into repeating all of that. Certainly, we are working with the communities in the northwest.

Everybody needs to understand. I've said it time and again. As I said to the critic earlier, we need to get to FID. If we get the final investment decision, then you get the billions of dollars of investment and the tens of thousands of jobs. If you don't, it's a zero-sum game. There is no pipeline, there is no staging area, and there is no camp, because we didn't get the FID.

The timeline that TransCanada is working from is they're looking at how long the EAO process would take for them. They want to be able to be in a position with their client to say: "We can deliver the pipeline on time." When they go to their board, come later this year or the first or second quarter of next year, TransCanada has got their work ready, their route worked out and approvals, including relationships with First Nations, so that pipeline can get built. If it can't, then the company at the other end is going to say: "We're not building an LNG plant because we have no way to get the gas there."

Obviously, they're all working to timelines. Their timelines are that because within our process January 2015 works within their EA approval process, which they will accomplish by the timelines that government has put on this stuff, so they can get to their pipeline.

[1715]

They've already spent in the hundreds of millions of dollars in preparation for this thing, doing all this stuff from staging material, trying to get the pre-order of the pipe supply worked out, all of that stuff — equipment, gauges, everything — so that if they went ahead, they'd be able to move. While they're doing that, they go out and identify locations for camps, locations for staging areas, locations for those types of things. That's the pre-work they're doing, because they're going to have to deliver for their client, whoever that client is and whichever pipeline — whether it's Petronas or a Pacific Northwest LNG partnership or BG Group or the guys up at Grassy Point or the Shell consortium down in Kitimat or the Apache-Chevron project down in Kitimat.

All of those guys will be wanting to know that these guys are following their timeline. What's happening is that on one end, in the upstream, there's been an increase in drilling for the next five years by one company to the tune of about $2 billion a year. That is to make sure they've got the gas supply.

They've got somebody else, usually a company they've made a deal with, to go and design and operate a pipeline to get the gas from the location to the plant. Those guys have got to go do their job, but these guys over here are saying: "We will make our final investment decision when we have certainty of supply, an understanding of the numbers on the pipeline and an understanding of the labour and the numbers on the gas plant. Then we'll make our final investment decision."

As we are going through that, we're doing this northwest community readiness project so that if people do make a move, we're in a position to have assessed these needs to be able to be ready to help the communities as we come forward to go ahead. That's where we sit today.

Although there are billions of dollars being invested today…. As a matter of fact, each major LNG proponent will probably spend between $1 billion and $2 billion in money up front to get to a final investment decision, but it doesn't mean that you have a final investment decision. If they feel there's a problem with those components of the project, when they sit in front of their board, the board will say: "Fine, we go here. We go to Mozambique. We go to central Africa. We go back to Australia. We're going to go where there's certainty."

They have to do all of this work at the front end to make sure they have the certainty and that the numbers work. That's basically what happens here.

I sympathize with the folks in the northwest, because they're saying: "Well, what if it goes? It's going to be big." The reality is that, yeah, it's going to be big. But if it doesn't go, it's zero.

They have to go do this work, and they have to get ready. They know that they're going to have all these issues around security, health and all those things the companies do. They've done this all over the world, and they've done it before. They know that's all about their total package as they put this thing together.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious if the minister could fill us in on discussions regarding a technology innovation fund related to the LNG industry. I know there have been conversations suggesting that we develop a model similar to Alberta, where carbon emissions from the LNG facilities could be charged. The companies could be charged a certain amount, and then that money could be put into a technology fund. If the minister could update us on those conversations, that would be helpful.

Hon. R. Coleman: The work is going on, on that right
[ Page 2914 ]
now along with the fiscal package, which should be coming out in the not too distant future. It will be part of it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Would it be correct to suggest that it's related to carbon emissions, with a payment for the carbon emission to go to the industry-managed technology investment fund?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it wouldn't be correct to assume anything. All of that package is being worked on as a coordinated package on a competitive thing, along with the tax. You'd be wrong to assume anything, and I would be wrong to assume anything, as well, because the work is ongoing.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess to my first question, then, an answer would have been: "Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows? You'll find out down the road." Is that a better place…?

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: "Maybe it will; maybe it won't," the minister is also acknowledging. Okay.

I guess I'm curious about a timeline, because of course, the industry wants to know it. The community wants to know it. Are we looking at a situation where there is a levy paid on carbon which is then funnelled back, in a sense, to the industry? People are curious about that.

[1720]

Or is there the possibility that that money could be used to drive down carbon emissions elsewhere, whether it's through transportation projects, greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies for home, building retrofits, commercial retrofits or public sector retrofits?

Very curious. People want to know how they can be involved. If this industry is going to succeed, the people need buy-in that emission reduction is a goal and that there are actual timelines and strategies to get to emission reduction.

So when will the community be involved? When will the public get a chance to have a say on what they think should happen in relation to the LNG industry and its environmental impact?

Hon. R. Coleman: The EA process takes into account the public input on every project. They will do that through the environmental assessment process on this.

I'm not in a position to tell the member what the format or look of a tech fund is, if it was one of the final decisions on the package that was done. We've been working extensively through all the technical, financial and competitiveness pieces for the last six months. We're on schedule to reach the goal of when I said that this would be in their hands so that companies can get to their final investment decision. That hasn't changed, and it won't change.

I would expect that it won't be very long before everybody knows the entire package around this piece. After that, we will then concentrate on what we were doing earlier when we talked about the labour strategy. You know, we just had a report released this week on the whole issue about skills, labour and all of that with the labour leaders and companies and the First Nations. That piece has been a complicated piece that we've been working on.

The complicated piece in and around the taxes and tech funds — if there's going to be that or how we would apply that and what it would look like — will be before government very shortly for its final decision.

All of this stuff is coming together as a package. It's incredibly complicated when you're stewarding it through a variety of ministries, and they're all coming in with their pieces to the puzzle. Goals have been set; timelines have been set. My expectation is that we're going to meet those timelines.

I can tell you that industry has been engaged in this all the way through so that we could understand this industry and make sure that when we make our decisions, we will be globally competitive.

[1725]

When they walk into a board decision process — I would expect the first major decision could be as early as the end of this year — in front of the board will be all of these pieces and a competitive global competitiveness matrix that will show that British Columbia can compete in this marketplace and can attract the investment.

There have been discussions in and around a tech fund. I can't tell the member the exact structure of that at this point in time, because that would affect some of my other negotiations that are going on. But all of these things, including the companies who want to drive technology, as well, are all pieces of this discussion.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that in doing the work to get to a final investment decision, in order for government to know all the pros and cons and the challenges and opportunities with LNG, a report was commissioned to look at the potential impact LNG could have on provincial greenhouse gas emissions, specifically looking at how many emissions, what the size would be and what challenges that could have under B.C.'s provincial legislation requiring a continued reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The opposition requested it verbally. Freedom of information requested it. The report is supposed to be, and it's sold as, a glossy publication made to be shared with the public. However, the government has, over and over, refused to share it publicly.

I wonder if the minister could explain the government's rationale for refusing to tell the public what the climate change impact could be of LNG. The government has done its study, paid for by its citizens. It would be
[ Page 2915 ]
helpful just so that citizens can have the whole information, so that they can make their final investment decisions in terms of support for the LNG industry.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member opposite isn't exactly…. He may be one of the members on the opposite side of the aisle from us that is actually opposed to LNG in B.C., so I don't have a problem with how he frames his questions.

I will tell the member that after these debates today, the Minister of Environment's estimates debates start. I don't have that report here. It's not in this ministry. Certainly, I'm sure the minister would be glad to take those questions from you.

I've already tenderly walked down Social Development, Environment, a number of other ministries here this afternoon without….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know I'm Mr. LNG, but Mr. LNG doesn't do the studies, right?

I don't know whether we'll get there today. Certainly, by tomorrow sometime, I would think, we would get to where the Minister of Environment, whose estimates follow this…. I would say that would be a better question for her, simply because we don't have that material in front of us here today.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know the minister would not like to make assumptions about this member's support of LNG, although he tried. I've been up in the northeast and the northwest, and I think there are a lot of great opportunities, but I also think you've got to do these things well. I think you actually need to think about the future in the long term when you make these decisions.

That includes understanding what the climate change impact could be from LNG. The minister knows that it relates directly to his negotiations. It relates directly to how government approaches the question of LNG. There is a law on the books, and unless the minister plans on either breaking the law or repealing the law, then we're going to have to face that question.

I guess, in terms of that report, we can put that to the side. I'll talk to the Minister of Environment for that report. However, the minister, I'm sure, knows the impact of that report. He would have to, if he wants to be the minister for LNG, because that's an impact in terms of the competitiveness of the industry and how the industry is taxed, what regulations are brought in, whether or not they go with electricity and more than just the ancillary. Do they use that in the rest of their operations or not?

All of these are big decisions. Many people have made good arguments for why electricity is something that needs to be a much higher priority for the government and for the industry in terms of long-term climate impact.

Can the minister — maybe I'll come at it a different way — tell us what are the climate change impacts of liquefied natural gas should we have five terminals, as the government has promised? Would the industry break the government's commitment to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, or is it still possible to make those targets?

[1730]

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member is aware that we changed the Clean Energy Act to accept natural gas for the purposes of making LNG in British Columbia under the Clean Energy Act. That's in the law.

We're working to ensure that the LNG operations in B.C. are the cleanest in the world. B.C.'s LNG GHG policy aims to foster LNG development and economic and environmental benefits while minimizing its influence on provincial GHG emissions. We're contemplating a single, world-leading LNG facility emission intensity benchmark that proponents can meet through reducing facility emissions, employing new technology, purchasing B.C. offsets or investing in a technology fund or in other aspects with regard to clean energy.

An independent study concluded that B.C. has sufficient low-cost assets available to meet B.C.'s demand through a minimum of 2035. LNG is part of that positive global story we all believe in.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I know that a four-million-person economy isn't going to have as much of an impact on reducing GHGs in the world as if you could take a clean fuel and ship it to Asia, where you could reduce the GHGs in China by a dramatic amount, in multiples and multiples over what British Columbia could reduce their GHGs. By doing that, you don't just deal with British Columbia; you can actually become a world leader in having a positive impact on global GHGs. I think that's part of the conversation that comes through all of this.

Basically — and I know the member wasn't here earlier when we talked about power — some of our proponents are already increasing the amount of electricity they want from the grid and those sorts of things. Some of them have entered into some agreements that are commercially sensitive, so we can't talk about the specific agreements. But all of that stuff is going on.

I think we've actually hit the spot where we've got this figured out, and we'll soon move to finalize all of that for the industry so that they can move on to their final investment decision.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here today and answering questions on our behalf. That's great.

I know the minister is probably aware of the proposal that's being put forward in Port Alberni by the port au-
[ Page 2916 ]
thority, the city and the Huu-ay-aht First Nation. It's sort of a two-part economic development strategy, quite bold. Part one is dealing with container traffic and capturing some of that large business opportunity for the Alberni Valley. But the other part is a proposal for an LNG plant, a liquefication plant there.

Has the minister been involved in those discussions directly, or is that happening at a different level?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member's information, I have not been involved in the Port Alberni discussion in any way whatsoever, and there's a reason for that. There's a letter filed with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner because I have a sibling that has a senior management role with the Huu-ay-aht First Nation.

[1735]

Therefore, any conversation around anything to do with the Port Alberni one has always been dealt with by my deputy minister. He's happy to sit down and give you a briefing with regard to that project, but I can't do that.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I was unaware of that situation, so I would accept that offer to follow up on behalf of my community.

J. Horgan: I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to ask a question or two of the minister responsible for natural gas. I have not been here for the bulk of these vigorous debates, so I will apologize in advance to the Chair and to the minister if this has already been covered. I've been talking to the critic. He's told me a bit about your questions and answers around electricity supply. You talked about, perhaps, IPPs and coastal First Nations participating in providing electricity to various projects.

I would like you, if you could, to reiterate, if you have not already, how Site C would fit into powering plants. I know the question was asked, but perhaps since you've answered it once already, it will come quickly to you, and I can sit down and hear the answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: We did have a conversation around this about 45 minutes ago or whatever it was. Really, if you look at the northeast part of the province, there is going to be a requirement for electricity for natural gas, for larger gas plants to move the gas. There is going to be a requirement for additional electricity, both in the Horn and the Montney, with regards to that. It's all part of moving the gas down to the coast. Additional electricity will be required, obviously, in the pipeline operations and those sorts of things and then in some of the ancillary power on the LNG plants.

If you add that together with, obviously, the growing industrial complex around mines in the northeast and some of the mines that we're expecting to come on stream over the next number of years, Site C is a part of the total supply need of electricity in B.C.

We think it's an important piece of the puzzle. Knowing the growth that's expected in the northeast alone just to actually process and move the gas, there's going to be a need for an increase in power in that area of the province, and Site C will help provide some of that. Obviously, it's a contributor, as the member knows, to the grid, which is important if we start to move some ancillary power and some of the commercial arrangements we have on some of the plants with regards to LNG.

Vote 38: ministry operations, $20,249,000 — approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I always find it remarkable that the ministry that is going to try and bring $100 billion in capital investment and 100,000 jobs to British Columbia has a $20 million actual budget. We're just really good at what we do. Actually, these guys are really good at what they do.

Vote 39: housing, $368,691,000 — approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, I would suggest that we call a recess so you can get your opportunity to have your questions answered by the Ministry of Environment.

The Chair: There we go. We will call for a recess.

The committee recessed from 5:39 p.m. to 5:44 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $101,243,000.

[1745]

Hon. M. Polak: I will just begin by welcoming everyone to estimates for the Ministry of Environment. I'm sure we're in for an exciting and interesting time.

I'll just introduce the staff I have with me. To my left is Wes Shoemaker, my deputy minister. Behind me we have Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister, corporate services; Anthony Danks, executive director, strategic policy and environmental sustainability, strategic policy division; and a gaggle of other staff at the ready if you need to switch any of them out.

With that, happy to take your questions.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister and all the staff at the Ministry of Environment for all the knowledge they will bring to this place. Hopefully, some good answers and, hopefully, some controversy. No, no. That's not a hope. We hope everything is going very well and that there will never be controversy within environmental issues in this province.

The way that I had envisioned…. First, I should thank the many thousands of support staff that I have able to
[ Page 2917 ]
provide me with just as much information as the minister gets: Lindsay Walton, my research assistant, who has had to go home sick; and Johanna McBurnie, who is our intern on this as well as many other ministries. I've got two very able folks backing me up, and I'm sure we'll do very well with questions. There are lots and lots of questions around the environment.

Of course, I'd also like to thank the many British Columbians who took me up on my offer to ask a question to the Minister of Environment. They forwarded me their thoughts and concerns, and I'll be pulling on a number of those questions throughout the estimates process — certainly a lot of passion there.

I thought I'd outline just a rough view of some areas that we might cover off. Now, I do, of course, reserve the right to jump back to certain areas if we have more questions which arise. Tonight will serve as a bit of a grab-bag night, with a number of colleagues with specific questions. That way we can get a bit more of a flow in certain topic areas tomorrow — of course, understanding that many MLAs may pop in or out, as their duties may allow, with specific questions of concern to their constituents.

I think we'll talk around conservation and enforcement; LNG; oil; pipelines questions; climate change; environmental assessment; water, to an extent, although there's more than enough conversation around water in the big House; MMBC; questions around air quality, around challenges around species at risk and some issues there; some issues around the hunt, although we'll see how we get into that; Ministry of Environment staffing; as well as some other issues that I'm sure we'll get to within that rather large grab-bag of topics.

I was going to turn it over first to my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim, who looks after fisheries issues for the opposition caucus, as I know he has a number of questions.

S. Fraser: Not fisheries today.

S. Chandra Herbert: But they're not fisheries today, he tells me. They're part of his grab-bag approach to questions, and we will go from there.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here. Thanks to our critic for allowing me to start this off.

I'm going to reserve fish and fisheries for a little bit later. That spans a number of different ministries, so it is confusing for me. I've blown it before and asked the wrong questions at the wrong time, and the other ministry has already gone by. So I'm hoping that if I do ask questions today and tomorrow that are inappropriate, the minister will be able to steer me in the right direction. I know one of the ministries responsible has already passed. I may have asked the questions already appropriately, or I might have missed the opportunity for this session, but that'll be my issue.

I'd like to get to a bit of wildlife issues. In the last year there's been a flurry of poaching incidents involving Roosevelt elk in central Island — actually, all over Vancouver Island, but the majority of the mortality has been in my constituency, Alberni–Pacific Rim.

The issue around addressing this, I understand, is confusing, and the conservation officers have their hands full. I don't believe there are enough conservation officers on the ground to be preventative.

[1750]

Can the minister comment on that and let me know just what we have as far as staffing goes in central Island to address this kind of poaching? I believe there's probably more, but I'm aware of at least 12 incidents where elk were killed and basically left. There was some hydrating of the remains, but for the most part they were just left there.

Hon. M. Polak: First, with respect to numbers. Provincewide we continue to have 149 sworn officers. In the area the member references, in the central Island, there are two locations we would draw on because, of course, we manage on a regional basis and move people around as needs arise.

In Nanaimo we have four conservation officers and then three provincial investigators. In Port Alberni we have two conservation officers.

In terms of the particular issue with respect to the Roosevelt elk, we are actively investigating, and we're working with the First Nations and the community as we do that.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I understand that…. I don't know if it's still out there, but the Tseshaht First Nation, I believe, put forward a reward. The minister is nodding in the affirmative. I guess that, as yet, has not led to any kind of conviction on this.

What are the penalties, should someone be caught for this? If the minister could let me know that.

[1755]

Hon. M. Polak: Under the Wildlife Act there are fines which can be quite significant, potentially jail time, seizure of weapons or vehicles, etc. There could also be court-issued fines. There could be criminal justice involvement, if it's determined that the person's activities were of a criminal nature. Again, that could involve jail time.

We also utilize community environmental justice forums as a form of — I was going to say punishment, but it's not really punishment — alternative sort of reconciliation.

S. Fraser: Restorative justice.

Hon. M. Polak: Restorative justice, thank you. That's the phrase I was looking for.
[ Page 2918 ]

So a wide range, very dependent on what the particular infraction was and its severity.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. This has caused a lot of outrage. I've got a lot of calls, from hunters mostly, that just see this senseless slaughter for what it is.

This is no disrespect to the conservation officers. I greatly respect them, but, too, this is a big territory. This is a big area. If it wasn't for the Tseshaht First Nation and Chief Hugh Braker making that offer of the reward, we wouldn't…. I mean, we still haven't had any real progress on this that I am aware of. I understand that if there is some progress being made, I may not be able to be privy to it. I understand that too.

I'll just move this forward, because time is running out. In this same area we have had huge…. The territory involving this — a large part of this territory is land that was removed from the public control of tree farm licence 44 back in 2003 or '04. It's all on private managed forest land largely, is my understanding.

[1800]

My understanding is that the Ministry of Environment still has responsibility for at least some appointment on the Private Managed Forest Land Council. That's part of my question. I just want to confirm that there's a role for the ministry here, at least in part, with private managed forest lands.

I realize there's another ministry responsible, but what I'm getting at is that with the removal of the lands, there was an understanding. There was a memorandum of understanding signed by this government and then Weyerhaeuser when the land was removed.

There was a recognition that there was critical ungulate winter range, Roosevelt elk winter range, and blacktail deer too. But Roosevelt elk being the blue-listed or close to blue-listed. I never know anymore. They're the ones that are certainly more in danger.

That land is being wiped out. Island Timberlands is doing intensive logging on the minimum amount that was recognized in the letter of understanding to be sufficient for ungulate survival on central Vancouver Island. This was this government's scientists that said that, and previous scientists too.

When you combine targeted poaching of a particular species that certainly has some risk to it and needs our help for survival and then the government allowing the last of the critical ungulate range, which they've identified by their own science, to be wiped out, does not the minister see a problem here? The combination of these two things happening could be devastating for a species or for a number of species.

Surely, there's a role for the minister or the ministry to play in ensuring that we still have some of the critical habitat left, especially in light of the fact that we don't have many resources to protect against the other side of things, the senseless poaching that's been happening.

[1805]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll go through sort of piece by piece. The member is correct. I can't answer in any detail with respect to the investigation that's taking place. I'm sure he was expecting that answer.

With respect to the Private Managed Forest Land Council, the appointments are not from the Ministry of Environment. We think they're FLNRO, but they're not one of ours.

Here is where the ministries start to cross over. Of course, we are concerned about the impact of activities on the land base with respect to wildlife — in particular, around poaching and illegal activities like that. However, when it comes to decisions about activities on the land base, protection of habitat, assessment of size of herds and all those kinds of things, those are all Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations activities and decisions to be made. They don't come under our purview.

B. Routley: I know that at this time the issue of contaminated soil is under appeal and already before an environmental review, so I won't delve into the numerous questions I had about that. But I would like to ask some questions about the original decision, if that's permissible to do — to talk about what the process was and how decisions were arrived at that led the minister to approve the dumping of five million tonnes of contaminated soils in the Shawnigan Lake watershed over the next 50 years.

You're the Minister of Environment, and at the same time as you're obviously tasked with the role of dealing with contaminated soil, it's also a key part of your role to protect the water for the good people of British Columbia. I'm sure you take that role very seriously.

However, I am at a loss to explain to my constituents. They do come into my office and say to me: "How can it be that the Minister of Environment signs off on a permit? Wouldn't it be Mines or somebody else, not the person we rely on to look after the environment of the province of British Columbia, tasked specifically with all of the environmental concerns?" All the way from every kind of shrub and bush and tree to the little bugs, little things that crawl….

Interjection.

B. Routley: Yes, all of the critters are under your watchful eye.

There seems to be a conflict within the Ministry of Environment that I am at a loss to explain, and I'm sure they all will be waiting with bated breath for the answer to how the government of British Columbia determined that contaminated soil permitting and licensing would be one of the roles of the Ministry of Environment.

While I'm at it, I can kind of lump a few questions together so as to not overtax this process. We've got that
[ Page 2919 ]
question about the conflict between the roles. I guess the other question would be…. Again, I was asked by the constituents, "How does the government arrive at a decision without their own experts making the decision?" — people that are scientists, in other words.

[1810]

We seem to have had the spectacle in my riding of competing experts or scientists. One has experience in hydrology. I think the person who spoke to the community about his concerns had more of a geological background but also experience in hydrology. Then there was the competing expert for the company or the proponent who had the project. He had his expertise.

Somehow the ministry comes to a decision, at least as I see it, weighing the two competing experts. Or is it that I'm missing something and that there are actually experts of your own — hydrologists and other scientists — that are competent and capable to look at a project as major as dumping 50 million tonnes of contaminants over a period of time and determining that a membrane apparently twice the size of a couple of loonies is going to protect the watershed in perpetuity?

I guess that was one of my other questions. Is the minister tasked with being concerned about perpetuity? Surely we're not planning for a 50-year life cycle of a mine. And then what happens after that? Does this toxic soup mess become the responsibility of the good people of British Columbia? Is some other minister going to inherent this mess? What's preventing a company from just saying: "Well, I'm bankrupt"?

By the way, I've seen that before. In fact, I'm dealing with one right now in the Cowichan Valley, where the company off-loaded the land, and now we've got a new contractor trying to deal with the environmental remediation of the old Youbou mill site. On that site there was everything from PCBs to pentachlorophenols to all kinds of toxic stuff.

I guess that's enough of a question for now. If you can wade your way through that part of it, I'd be interested in your answer.

[1815]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm sure the member will understand this, but just because of the status of this permit being before the Environmental Appeal Board — and there's another court action involving CVRD and South Island Aggregates — I'm going to be cautious with respect to specifics around this particular approval, although I will offer the member this. We're happy to sit down and maybe give you an additional bit of briefing on it at an appropriate time, but I have to be cautious what I'm saying publicly around it in terms of the legal proceedings.

I'll start, though, with the member's question around the role of the Ministry of Environment. We, in fact, have a number of areas where we are responsible for remediation in terms of brownfield sites. We grant effluent permits. In fact, one of the foundational pieces of legislation for our ministry is the Environmental Management Act. Of course, it's all about managing waste products that are put into the environment. So it's actually a fairly foundational part of the business that we do as a ministry.

It's important, though, to understand that this is a treatment facility. It's not as simple as a dump site. In fact, when we have treatment facilities for contaminated soil, the idea is not that the soil would remain in a contaminated state and stay there throughout the rest of history but that, in fact, the manner in which it is handled results in its eventual remediation. It's also important to note in this case that the original mining permit for South Island Aggregates actually required them to backfill the quarry when the quarry was finished with.

I'm told that what I'm about to share with you is in the permit. It's a public document. So I'm okay. But important to note, too, that as the decision-makers went through the process, they received approximately 300 submissions — from CVRD, First Nations, health officials, members of the general community — and they reviewed and responded to each and every one.

As a result of the agency and public concerns that were raised during the consultation period, there were a number of additional measures that were included. Those would be treating discharge water to provincial drinking water standards, additional water sampling, an advisory review committee, implementation of an environmental management system, additional site management confirmation systems to ensure the integrity of soil receiving treatment, landfilling and subsequent treatment of any site effluent or monitoring, and also public posting of all the monitoring data and reports.

The decision, ultimately, by the statutory decision-maker is one that is taken after considering what we do have in the way of very qualified specialists across a number of ministries — ours, but also many of the other natural resource ministries, Health, etc.

[1820]

We certainly do have qualified specialists in their area, and the statutory decision-maker is the one who determines whether or not he or she has sufficient information with which to render a decision and then makes that decision in their professional judgment.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour, a brief question please.

B. Routley: I've got a very brief question.

Moving on, we read with great interest in the Cowichan Valley that it was reported in the Times Colonist that we have the rare jumping slug. It's not as fancy as having a marmot or something else, but I wondered…. You probably don't have it at your fingertips today. In fact, I'd be shocked if you did. But if you could get back to me if there's an update on the status of the jumping slug in the
[ Page 2920 ]
Cowichan Valley region that's apparently quite rare. It's on the list of endangered species.

They must be endangered, because I've been looking ever since I read about one, and I haven't run across a jumping slug. In fact, I'd be quite excited to report if I had.

If you could point me in the general direction of the nearest jumping slug, that would be good too.

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. M. Polak: Noting the hour, although I'm told Mark is very excited to tell you about the jumping slug, which apparently he has a note on. So there you go. However, if the member is all right with it, we will defer that till tomorrow. We'll get back to that when we return, so all those stay tuned to be continued on the jumping slug.

For now, I move that committee rise and report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and report progress on the Ministry of Environment and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada