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)

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 9

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

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Reports from Committees

B. Ralston: Madame Speaker, I would like to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the 40th parliament with respect to authorities for the retention and disposal of public documents.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[1335]

B. Ralston: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report and its recommended resolutions pursuant to section 3 of the Document Disposal Act.

Leave granted.

B. Ralston: Madame Speaker, I move that the report and its recommended resolutions be adopted.

In so doing, I would like to make some brief comments. This report concerns the handling of certain government records. It summarizes the committee's review of resolutions for records retention and disposal authorities presented by the Public Documents Committee. Under section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, the approval of the Legislative Assembly is required for the destruction of documents which no longer have a public purpose, on the recommendation of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Motion approved.

E. Foster: I seek leave to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

E. Foster: I have a petition, signed by 700 people from the Okanagan, to stop the GM apples.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the main chamber of the assembly here, I call continued committee stage of Bill 15, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, Section A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:38 p.m.

On section 14 (continued).

S. Simpson: The bill, if we get down to subsection 20(10): "A monetary penalty imposed under this section must be paid as follows: (a) within 30 days after the date on which the general manager gives written notice of the amount of monetary penalty or…within any longer period specified by the general manager in that notice; (b) within 30 days after the date on which a licensee signs a waiver under subsection (8)."

Is there any opportunity there for the licensee — if it's a significant penalty, like $50,000 or something — to have some discussion about extending that period of time? Is that what's meant by the "longer period" by the general manager in that notice? Would that be a matter for them, if they came and said: "I'm happy, and I'm going to pay the penalty, but I need 60 days and not 30 days, if we can do that"? Is that what that's there to allow to occur, or why the ability to change the time?

[1340]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, the member is correct.

S. Simpson: If we look down in the case…. When we go down and look at section 20.03: "For the purposes of any hearing, the general manager may, by summons, require a person (a) to attend as a witness, at a place and time mentioned in the summons…" etc. — a time reasonable due to the date of the summons — "(b) to bring and produce for the general manager all records or other things in the person's possession or control that are relevant to the subject…of the hearing."

The general manager, then, has the authority to subpoena documents and people to a hearing?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a housekeeping change, and it really is essentially the same as the previous section. The only difference is that it used to say "documents, writings, books, deeds and papers" and it now just says "records." And it used to say "answer on oath." It now says "oath or affirmation."

S. Simpson: To enforce this — and I'm just wanting to clarify what (3)…. I think I know what it means, but to clarify.
[ Page 3092 ]

Should somebody decline to respond to such a summons by the general manager, then the remedy for the general manager is to take the matter to the Supreme Court and ask for a contempt ruling? That would constitute a contempt of the court if they didn't comply. Or they'd go to the court, and the court would direct the individual to adhere to the summons, and then, of course, be in contempt of the Supreme Court if they didn't adhere to the court ruling. Is that how that would all work?

Hon. S. Anton: This section is the same as it was in the previous iteration of the act. It provides that a person who fails to answer a summons may be liable for contempt as if in breach of an order of the Supreme Court.

S. Simpson: This is the first section, I think, here, section 20.04, that talks about:

"Without limiting section 20, if a municipally, regionally, provincially or federally granted licence, permit, registration or certificate, or a licence, permit, registration or certificate granted by a treaty first nation or the Nisga'a Nation, that a licensee is required to hold in order to operate the licensed establishment is suspended or cancelled or expires without being renewed, the general manager may, on written notice to the licensee, (a) suspend the…licence under this Act until the other licence, permit, registration or certificate is reinstated…or (b) cancel the licensee's licence."

Could the minister explain a little bit — I think I understand it, but maybe the minister can bring some clarity — just how that suspension works, on loss of other authority?

Does this say, then, if there's some kind of ruling or decision by a municipal or regional or other level of government or by a treaty First Nation — that they have some kind of ruling — then the general manager can kind of acknowledge that decision by another authority and grant a suspension based on what the other authority has done? Is that what that says?

[1345]

Hon. S. Anton: Again, this is not a substantive change. It improved clarity and readability and reflects Nisga'a and treaty First Nation treaties. The purpose of the section is that if, for example, you have lost your business licence — the business licence is a requirement to have a liquor licence — you can then have your liquor licence suspended. I'm not limiting it to business licences but using that by way of an example.

S. Simpson: One last question under section 20. Again, just to confirm that the only form of appeal here, as we've talked about before, is judicial review. There are no other forms of appeal for a licensee other than judicial review?

Hon. S. Anton: After the general manager has made a decision, the appeal is by way of judicial review.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

S. Simpson: Section 16 talks about relocation related to licences, 21.1. We know that the discussion is ongoing about the removal of the five-kilometre rule, which I think is a regulation, but the minister can confirm that. Would this, essentially, be a piece of what it is to end the five-kilometre rule, and then say that the general manager just has to assent to this and that there aren't other limits on the relocation, other than the assent of the general manager? But there aren't restrictions like the current 5K rule?

Hon. S. Anton: Section 15, which we just passed, had a subsection (3) that was repealed, and that is what has actually been moved to section 16. The transfer language before used to be used somewhat interchangeably between transferring a licence from one owner to another or, alternatively, transferring a licence from one location to the other. So they've been split out into two separate sections. This 21.1 deals with the actual geographic relocation of a licence. It's now being called relocation rather than transfer.

S. Simpson: Is this the section that would, and presuming again…? It says "in accordance with the regulations." I'm assuming for specifics like the five-kilometre rule, that those are probably regulatory changes, although the minister could confirm that.

Is this the section that would enable what's been reported as the plan to allow licences to be sold and relocated past the five-kilometre current rule? Is this what will allow that to occur?

[1350]

Hon. S. Anton: This is the relocation rule which was always there. You could relocate a licence. The other five-kilometre rule and things that the member is referring to is a slightly separate but related topic. This was always here, and it was always the intent. Licences have always been able to be relocated with the consent of the general manager.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the general manager could do that. Just so I understand — because the general manager, obviously, can look at other factors — the current limit is, I believe: can't go farther than five kilometres from where the licence is currently located. Apparently that is to change, but that is the law today. And you can't locate within one kilometre of an existing store.

Other than those two regulations, and I'm assuming they're regulations, are there any other limits that are in force, other than those things that the general manager, in the previous sections around the licensee or transferee, will make judgments about — whether these are people you want to have a licence, based on who they are and
[ Page 3093 ]
on meeting certain standards?

On the physical location issue, are there any other issues that affect that, other than the current five-kilometre rule, which we know is proposed to change, and the one kilometre from an existing store?

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of this section is simply to say that you cannot physically move the location of your licence unless you have the approval, the consent of the general manager. There are regulations relating to different forms of licensed establishments as to where they can locate. There are city regulations. There are a number of considerations. This one is the general proposition that you can't move without permission.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

S. Simpson: So 17 talks about: "If, at an event site, the conduct of persons attending the event or of the authorization holder's employees is of a riotous, violent, drunken or disorderly nature, or the safety of one or more persons at the event site is threatened, the general manager may, without a hearing, suspend or cancel the authorization and order the immediate removal of patrons." Would this be a case where, for example, the police would have the authority of the general manager? Would they have delegated authority to make that kind of decision, to do those things as they relate…? I mean, the police can always shut things down for other reasons. But would they have the authority, or how would that authority be delegated?

This would be probably a pretty immediate event, and nobody's going to call the general manager up at midnight and say: "Hey, do you want to deal with this?" How does that happen?

Hon. S. Anton: In section 17 — section 22 of the act — it's not a substantive change. So (1.1) is a rewording to take out the language which used to say "caterer's employees." It is now a more general "authorization holder's employees."

[1355]

There was a delegation authority in subsection (3), and that is now gone. As we discussed the other day, there is a more general delegation authority contained in one section of the act.

S. Simpson: In this case, though…. I'm just trying to understand here. Even though it may not be a change, there are minor changes, and as we all know, people revisit these things when that happens. Is that a circumstance, though, then, where there is already delegated authority that has been given? Just so I'm understanding this. I know we talked about delegated authority earlier in this committee hearing, but I'm just trying to understand, and this is a case, an instance, where it would, presumably, apply.

So that delegated authority already exists with people like law enforcement under the rules of the general manager. They kind of give that authority, and then they get to exercise that as they see necessary?

Hon. S. Anton: The police are delegated by the general manager to manage events, particularly if they are of a "riotous, violent, drunken or disorderly nature."

Sections 17 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

S. Simpson: Section 21 brings in a component around public education material. Could the minister talk a little bit about the intent of this section and the thinking about public education?

Hon. S. Anton: During the course of the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Reform's review we were greatly helped by people who came to offer their advice regarding public education and the unhealthy use of liquor. And so the purpose of this section, section 21, is to allow educational material and related material to be required in certain circumstances, which will be identified in a regulation.

S. Simpson: Could the minister talk about what kind of educational materials are contemplated in this section?

[1400]

Hon. S. Anton: These regulations have not been developed yet. They will be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Health, in consultation with industry, in consultation with advocacy groups. The goal of them is generally to educate the public and to be sure…. People do enjoy liquor, but liquor can, of course, be misused. It's always achieving a balance between those two which is important. The goal of this is to make sure that when needed, we can require the proper educational materials to be out in the public.

S. Simpson: The minister spoke earlier about part of the motivation for this section was the work and the review that was done by the parliamentary secretary and the feedback that he received about the need for a public education component in that. I'm assuming that as the minister moves forward and as the ministry moves forward to develop this and talks to other people, they start from a place of what was learned by the parliamentary secretary and his work in the creation of the review.

Could the minister talk a little bit about the kinds of things that the parliamentary secretary heard in the review that motivated and created what I think is a good
[ Page 3094 ]
section? I support this section. What kind of created the motivation? What were the kinds of ideas or things that were talked about with the parliamentary secretary that encouraged the minister to incorporate this into the legislation, to get a sense of what people were telling the parliamentary secretary about the best way to approach education and the importance of it?

Hon. S. Anton: Sorry. I made a mistake a moment ago. I said that this would be by regulation. This will not be by regulation. The development of the educational materials will be by consultation with the groups I mentioned a moment ago, and then the general manager may require that that material be used. But any development of the material would be in consultation with Health, with industry, with advocacy groups, and so on.

To speak broadly, the kinds of things that the parliamentary secretary heard about in his consultations were the need for education, the need for minimum pricing, the need to control access to liquor. The full set of all the submissions that were made to the parliamentary secretary are available on the website.

S. Simpson: We know that currently in licensed facilities there's a fair amount of information and awareness provided, particularly around drinking and driving. That's obviously a very large one for licensed establishments, to do everything they can do to ensure that people aren't drinking and driving. We've been, I think, reasonably successful in the province at delivering that message and at having people receive it.

[1405]

It's not perfect. It never will be. But I think there's been a reasonable amount of success in that area around that piece and around the public safety related to that.

I'm trying to get a sense now…. I think everybody accepts that and understands that that's valuable and important, and we can even do more of that. I don't think anybody would argue with that.

Could the minister give me an idea…? She talked about some of the other pieces around overconsumption and that. Just generally, maybe, give me a bit of a sense of what other areas she would be looking at for that public education over and above, obviously, drinking-driving.

Hon. S. Anton: Without limiting it, the kinds of things that could be included are health issues relating, perhaps, to binge drinking; issues around pregnancy and drinking — in other words, don't drink when you are pregnant, again, another message which I think has been out there fairly loud and clear; drinking and driving. Those kinds of things could be included. But again, I don't want to limit it.

These educational materials will be developed in consultation with, as I said, the Ministry of Health, industry, advocacy groups and others.

S. Simpson: One of the reasons that I'm interested in pursuing this a little bit is because we do know…. I have been approached by groups, and I'm sure the minister has too, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, some of the addiction organizations and academics and that, who have raised some concern about the overall direction of the review in terms of opening up more access to liquor and what the implications of that might be.

I'm not opposed to those recommendations. But a key counterbalance for that, obviously, is the public education piece. This piece will counterbalance what will be some increased access — how you weigh that to make sure that people are, hopefully, getting an opportunity to increase their awareness about the downsides of alcohol and about needing to be careful about that, whether it's for themselves or for their loved ones. They may see people who are maybe overindulging and the potential negative impacts of that.

Has the minister had discussions in the preparation of this legislation with groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and some of the addiction experts around this piece? Have they given her advice on how to approach this?

Could the minister maybe illuminate us a little bit about the kinds of advice that she was getting from those organizations — because they've talked to me; I'm sure they've talked to her — and how she thinks she can respond to those concerns they raise in a way so that they at least will be comfortable that efforts are being made on the awareness side to address some of their concerns?

Hon. S. Anton: I did indeed meet with some of the groups, but a bigger portion of the meetings were held with the parliamentary secretary. These materials remain to be developed. They are in the workplan, and there will be further consultation by the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Reform, who is continuing. He will be meeting with organizations again and working with them and with partners to develop these materials.

[1410]

S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us what the timeline is for the completion of that work?

Hon. S. Anton: The consultation process will begin in the next few months. I don't have an end point for that, but it's definitely on the radar and in the workplan.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

S. Simpson: Could the minister elaborate on this section a little bit — what it means and what its purpose is?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member knows, the permis-
[ Page 3095 ]
sions are being broadened to allow other types of temporary liquor service — as we mentioned last time: farmers markets, festival sales, ski hill extensions and so on. What this is — in section 22, so 50(3) — is really a repeat of what was there before but with more general language. The language used to say "catered event" and "catering authorization." That's taken out now, so it's talking about "the event" and "the authorization."

S. Simpson: With this, it says the general manager can "impose as a condition of the authorization the restrictions and limitations that the general manager considers necessary on any type or form of entertainment performed at the event site." What's the thinking here about limiting entertainment, and what's the advice that the minister has on how the type of entertainment affects the issues around liquor and potential abuse of liquor that might cause a concern for the general manager?

Hon. S. Anton: I just remind the member that this section is not changing. What it is, really, is a general provision that the general manager can take into account all kinds of different factors when he or she is assessing the licensing of the event.

S. Simpson: I asked the question about entertainment, because it's very specific here. It doesn't necessarily talk about other conditions so much, but it talks very specifically about any type or form of entertainment performed at the event site. I'm presuming, since the language is that specific about entertainment, that there was some consideration about that, whether it was in the previous write or in this writing of it.

[1415]

Obviously, if it was there before, it was deemed to be the right thing to do, and the minister has presumably deemed it to continue to be the right thing to do to leave it in place. I'm trying to determine, on the question of entertainment, why that's specifically identified in the clause — there are a whole lot of other things that could be identified — and what the implication of entertainment is to the abuse of alcohol and what the thinking is around that.

Hon. S. Anton: The form of entertainment is one of the considerations that the general manager can take into account when determining what kinds of restrictions or limitations should be placed on an event. I think, just speaking in a general way, the general manager does look at all kinds of factors. They look at who may be coming to the event, how many people may be at the event, what people may be doing at the event. The general manager considers all of these things in considering the licensing of the event.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

S. Simpson: Essentially, what I see…. In section 23 it talks about how the manufacturer — could be, I guess, a craft brewery or one of the wineries or the new craft distilleries — has the ability to "(a) sell, serve and offer samples of its products, and (b) sell and serve other liquor, subject to and in accordance with the regulations." Could the minister tell us what's different about 53 versus what the current law is?

Hon. S. Anton: This section is changed from the previous iteration in the following ways. The brewery, winery or distillery may sell and serve other liquor. This was something that was raised by wineries — that instead of people coming in for a wine-tasting, they might like to buy a beer. This now gives the permission to do that.

[1420]

The second thing it does…. Again, if you're a winery, you might like to be able to have people go outside and have a glass of your wine in a picnic site. That's in subsection (1), where it says "subject to and in accordance with the regulations." What the regulations will do is define what kinds of sites a brewery or a winery might use in order to serve outside the strict confines of its tasting room.

Subsection (2) is essentially unchanged, as it was before. Subsection (3) is the permissive section, which is in relation to section 86. It will allow these breweries, wineries or distilleries to sell at farmers markets, should they fit within the farmers market category. In other words, this section is permissive to them to go even further than their own doors, out to another venue, should the other venue be permitted to them.

S. Simpson: I think this falls under this section, but I'm sure the minister will let me know. For example, I have a number of new craft breweries in my constituency, some very successful ones. I now have a new…. I think one, maybe two craft distilleries have opened that have tasting rooms. The Odd Society makes a vodka and a couple of other things. They've just won some awards, and I'm really pleased about that.

Of course, Parallel 49 and Storm and Coal Harbour are some very successful new craft breweries that have been in play for the last couple of years. They have tasting rooms attached to their operations, generally. I know they've been looking and they've been getting some increased latitude about what they can do in those tasting rooms.

Can the minister tell us: is the expectation, then, that they'll have the increased opportunity here to have people come in, sit down at a craft brewery and have a couple of beers there, of the product? It may be the product that's being produced there — or now with this legislation to have a product that's not produced there. So do they get to function almost like a licensed estab-
[ Page 3096 ]
lishment? Is that what happens here?

Hon. S. Anton: This is where the regulation-making becomes key. The intention is that these establishments are running tasting rooms here to taste their own products. The intention is not that they morph into some kind of lounge or another kind of licensed establishment that doesn't look any different from another bar. It is a specific form of tasting room. As I said, it will be developed in accordance with the regulations. Those have not been developed yet.

S. Simpson: I think I'm going to let this section go.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

S. Simpson: Section 24, again, deals with the question of regulation. Could the minister tell us a little bit about what the intention here is around the change to section 58(3), which is repealed and substituted? Could the minister tell us what that change essentially does?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: This section is similar to the previous section that we discussed, but dealing specifically with wineries. It allows a winery to sell or serve liquor subject to the regulations. This implements the liquor policy review recommendation No. 28. The recommendation was to "allow manufacturers to offer patrons liquor that was not produced on site — e.g., a winery could sell beer to a visitor."

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

On section 26.

S. Simpson: Section 26 deals with retention of documents and reports and books and things — inspection of books and that. It's a fairly significant section. Could the minister tell us what changes are made here, as compared to what the current legislation says?

Hon. S. Anton: This section is almost entirely a reflection of the changes in the description of the delegation powers in the act. There is one new section, which is 73(1)(c), which requires "an employee or patron of a licensee to produce identification."

But the rest of the changes are simply language changes to reflect the change, as I said, in the description of delegation. In other words, now we're just using the language "general manager" as opposed to general manager and all the other persons that used to follow that description.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

S. Simpson: So 27 allows for time limits for judicial review. That essentially says that any application for review needs to be commenced within 30 days of the date the general manager gives written notice of the decision. I'm not certain. Maybe the Attorney General may know this. She's the Attorney General.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Well, that's what Attorneys General are supposed to know.

Is the 30 days a pretty typical period of time, or is it often a longer period of time?

[1430]

Hon. S. Anton: This section is new. The 30 days was chosen because a person has 30 days to pay a penalty. For instance, you're fined $10,000; you have 30 days to pay it. So the review period is consistent with that time period.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I'm thinking that these kids up here…. They may be other kids. I just want to welcome them. I'm going to take a second here to welcome 21 grade 5s from St. Francis of Assisi School who are here and from my constituency. I met them outside, and they're very excited and inquisitive about what's going on here. I just want to make sure that everybody makes these kids from Francis of Assisi very welcome here.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: Thank you for that break, hon. Chair.

I'm going to…. Now I've distracted myself. One question, then, in regard to that. The 30 days assumes, then, that…. Essentially, a ruling is made by the general manager. Typically, we know what the monetary penalties are. Those are all 30 days to pay that. So the decision here is that's the time frame on dealing with a ruling, so that's the time frame for a judicial review. Essentially, that's what we're doing here?

Hon. S. Anton: That's correct.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us what the effect of repealing that section is? I believe it's 76(1)

Hon. S. Anton: Section 76(1) is replaced by the previous section under section 27, which added section 75.2.
[ Page 3097 ]

Sections 28 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

S. Simpson: Section 31 deals with section 84 of the current act, which essentially is the power to make regulations, which seems to be probably the most important section of this bill when you get right down to it.

I'm going to ask the minister to walk us through a little bit of this section, because it's fairly specific in terms of talking about what kinds of regulatory changes can and can't be made under this. Could the minister walk us through what this changes in terms of the regulation-making powers that are provided by Bill 15?

[1435]

Hon. S. Anton: I'm just going to tackle the first part of this because it is quite long. In section 84, (b.2) and (b.4) are simply taking out the words "catering authorization" and changing it to "authorization," a change which has been made a number of times throughout the act.

For (j), which is in part (c), this is authority around training programs. This is around the Serving It Right program, and as was set out in the liquor policy review, it was an important function of that review — that appropriate training be maintained by people serving liquor. And (l.1) is really a housekeeping…. The general manager does have authority, and this is simply clarifying that authority that he or she has.

The section that is repealed there, section 84(2)(m), is a delegation authority which was replaced by the general delegation authority. Sections (s) and (t) are both corrections of sections.

Sections (r.1), (t.1), (t.2) and (t.3) are all clarifying a delegation. Section (x) and (x.1) are around tasting rooms, and section (z) is around clarifying an authority. I don't know if we get to section (z.3) very often in our sections, but there's a (z.3). That is to allow for liquor to be sold in grocery.

S. Simpson: Maybe we'll walk through this a little bit, because this is a pretty substantive piece. I'm going to try not to bounce around too much, but we'll see how I do.

Under section (c), "respecting training programs referred to in section 13, with power," it talks about circumstances to exempt persons or classes of persons from the requirement to complete training programs. What's the thinking of this legislation around being able to exempt, and who are we talking about?

[1440]

Hon. S. Anton: The ability to exempt people was previously there. It's carrying it over as to who might continue to be exempt or who might be exempted by a new, redrafted regulation.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could tell us: who's exempted now?

Hon. S. Anton: There are a number of exemptions at the moment in the regulation, and I could list them off, but these could possibly change.

I'll give an example: an unpaid manager or unpaid server in a club that's operated under a liquor-primary club licence. That could change, but that's one exemption right now. A server in a food-primary establishment — again, that could easily change — or a person in whose name a private special occasion licence is issued — those are the kinds of exemptions which are there now. But I'm stating those very carefully because they may all be changed in the new regulation.

S. Simpson: As you look at the regulatory changes — a pretty significant piece of work that the government has to do, to look at the regulatory changes — could the minister tell us: what's the expectation around how that would change?

For example, with this section around this — and I'm anticipating that this is mostly Serving It Right and related matters like that in what's seen in this section in terms of the training — how does the minister anticipate going about consulting or talking to the industry about changes that will happen in this section that will have a direct impact on licensees?

Hon. S. Anton: The intent, generally, in the liquor policy review was that the requirements for training by people serving alcohol would be broadened. That again will be a consultation that the parliamentary secretary for liquor undertakes. The classes to whom it is broadened and in what form are not yet determined. Again, that will be working with the partners and stakeholders, such as I described earlier.

[1445]

S. Simpson: I'm going to move to (d). I guess it's changed. It's (l.1), (r.1), (t.1). These are situations…. This talks about enforcement and cancellation; (t.1) says "setting out circumstances in which the general manager must cancel a licence." Is that currently the practice? If so, under what circumstances must a licence be cancelled? Are there any changes that the minister is contemplating that she's aware of at this point?

Hon. S. Anton: This is section 69 of the regulation, just to give an example: must cancel "if the licensee allows the sale, service or consumption of liquor while the license is under suspension." That's one example. There are others in the regulation. There is not a plan to change that at the moment. These things could always change, but at the moment it's not in the plans to change that regulation.
[ Page 3098 ]

S. Simpson: Section (e) talks about publishing information respecting licensees in relation to actions taken against them, convictions, etc.

Looking at the practice…. I know that if you shut down an operation now, you go and post on the door and say that the place has been suspended, for a week or 20 days or whatever the suspension might be when they lock the doors on something — the same as, I know, that if a grocery store gets caught selling cigarettes to kids, that piece, they lose their right to sell cigarettes. They've got to put up a notice saying, "This is what we did, and we don't get to sell cigarettes for the next month," or whatever it is.

What's the thinking here about this in terms of how…? Are there any changes contemplated about how this information will be conferred to the public, that there has been a penalty at a place, the nature of the penalty and why an action has been taken? In most cases, I mean, a fine…. I think the fine gets paid, and the business continues to operate. Probably nobody other than the banker, the accountant, knows what's happened, when the cheque's been written. If you close the doors for a couple of weeks, it's an entirely different piece of business.

How is that going to be dealt with? Is there a change? How does information get out? How does the public become aware that you have a licensee who clearly has not been playing by the rules and has faced a consequence?

Hon. S. Anton: There is no change here. The current practice is that decisions are posted on the website, and if a business is given a fine or other kind of penalty, that is generally posted by the inspector, at the establishment.

S. Simpson: Going to section (i), respecting sales and service and sampling of products of a brewery, winery, distillery, etc., if those changes are going to happen, could the minister tell us a little bit about how that's affected by municipal laws? I'll give an example.

[1450]

For example, some of the breweries are down in a light-industrial area adjacent to a residential area in my constituency. They want to expand their tasting room, and they've been looking to do that in a way that I think is probably pretty manageable. I don't have a problem with their interest in doing that.

But I do know that if you start doing those things…. As the minister said, we're not looking to create more licensed operations, in some covert way or some way by stealth, through tasting rooms. But what's the expectation of the minister about the requirements if these changes…?

Do these changes have to be also signed off by a municipality, which might say: "You're essentially creating an opportunity for further consumption or additional consumption of alcohol in our jurisdiction, and we're not entirely certain we want it there, because that's not what we plan to have happen in this particular area or neighbourhood or whatever"? How does that work with the regulation? How does that all concern itself?

Hon. S. Anton: Local governments have authority over zoning, so these establishments would have to comply with that.

S. Simpson: Just to be clear, then, it would be a requirement, presumably, of the general manager to say: "Before you come and talk to me about an approval here, you have to be able to demonstrate that you've met the requirements of your local government. When you've done that, then come and have a conversation with me about changing the terms of your licence or your ability to sell alcohol in some fashion."

Hon. S. Anton: The establishments do have to comply with zoning, and the licence will not be issued without the compliance with local government bylaws.

S. Simpson: Section (j) — this respects liquor pricing and liquor serving sizes in licensed establishments. This is probably an area that I've heard as much or more from people about as any other, and it's people who say: "I go into this lounge, and I'm ordering a glass of wine. It says that I have a glass of wine, and it gives me a price. That glass of wine is going to run somewhere between 4½ and six ounces or so. Nothing in here, nothing on this menu, is telling me what I'm buying." It's the same with beer as to the size of the sleeve or the pint glass or whatever.

We know that many establishments, I think, choose to do that. Right on their menus or whatever they identify that it's a 20-ounce beer or that it's a six-ounce glass of wine so that you know what it is.

Is it contemplated here that, in fact, there's going to be any requirement for bars and licensed establishments, in their menus, to tell people what they're getting? So when they pay $8 for a glass of wine, they're getting five ounces of wine or six ounces or whatever it is — to tell people what they're getting.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I would like to welcome…. We have with us here in the gallery 30 students from Corpus Christi Elementary School in Vancouver.

[1455]

They're accompanied by their grade 5 teacher, Katherine Tan, as well as parents Nigel Pena, Laura Martin, Mrs. Cabato, Mrs. Garcia Wong, Mr. Baclawski and Mr. Jaques. All the students are very excited to be here enjoying their tour. I'd like to wish that they have
[ Page 3099 ]
a great visit here. I want to thank the parents for taking the time to accompany them, and I appreciate the teacher.

Please, if everybody could give them a very warm welcome here.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Anton: The member may be relieved to know that the regulation, section 41.3, currently says: "A licensee must make available to patrons a list that shows, for all types of liquor sold in the licensed establishment, the quantities in which and prices at which the liquor is sold."

S. Simpson: I believe that was the case. But I don't think that it says that at some point you have to make that available, if you're asked. I'm not sure. Does it say that you actually have to make that available on the menu or at the table so that when I'm looking at what I want to purchase, that information is evident to me at the time?

I know that many do — increasingly, numbers of establishments are doing it — but I wasn't certain that it actually is the requirement that in the menu you have to identify the amount.

Hon. S. Anton: We're talking here about a regulation-making authority, and that's the way the regulation is written right now.

S. Simpson: I understand that. I'm just trying to make the minister's life easier, because it is a concern for people. Thank you for that.

Just looking, I think that we're going to be good to go with that section.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

S. Simpson: Could the minister explain the changes? Sections 86 to 88 are repealed, and they're replaced with a new 86 around the authorization to sell or serve liquor. Could the minister explain the changes?

Hon. S. Anton: Perhaps we could take them one by one. Section 86 is the section….

The sections permitting licensees to serve at catered events are being broadened to allow other types of temporary liquor service, and these are ones we've discussed before — farmers markets, festival sales, ski hill extensions.

Manufacturers with an on-site endorsement will need to obtain a farmers market authorization to sell liquor periodically at farmers markets, licensee retail stores with a festival endorsement will need to obtain a festival retail authorization to sell liquor at festivals, and ski hills with an on-site event endorsement will need to obtain temporary event authorization to sell liquor periodically in unlicensed areas of their establishment.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

On section 35.

S. Simpson: Section 35 repeals 91 and 92 and sets a new 91 with "Terms and conditions on authorization."

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Could the minister explain those changes, and what's different?

[1500]

Hon. S. Anton: Section 35, which refers to the new section 91…. Again, this is a change in language to take out the "catering" language and turn it into "event" language. A lot of the terms and conditions remain the same.

There's a new section in subsection (5): "The general manager may (a) determine the circumstances…to issue authorizations" and "how frequently the authorizations should be issued for them." That "frequent" piece at the end of subsection (5)(a) is new.

S. Simpson: Would this section in 91…? I know there's been the public discussion around things like beer gardens, the enclosed or restricted beer gardens versus the option at events that are licensed events to be able to allow people to maybe walk around with a beer rather than be restricted to a beer garden area. Is that something that would be covered by this area?

Hon. S. Anton: This, again, relates to retail but expanding the opportunities for retail. It's to establish conditions around the retail. For example, liquor manufacturers selling at a farmers market with appropriate conditions allowing, if there's a festival — a wine festival — patrons to take the liquor home and, again, allowing a more streamlined and time-sensitive application process to allow ski hills and golf courses to have temporarily extended licensed areas.

S. Simpson: When I read through this, though…. For example, (2)(b) says: "establish the event site, both indoor and outdoor, where liquor may be sold and served." I go down further, and it talks about: "limit the ability to sell or serve liquor at the event if the number of persons in attendance at the event exceeds a specified number." Another one talks about: "specify requirements for service of food and non-alcoholic beverages."

It certainly sounds like it's not a matter of selling. It's a matter of actual service and being able to sell individual drinks to people and have them have food and whatever. So it does seem like it's not just about retail — i.e.,
[ Page 3100 ]
a farmers market.

[1505]

Could the minister tell us what the circumstances are, then, around those? I'll give the minister an example of one of the questions I would have. It says the ability to limit the size or the number of people, I believe, at an event.

Today, for example, you may have a festival or an event that has a beer garden. The festival has 5,000 people at it, and the beer garden holds 200 people. The limit on the ability is the 200 seats, and when you get to 200 people in the beer garden, it's full, and there's no more room for anybody to come in.

How do you determine…? When you take away the fence and say that people can now drink, you're now probably saying it's not limited to 200 people anymore, because you can hold 5,000 people at the site. How do you make those decisions, when you change the rule, about how many people can buy a drink?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the important thing to know about this section is that it is in relation to licensees. It's not in relation to special occasion licences. So when the member is talking about beer gardens, we're not really talking about that here. Here we are talking about licensees and their ability to expand their operations to, for instance, farmers markets — and the ski hill example, for instance. That's an existing licensee.

The piece that the member opposite was talking about, for the beer garden, is actually under a special occasion licence, and that actually falls more under policy. It's not under this section.

S. Simpson: Just picking up on the minister's comments there. We currently have a situation, then, with a licensee. Are these conditions that are placed…? Maybe it's in the existing law. I'd be happy to…. I think there are one or two additions to this list over what existed under the current 91 and 92. Does the existing licensee, then, have to meet all of these conditions? Is all of this laid out, and they have to identify all of these matters in order to satisfy the general manager, whether you're on a ski hill or whatever?

Hon. S. Anton: The section reads "may be imposed," so it's within the discretion of the general manager as to which are in fact imposed.

[1510]

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us if this kind of…? I just want to clarify. So this is not at all a special event. This deals specifically and exclusively with people who have existing and ongoing licences that are in place. It's not about any special occasion licence. It's not about: "I'm doing a particular event, and I'm going to have a licence approved for that."

This is ongoing events, for example, a farmers market. Let's take an example of a farmers market in Vancouver — or any place, for that matter — that kind of is on Saturdays and Sundays. So they would have a standing licence for Saturdays and Sundays, but it's not for other kinds of special events. I'm just trying to determine the difference between this and what a special occasion event is.

Hon. S. Anton: To use the farmers market example, the manufacturer is the licensee, and the manufacturer wishes to sell his or her products at the farmers market. The goal in all of this is to make that process more simplified, more straightforward for licensees. And yes, it's for existing licensees, as opposed to a special occasion licence, which is for a different class of people altogether.

Sections 35 to 48 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:12 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 15, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: It's my pleasure to now call committee stage for Bill 23, intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FUNDING REFERENDA ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 3:15 p.m.
[ Page 3101 ]

The Chair: Perhaps I'll start by having the minister introduce the staff he has here with him.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two very important people here who have done a tremendous job overseeing the preparation of Bill 23. On my right I have Jacquie Dawes, assistant deputy minister, and Kevin Volk.

On section 1.

G. Heyman: I look forward to this process of committee, as do my colleagues, to delve a little deeper into some of the thinking behind sections of the bill and some of the meaning and some of the examples. I would like to start with subsection 1(1), which provides the definition for "added area," which says: "an area, other than a municipality, that is added to the transportation service region under section 1 (2) of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act before the date prescribed by a regulation under section 2 of this Act for the purposes of the referenda ordered by the regulation to be conducted."

Section 1(2) of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act says: "Subject to subsection (3), the authority may enter into an agreement with a municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an area, to add that area to the transportation service region."

I'm wondering if the minister can give us some examples of areas that have been added in this manner in the past and any areas specifically that the minister or the ministry are aware of that could be added in the period to come that's covered by the contemplated application of this bill up to, say, the year 2022.

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I was remiss in not introducing one of the three individuals who's with me and sitting right behind me. Maria D'Archangelo from the ministry also has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation, so I certainly want to acknowledge her.

[1520]

Again, to the member for Vancouver-Fairview, I look forward to the exchange in this committee stage on this bill. With respect to his question about the definition in section 1(1), in terms of an added area, I believe the member asked for a couple examples where this has been the case to date. A couple good examples would be electoral area A, which was added to the Mayors Council as well as the Tsawwassen First Nation, another example of recent additions.

In terms of contemplating in the future where this could potentially apply, perhaps an unincorporated area outside of the boundaries of Metro Vancouver. So perhaps some unincorporated area outside of where Mission is at the present time could be an example of an area that would be captured by this particular definition. It's here to provide maximum flexibility in the future to ensure that any such areas that are added are captured within the intent of this referenda legislation.

G. Heyman: For the benefit of people who may be reading Hansard in the future or watching the debate who aren't familiar with the boundaries of electoral area A, could the minister be more specific?

Hon. T. Stone: Electoral area A includes any area that's outside of a municipality or a treaty First Nation in the Lower Mainland. Specifically, we're talking about the University Endowment Lands out in the UBC area, as well as Barnston Island, which, as the member I'm sure knows, is located in the Fraser River, in and around the Langley area.

G. Heyman: Just to give people a sense of the scope of the changes that may come here, seeing as the act looks forward prospectively eight years from today, at least potentially prospectively, can the minister tell us exactly how many areas have been added retrospectively over the past eight years?

[1525]

Hon. T. Stone: The first three questions — my first three responses are virtually exactly the same. I'll say it again to the member. This section is here to add maximum flexibility for the future to ensure that any areas that are substantially added to what currently encompasses Metro Vancouver are captured under the auspices of this legislation.

There have been no additions to this area over the past eight years. I think the member knows that well. I think the member also knows that over the course of the last eight years the only significant change was the Tsawwassen First Nation actually signing a treaty and becoming a treaty nation. As part of that reality, they were provided a vote as part of the Mayors Council.

G. Heyman: I just seek some clarity over sub (2)(b). It states: "the municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an area referred to in paragraph (a), to the extent that the municipality, regional district or other entity has jurisdiction over the area." And this follows the opening statement in (2): "A regulation under section 2 of this Act does not apply to the following."

Am I understanding that correctly to mean that the act does not apply to the municipality, regional district or other entity with respect to an area referred to in paragraph (a) — meaning that the requirements for a referendum would not apply in that circumstance to that area only, as opposed to the rest of the municipality, regional district or other entity?

[1530]

Hon. T. Stone: The intent of section (2) here is as follows. Once a date for a referendum has been established…. I'll just throw an example out there. Assuming the Mayors Council hasn't held a referendum concurrent with the upcoming municipal election and they decide they don't want to hold it prior to June 30, 2015, therefore the next available date is concurrent with the municipal elections in 2018.

Once it is known that it is the intent of the Mayors Council to hold a referendum on that date, 2018, then this section provides for the ability through regulation for a cut-off date to be established before which time areas that…. Before the cut-off date, any areas that are formally part of the Metro Vancouver region, which therefore this act would apply to, would be included in the referendum. Any areas that are added after that cut-off date would not have this referendum legislation apply to them.

G. Heyman: Bear with me a moment, Chair. I appear to have completely misread the section, so I want to take another look at the whole section and ensure that I think it's as clear as the explanation given by the minister. I'm going to cede to my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake while I take another look at this.

K. Corrigan: While my colleague tries to figure out what I absolutely agree is a fairly complicated subsection, maybe I'll go back and ask a couple of questions within this definitional section of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

I would point out for the vast viewing audience — in case they didn't understand what it is, because we're talking about definitions — that what this act that we are considering the definitions of right now…. The overall intent of the act is essentially to require communities that fall within the Lower Mainland, essentially — the area that's covered by a regional transportation system in the Lower Mainland…. It requires them to have referenda with respect to raising any funds to pay for that system. That requirement comes up in the next section of the act.

I do have a couple of questions with regard to the definitions, some of which have been covered and some which haven't. But in order to get a better understanding of the coverage, I'm wondering if the minister or staff could please tell me what it's going to cover — the various municipalities and electoral area A and then, as well, any treaty First Nations. I'm wondering what those treaty First Nations would include now. Is that simply the Tsawwassen? There must be other treaty First Nations that would be included in this as well.

Hon. T. Stone: At the present time it's just the Tsawwassen First Nation, which is a treaty nation that's included within the auspices of this legislation.

K. Corrigan: Just for clarification, then, it doesn't include First Nations like the Musqueam? Is that not a treaty First Nation within the area?

[1535]

Hon. T. Stone: The only treaty First Nation that this legislation applies to is the Tsawwassen First Nation.

In terms of the other First Nations in the Lower Mainland, I guess the best way to describe this would be as follows. Every First Nations member will have a right to vote. It will really depend on the unique circumstances of each band and reserve land in question. For example, if the reserve lands fall outside of a municipality, then they would vote as part of electoral A. If their lands fall within the boundaries of a municipality, then they would vote as part of the referendum being held within that municipality.

K. Corrigan: I'm just trying to get a better sense of this. So the Tsawwassen First Nation would be the only First Nation that would have a separate vote, but the other First Nations that have a treaty would vote within the municipality as regular citizens? Or would they have a separate vote? I'm just trying to get a sense of how it would work.

Hon. T. Stone: The Tsawwassen First Nation is the only treaty nation in the Lower Mainland that I'm aware of. So the Tsawwassen First Nation would vote, as the member correctly suggested in her question, within the boundaries of their nation. They would have a separate vote from all the municipalities.

If members of other First Nations decide to vote, and we certainly hope that they will, they would vote in the exact same manner that they currently have the right to vote in municipal elections. They either vote as part of the municipality that their lands fall within, or they vote as part of the electoral A district.

K. Corrigan: Their definition of "transportation service region" says that it's "subject to subsection (2)," which we've already talked about a bit, and "has the same meaning as in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act." I'm wondering if the minister could just explain what that definition says and what is included.

Hon. T. Stone: I'll read the definition directly from the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. It is as follows: "'transportation service region' means all municipalities and rural areas located in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and includes any area added to the region under subsection (2)."

K. Corrigan: So the definition of "regional transportation system" has the same meaning as in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. It means
[ Page 3103 ]
a system in the transportation service region — just going to it — that includes "(i) ferries, (ii) cycling path networks, (iii) custom transit services, (iv) bus transportation systems, (v) rail transportation systems, (vi) designated projects, and (vii) the major road network, and (b) is operated or intended to be operated by the authority or its subsidiaries or contractors."

Does this mean that any future spending or increased spending on any of these types of transportation would be subject to referenda if the ministry decided that there needed to be referenda?

[1540]

Hon. T. Stone: The short answer is no. I think, again, if we go back up to the highest level here, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that should the Mayors Council decide, in their infinite wisdom, as they are working on a vision and a plan, that new funding sources, additional funding sources, are required to fund all or part of that plan, then it's the request for new additional funding sources that triggers the referendum.

Now, that vision that the mayors come up with may very well include cycling paths, rail transportation, investments in other forms of transit, investments in the major road network. But again, it's the mayors, as they are presently, that will come up with a plan. They will prioritize their projects in that plan. Projects will have costs, a total cost on the overall plan, and then they will ask the voters to support either a single or a package of funding sources to fund that plan.

I would point out that one of the consequential amendments of this act, which is dealt with at the end of the bill, would be the addition of a new section to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act — a new section 34.1, which actually specifically spells out what "additional funding source" means. Again, it's that request for an additional funding source as defined in this new section 34.1 which would then trigger the requirement for a referendum.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate what the minister is saying, and I appreciate that the basic thing is to be asking for the money — that the mayors are going to be required to go to their municipalities and First Nations, in the case of the Tsawwassen, to ask for that money. But the things that are going to be covered, could be covered are all of those different things.

I know that the referendum question has not been set yet, and we will speak more about the referenda in section 2. What level of detail does the minister anticipate would have to be in the plan that is going to therefore be subject to the referenda?

Hon. T. Stone: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. Again, I spoke in a fair bit of detail on this exact question yesterday in my closing comments on second reading. This legislation is predicated on the basis of a commitment that we've made to the people of the Lower Mainland to provide them with a say, to provide them with a vote, should the Mayors Council decide that new funding sources are required to fund an expansion of transit or transportation — end of story.

[1545]

The province is not going to be providing the mayors with a template for a business plan. We're not going to be providing them with a suggested outline of what their vision should look like or what should be included in their plan. What I will say….

I certainly have had these conversations in a great deal of detail with Richard Walton, the chair of the Mayors Council, and Wayne Wright, the vice-chair, Greg Moore and others. We certainly encourage the mayors to provide — obviously, underneath the vision for an expanded transit and transportation network — as much detail as they feel is required on that plan.

At the end of the day, it's the mayors' plan that will be put in front of the people of the Lower Mainland, who will be asked to support some new funding sources.

I talked a fair bit yesterday about research that I've done, that government has done, on winning referendums — 79 percent of the time, in the last couple of years in the United States, these votes are won. They're won, in part, because there's a clear vision. They're won, in part, because there's a detailed breakdown of projects and initiatives with timelines and phasing, specific costs. They're won when there's a total cost that is then paid for by specific funding sources.

That would be my suggestion to the mayors, as they work on their plan: be as detailed as they think they need to be on the specifics of the plan, including costs, and include in that how they believe that the plan should be paid for. What combination of property tax and other sources of revenue do the mayors feel are appropriate?

That, ultimately, is what will be put to the people of the Lower Mainland in the referendum that will then be held.

K. Corrigan: I believe that the minister just said that the minister is not going to prescribe — in other words, force — to have certain parts of that plan and vision…. He's not going to prescribe what that vision is.

Is the minister, then, saying that the vision, the plan with the dollars that are allocated to it, is going to be under the sole discretion of the Mayors Council? That the Mayors Council gets to decide, if there is a referendum, how much money is in it and exactly what is in it for the future plans for the Lower Mainland?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, first off, I haven't been in this House as long as the member has, but I'm not sure how directly relevant this line of questioning is to a definitions section of this act that we are going through in committee stage. I'll leave that to the Chair to determine.
[ Page 3104 ]

Certainly, I'll answer her question. As I said a moment ago, we are, through this legislation, only requiring a referendum to be held should the mayors come forward and say new funding sources are required to fund in part or in whole an expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

If the mayors determine that new funding sources aren't required, there doesn't need to be a referendum. If they choose to put a plan together that's funded with existing sources, there doesn't need to be a referendum.

[1550]

If the mayors were also to choose not to expand the system, again, there doesn't need to be a referendum. But we made a commitment to the people of the Lower Mainland in the last election, based on the fact the mayors were signalling the desire for new funding sources to fund expansion of transit and transportation, that in light of that we were going to make sure that the taxpayer has a say, that they have a vote on that through a referendum. That's what this enabling legislation provides for.

It will be up to the mayors, as they are doing now, to work on their plan, to detail the projects, to cost everything out, to suggest what new funding source it is that they would like to proceed with. The onus is 100 percent on the Mayors Council to develop that plan and bring it forward. If they don't suggest new funding sources, there wouldn't be a referendum.

K. Corrigan: Certainly, it doesn't matter to us whether we ask the questions under the definitions section or whether we go to section 2, which actually deals with the referendum. But if the minister has indicated that he's happy to answer the questions under this section, then I'll proceed.

I'm trying to understand exactly what the minister said. The minister, I believe, said that if the mayors decide they want to have a different type of funding source — the only funding source they have essentially right now is property taxes — if they wanted to have new funding sources, there wouldn't have to be a referendum. Could the mayors then put together a plan that says they want to have a vehicle levy — that would be a new funding source — and would that be acceptable to the minister?

Hon. T. Stone: The short answer to the member's question is no. If the mayors were to suggest a vehicle levy as a desired funding source, that would be captured by the section 34.1 amendment, which would be a consequential amendment to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.

The Chair: As both the minister and the member have pointed out, we seem to be questioning section 2. Are there any further questions on section 1, or shall we allow section 1 to pass?

G. Heyman: I take your point and the minister's point. But before I get to the conundrum of sub (2)(b), which continues to be less than clear to me, especially given the minister's explanation, I do want to point out — and I'm happy to pursue this in section 9, which deals with consequential amendments — that the minister answered the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake's question about whether this would apply to all of the elements of a regional transportation system that are detailed in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority by saying no, a referendum wouldn't apply.

At least, first he said it wouldn't apply to cycling routes or a number of other items that are the responsibility of the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority. But then he went on to say that additional funding is, in fact, covered by section 9.

Frankly — maybe the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — it would appear to me that given the great demand of the authority for funding to keep up with population growth, whether it's for buses, rapid transit, failing bridges or customized transit for people with mobility issues, if they put forward a referendum or spend the money currently available to them on the most pressing needs in those areas and then want to spend, say, $1 million to upgrade cycling paths, they would have to go to a new referendum for that.

[1555]

Contrast that with $3 billion plus for a crossing to replace the Massey Tunnel. If that is in fact the case, then I would say that the minister's answer of no to the initial question is…. Perhaps he'd like to reconsider that.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the trigger for holding a referendum will be the mayors coming forward and saying, "We would like to fund an expansion of transit or transportation" — whether it's both or either, the transit or a major road network within TransLink's jurisdiction — if the mayors said: "We would like to fund that expansion with a new funding lever."

We've defined that through section 34.1, the proposed additional funding sources. If the mayors come forward and they say just that — "We would like to fund an expansion of transit and transportation with a new funding source" — as defined in section 34.1, then that would trigger the requirement for a referendum.

Presumably, the mayors would only do that to seek the public's consent on a broad-ranging vision and detailed plan that covers a fairly lengthy period of time. That plan could include investments, significant or not, in transit, both bus and LRT. It could include investments in the road network. It could include investments in cycling. That will completely be up to the Mayors Council to define.

If they define that within a plan, they put a total cost on it, and then they say, "We would like to fund this plan with the following new funding lever or levers," then as
[ Page 3105 ]
defined by section 34.1, that would be the trigger for a referendum to be required.

G. Heyman: I take it from the minister's answer that his answer to my question is that the answer to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake probably should have been yes.

I think the minister is aware that there's a limit to how much money any local politician who wanted to get re-elected would put forward in a single referendum. Because of the requirement for ongoing referenda, which we will see and discuss in a few minutes, it will be virtually impossible, I believe, for the mayors to recommend a question or a funding plan that covers the broad spectrum of needs going very far into the future.

What usually suffers in a circumstance like that are some of the items that most people in the public aren't even aware are the responsibility of TransLink but which are, of course, very vital to the communities.

In any event, now that we've clarified, sort of, that question about the application of referenda to the regional transportation system, let me return to (2)(b).

The reason I'm having trouble with the minister's answer to my question is that I read (2)(b)…. It says a regulation under section 2 of this Act does not apply to "(b) the municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an area referred to in paragraph (a), to the extent that the municipality, regional district or other entity has jurisdiction over the area."

I read that to mean that the act, or the regulation under section (2) of this act, would not apply solely to the added area, not to the entire municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over that added area. While I may wish that clause to defeat the purpose of the act — to hold referenda or require referenda — it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, given the whole direction of the act.

The minister, however, responded — if I understood him correctly — to say that what (2)(b) really means is that if a "municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an area referred to in paragraph (a)" decides to delay a referendum to a further date, then that wouldn't apply to the added entity. But that doesn't make any sense to me.

[1600]

Maybe my head is a bit clouded from the bug that's been afflicting every member of this Legislature over the last month, or maybe the language simply isn't clear, which is an eventuality that I would prefer to think is the case.

But if that is, in fact, what it means, it appears to me to be redundant and unnecessary. If a referendum isn't taking place, why would you need to further exclude an added area that's already excluded in a situation where no referendum is taking place in the first place?

Hon. T. Stone: I will do my best to clarify. I think we're almost saying the same thing here. To the member from Fairview, this section is entirely about ensuring that if an entity is added to the transportation service region within a specified window prior to the date of the referenda, they would not, therefore, be required to implement a vote.

That would apply to areas added to existing municipalities. For example, say the district of Maple Ridge was to annex some unincorporated area, and that annexation was to become effective after a cut-off date prior to a referendum. Then that area that has been added or annexed to the municipality of Maple Ridge would not vote in the referendum. However, Maple Ridge as it existed up to that cut-off date — therefore, not including the annexed area — would still vote in the referendum. The municipality would participate in the referendum.

G. Heyman: That is, in fact, what I thought (b) meant. But in that case, isn't (b) redundant?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the simple answer to the member's question is no. These two subsections are not redundant. Subsection (b) deals with the entire municipality, and subsection (a) is talking about an area that potentially could be added to an existing municipality, as an example.

You need both because what we don't want to have happen here is to allow for a situation whereby a municipality ends up having to include, in a referendum within their municipality, an area that has been added to their municipality after a cut-off date leading up to the referendum.

For example, if the referendum was held in November of 2018, and there was an annexation that took place effective 30 days before that, the cut-off date might have been 90 days before that. Practically speaking, that might not give the municipality enough time. They may not even be through all of the practical matters that come into play when you're adding an area to your municipality.

These two sections are absolutely not redundant. They're both critically necessary to accomplish the intent of this section.

G. Heyman: I take the minister's point, in that the act and regulations actually apply to municipalities, regional districts or other entities, and they reply in respect of areas that are added, which I think is the source of my confusion. Perhaps it's (a) that's redundant, and (a) should be actually somehow incorporated into (b).

[1605]

But I will accept that the minister's purpose appears to be accomplished by the way it's laid out. It is, however, I would say, a bit confusing.
[ Page 3106 ]

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to go back to the date prescribed by regulation. Is the minister contemplating that, for example, there would be a suggestion of a 90-day cutoff if there was a new area incorporated within a municipality? I would presume that would be for the purposes of getting a voters list in order and things like that. Maybe a little explanation of why it would be a different date than the date of the actual referendum.

Hon. T. Stone: The 90 days that I mentioned in my previous answer is just an example. The determination of how many days prior to the referendum date would represent the "cut-off date" would be established in regulation. It would be established in regulation after the engagement with the Mayors Council, obviously.

As the member, frankly, briefly noted in her question, the practical matters here are ensuring that all of the work that goes into preparing voters lists and worrying about polling stations — all the logistics of all of the above…. You absolutely want to ensure…. The intent here would be to want to ensure that the maximum amount of time possible is provided so that, practically speaking, everybody is able to vote.

K. Corrigan: Again, kind of bleeding into section 2, but it is to do with the definition, I guess, under subsections (2)(a), (b) and (c). Is it expected that if it ends up being a June 30 date as opposed to one attached to an election, would there be a difference in terms of what that prescribed time period is? In one case the provisions of the Election Act might apply, and in the other it wouldn't?

Or is it expected that the provisions of the Election Act are going to apply — many of the provisions — with respect to a referendum if it took place on June 30, 2015? Is that making sense to the minister, sort of?

Hon. T. Stone: I understood the question perfectly well. The simple answer is this. We will work with the Mayors Council to determine what the most appropriate time frame would be to ensure that all the practical considerations that go in preparing voters lists and worrying about all of the other logistics — polling stations and so forth — are able to be taken care of in a timely fashion.

It really all depends on…. The regulation and the details that will be contained within that regulation really would be highly speculative at this point. It really will be determined in large part by what the mayors come forward with in terms of their desired date for the referendum. The circumstances may be a little bit different if they were to come forward and say, "We want to hold a referendum three months from today," versus concurrent with the municipal election this November, versus, say, before June 30 of 2015.

K. Corrigan: Just to clarify in terms of the rules and process, the procedures that would take place in a referendum, were it to be held. I haven't taken a look at the Election Act for B.C., but I would presume that the same kinds of rules would apply.

[1610]

The minister isn't contemplating that there would be an override or anything different with regard to the rules that would apply to a referendum than would apply to a regular municipal election — for example, when the voters list has to be ready, how it's done, what the voting process is. I would assume that the Election Act would take precedence, would it not?

Hon. T. Stone: What we've tried to accomplish here in this piece of legislation is to provide the maximum flexibility from a variety of different pieces of legislation that, from an efficiency and best practices perspective, we could draw upon to hold this particular referendum.

Later on when we get to it, we can perhaps talk about it in a bit more detail, but it is largely dealt with through section 7, in regulation 7(a), where we provide for the opportunity to draw from provisions that are currently contained within the community charter or the Election Act, the Local Government Act, the School Act and the Vancouver Charter.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Heyman: Moving on to section 2, I note that the title is "Referenda must be conducted," and (1) says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by regulation, order that referenda respecting funding for the regional transportation system be conducted."

Could the minister explain in what circumstances a referendum would not be ordered by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, given that the language says "may"?

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: We're joined in the Legislature today by 24 excited and exciting students from White Rock Christian Academy, their teacher, Mrs. Whitmarsh, and a number of parents. They all know exactly how many members sit in this House, although they're wondering why it's not that number right now. We'll have to explain that to them. They know the motto of the province, and they know all of the symbols that go with it.

Would the House please make them most welcome to the Legislature.

[1615]

Debate Continued

Hon. T. Stone: I hope I understand the member's question correctly here. He can re-ask it if I'm not hitting the mark.

Section 2(1) provides for the Lieutenant-Governor, through regulation, ordering that a "referenda respecting funding for the regional transportation system be conducted." The simple answer here is if the Lieutenant-Governor does through order-in-council provide that order, then as per the heading, a "Referenda must be conducted."

G. Heyman: I take that explanation to mean that there's…. Subsection (1) defines the situation in which the referenda must be conducted as opposed to being in conflict with it.

Hon. T. Stone: That is correct.

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister could answer the second part of my question, which was: in what circumstances would cabinet, by regulation, order that a referenda must take place? In what circumstances would they choose not to exercise that authority?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'll come back to the new section 34.1, which we'll, I'm sure, talk about in great detail later on through this committee process.

If the mayors, as part of putting a vision and a plan together…. Say they would like to fund that plan, in part or in whole, with new funding sources. Again, as defined by section 34.1, that is the triggering event for a referendum to be held.

G. Heyman: There are, however, some exclusions contained in the amendment to section 34.1, in which — if I understand it correctly — theoretically the mayors could decide to proceed with the funding plan, but a referendum would not be required. Perhaps the minister could detail those for the benefits of those watching or ultimately reading Hansard.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the referendum is only triggered if the mayors request new funding sources to fund an expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

To the member's specific question: should the mayors come forward with a plan that they would like to fund through existing sources, then they are welcome to do that. That would not require a referendum.

Now, examples of existing sources — again, as the member, I think, knows well — includes property tax, adjustments at the fare box, the hydro levy, parking sales tax. Those would be the existing levers which the Mayors Council could use, if they chose to, beyond the levels that they are currently using them, to fund an expansion of transit and transportation.

G. Heyman: It's generally the view of people at TransLink — and, I think, certainly the view of members on this side of the House; at least myself and those I've talked to, as well as many in the public — that raising fares actually dampens ridership, which is directly contradictory to the province's own transportation plan, which proposed to double ridership — the plan that was introduced in 2008.

[1620]

Could the minister explain why, if one of the levers available to the mayors actually potentially has an outcome that's contradictory to the province's policy, in that instance the minister has no interest in requiring a referendum?

Hon. T. Stone: Frankly, I'm agnostic on the funding sources. I simply was responding to the member's question, which was: what are examples of existing funding sources that would not trigger a referendum? Those existing funding sources include property tax, the farebox, a hydro levy, parking sales tax. Those are existing funding sources. The mayors are fully within their rights to adjust those four sources as they see fit to expand transit and transportation, and in doing so, they don't trigger a referendum.

Now, I don't place any one of those sources any higher or lower on a list in my mind. I'm agnostic about that, as I am about the potential for new funding sources — new sources like road pricing, a vehicle levy and a whole wide range of others. What I have said consistently is that it's up to the mayors.

The Mayors Council has asked for greater authority, which we are providing them through Bill 22, the improvements to governance. Along with that authority comes the accountability over the decisions that are made. The mayors are being provided, through these two companion pieces of legislation, the ability to make the decisions, set the priorities, come up with the plan, determine the costs, propose funding sources. It is up to the mayors to put that package of funding sources together.

If that package of funding sources includes new funding sources, then, as per this piece of legislation, they will be required to put that to a referendum so that the voters of the Lower Mainland have a vote on how their tax dollars are spent.

G. Heyman: I might, in some instances, claim to be agnostic on funding sources as well, but I do have an inclination to logical consistency in application of rules and criteria.

The minister's government has, from time to time, imposed conditions on municipalities with respect to a taxation base on commercial businesses and industries
[ Page 3108 ]
in order to, as the government explained, ensure that the economy isn't adversely affected by what it considered an excessively high tax rate. There are many commercial businesses that believe that a parking tax is a negative impact on their business.

Similarly, the government has often claimed that there is only one taxpayer, and they only have one pocket. So why, in that instance, would the minister claim that it's okay for property taxes to go up — either increase the burden on homeowners or prevent other needed municipal infrastructure or improvements or services or facilities from being implemented through whatever property tax room may exist — yet still take the positions that his government has taken previously with respect to one taxpayer, one pocket, or impacts on business by taxes on commercial taxation?

I'm not taking a position on this, but I think the people of B.C., both residents and businesses, deserve to know the minister and the government's rationale on this, because frankly, it escapes me.

[1625]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I come back to the genesis for this piece of legislation. We made a commitment in the last campaign, as a government, that if re-elected….

In light of the fact that the Mayors Council was coming forward and was saying, "We need new funding sources to fund an expansion of transit and transportation," we made the commitment to the people of the Lower Mainland that if there were to be new funding sources in the mix to fund an expansion of transit and transportation, the voters of the Lower Mainland would have a vote. They would have a say over that. We put ourselves squarely on the side of the taxpayer.

I hear the member opposite talk about one taxpayer and one pocket. I couldn't agree more. That's why we brought forward this legislation.

We've said consistently that when it comes to new funding sources, we would work with the Mayors Council — that if any new funding sources actually require provincial enablement, we would work with the Mayors Council and talk to them about those funding sources. Ultimately, funding sources, if they're new, will be put to the people of the Lower Mainland.

In defining some principles underpinning new funding sources, principles that we think are very important, first and foremost we've said affordability. The ability of the taxpayer to afford the new funding source is principle No. 1. Principle No. 2, we said the new funding sources need to be regionally sourced; No. 3, we said they cannot negatively impact the economy; and No. 4, we said that we would be open to the whole discussion of land value capture. We put those principles out there.

Again, I come back one more time, for the member opposite: there doesn't have to be a referendum, if the mayors decide to fund the transit and transportation expansion with existing funding sources. Our commitment relates to new funding sources.

We stood up, and we said: "We are with the taxpayer. We are with ensuring that the taxpayer can afford any new funding sources that the mayors might be asking for."

I look forward to receiving from the mayors, as I think all residents of the Lower Mainland do, over the coming months — certainly, well before the June 30 deadline, I'm told — the product of their hard work, which is the vision and the detailed plan with priorities and phasing and costs and a total price tag and their suggested funding sources.

Again, if any of those suggested funding sources represent new sources, as defined through this new section 34.1, that will be a trigger for a referendum.

G. Heyman: For greater clarity, is the minister agreeing with me, having said that there is only one taxpayer and one pocket, that there is, in fact, no logical consistency between this policy and direction of the government and other policies and directions the government has taken with respect to taxation — imposition of requirements on municipal governments with respect to taxation of commercial business and industry as well as other measures to ensure that tax burdens aren't a disincentive to commercial enterprise?

[1630]

Hon. T. Stone: I'll just repeat, again, substantially what I've said. The mayors are engaged. At the moment they are working hard on a plan. My expectation is that they will bring forward a plan for the people of the Lower Mainland to consider. That plan will contain a wide range of detailed priorities. There will be costs and phasing associated with those priorities as well as suggested funding sources.

As I've said many times here, I'm agnostic on the funding sources, both existing and new. So I look forward to seeing what the mayors come forward with in their plan.

G. Heyman: With respect, Chair, the minister hasn't answered the question with regard to how this policy of the government is consistent with other policies of the government that respect the impact of municipal taxation policies on industry and business.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: I'm failing to see the relevance of the member's question in the context of the piece of legislation that we're here discussing today. It's a very simple concept. We made a commitment in the last election to provide the people of the Lower Mainland with a vote. Should the Mayors Council…. As part of putting a plan for expanded transit and transportation forward that includes new funding sources, there will be a referendum.
[ Page 3109 ]
End stop. That's the purpose of this legislation.

Again, I do not see any relevance between the legislation that we are going through in committee here today and the member's question.

G. Heyman: The relevance of my questioning is that we have a bill, as the minister correctly points out, that requires a referendum for new sources of funding for the expansion of transportation and other services under the aegis of TransLink in Metro Vancouver — a referendum unanimously rejected by the mayors that's caused massive delays in funding for needed improvements and that nobody really seems to want other than the government. So in my view, any questions with respect to how the government arrived at this legislation — whether it's consistent with policies of the government, whether it's consistent in general with good practice in how it will work — are relevant.

Let me go back to another statement of the minister, who said: "We promised in the election to hold a referendum, so we're going to do it." His government also promised before…. I say this at the risk of reviving a dead horse that the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services not so long ago urged us not to flog. In a previous election the government promised not to introduce an HST, then did an about-face and did that. So it's not impossible for the government to change its mind.

In that case, it changed its mind for what I would argue was — if not bad policy — certainly badly implemented policy that exploded in the government's face. So it is possible to reconsider any number of ideas that are contained in lengthy platform documents, which most voters don't read beyond the first page or two and, in the case of the last election, didn't appear to read beyond jobs, jobs, jobs.

[1635]

Again, the minister says he doesn't care whether fares are increased, which is a taxation form of measure available to the mayors under their current powers, and yet to do so would completely blow up the province's own transportation policy created in 2008.

Why is that acceptable to the minister? Would the minister not have concern if that was the end result of the mayors deciding that to avoid a referendum, they would raise fares and if that resulted in a complete failure — which is likely, anyway, but a more complete failure — of transit ridership to be doubled?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, with all due respect, if the member wants to sit here and pontificate at a policy level about this legislation, he's more than welcome to. It's your time. If you have a specific question about section 2, which I believe we're in, I'd be more than happy to answer the specific question that you have. You can try to put words in my mouth. I have not said anything of the like about fares, as you have just suggested. You know that.

I have said that it's up to the mayors. It's up to the mayors to develop a plan and to put that plan, along with costing, in front of the people of the Lower Mainland. If that plan involves new funding sources, then this legislation kicks in. If you have a specific question about this section 2 that we're in, I'd be happy to answer it.

G. Heyman: The minister can be testy with me if he wants. If he doesn't like the….

Interjection.

G. Heyman: I'm happy to ask relevant questions. There are a number of relevant questions to be asked about a piece of legislation which we as opposition and I as a critic have a responsibility to question in detail, to speak to in detail, especially when it has caused significant controversy among the mayors.

Let me go back and simply say that I'm not putting words in the minister's mouth. He said that the mayors are able to raise fares if they wish, and that will not require a referendum. It is commonly understood that a raising of fares will dampen ridership. And my point was: is that not an undesirable outcome in light of the minister's own — because he is the Minister of Transportation — transportation plan that was created by his government in 2008 and which still, to my knowledge, exists?

Let me move on to another specific question, because I certainly don't want to put words in the minister's mouth. The minister, in answer to a previous question, said that all sources of funding are on the table. So I want to make it clear. I think the mayors certainly want to make it clear.

The public has a right to know that if the mayors — within the terms of the legislation, which has some prescriptions within it — come up with a source of funding for enhancements to existing services from the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority or added infrastructure, rapid transit, and are prepared to put it to referendum, the minister will not say, "That particular source of funding is off the table, because we don't like it," as has happened in the past through the mouth of the Premier.

Hon. T. Stone: You know, decision-making is a wonderful thing. The mayors have asked for the ability to have the authority to make decisions respecting transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland. We are providing them with that authority through a companion piece of legislation.

It is up to the mayors, therefore, to assume the accountability that comes with the authority. That means putting the plan together. That means costing it out. That means providing for details around phasing and suggesting a funding package. This legislation triggers a referendum if the funding package that the mayors suggest includes new funding sources.
[ Page 3110 ]

G. Heyman: I'm attempting to ensure that I'm not misinterpreting the previous statements of the minister. So I'm saying clearly: what I heard the minister say is that all funding sources are on the table — which implied that if the mayors create a plan, they designate a funding source and are prepared to put it to referendum, the minister or anyone else in the government won't say no to that proposal.

Is that what the minister said, or not?

[1640]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the member only has to pull up my closing comments from the second reading debate on this piece of legislation from yesterday, where I said I prefer to keep things on the table, as opposed to knocking things off the table. I have said consistently to the mayors that concurrent with the hard work that they're putting in on the development of a plan, we will continue to talk to them on a separate track about funding sources. We're committed to doing that.

G. Heyman: In a moment of exuberance, the Minister of Health asked me to ask a question. Well, I've just asked the same question twice. With respect, I may not be a lawyer, but I'm fairly experienced in contract law, and the minister has not answered the question.

There's a difference between being willing to discuss all funding sources and exercising a veto over a funding source that the mayors wish to put forward in a referendum. So is it possible, or is the minister removing from the realm of the possible, that the mayors would suggest a particular funding mechanism to be put before people in a referendum, which would, in fact, give people the vote that the minister says they deserve?

Would the minister contemplate saying no to any funding mechanism proposal? Or if the mayors put something forward and are prepared to put it to referendum, perhaps he would want to have a lengthy discussion with them. But if he doesn't change their minds, would he be willing to let that stand on the ballot?

Hon. T. Stone: I'm not going to stand here today and rule out any funding source or rule any funding sources in. What I'm going to say is what I've consistently been saying all along for many, many months now, and that is that I look forward to seeing what the mayors put together in their plan. I look forward to seeing what their priorities are. I look forward to seeing what the costs are and the total costs that they want to put forward to the voters.

I will remind the member of this. We've also been very clear in saying to the Mayors Council and to the people of the Lower Mainland that any new funding sources that require provincial enablement we will consider, assuming they respect the four principles that we've put out there.

I've said these principles a couple of times today, several times yesterday and, again, consistently for many months now. They include: any new funding sources need to be affordable for families, they need to ensure that they don't negatively impact the provincial economy, they need to be regionally sourced, and we are open to talking about land value capture. Those are the principles.

G. Heyman: Well, I may be accused of pontificating, but I've given the minister three opportunities to say that if the mayors put forward a proposal that meets the criteria of the bill and they want to put it to referendum, he will not veto it. He has declined to take that opportunity three times, so I can only assume that that is, in fact, a possibility.

I believe the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has a question or two.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister, with the assistance of staff, could tell me what there is about section 2 that would require the triggering that is referenced — and has been referenced by the minister several times — in section 34.1. In other words, could not, theoretically, under the way this act has been written, the regulations be made ordering referenda respecting funding whether or not section 34.1 comes into play?

[1645]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I think the best way to answer the question would be this way. The legislation, and certainly section 2, really provides for the tool to hold a referendum. The definition of "additional funding sources," I believe, I've already largely established through policy. I've been very clear in the public domain and very clear with the Mayors Council as to what constitutes additional funding sources.

That being said, we felt that for maximum clarity for the Mayors Council moving forward, we would add this consequential amendment to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act — section 34.1, which provides substantially the language that I have in policy been articulating as the nub, if you will, of what would actually require a referendum. But the act itself is really just the enablement tool.

K. Corrigan: I know we're skipping ahead, but the minister has said that section 34.1, which is the request by the Mayors Council to have an additional source of funding from what already exists, is the trigger for a referendum. The minister has said that several times, and I think that's sort of the general understanding of what the scheme is. But section 2 of the act doesn't in any way refer to section 34.1. It doesn't require a triggering act of section 34.1.

Section 34.1 requires a referendum. It says you have to have a referendum in order to get additional funding. But my reading of this act — that's how acts are to be read — is that on section 2 essentially government could
[ Page 3111 ]
require at any time that there be referenda in the Lower Mainland for any funding of the regional transportation system. If perhaps staff could point out something in section 2 that indicates that I've incorrectly interpreted the act, then I'd like to hear about it right now.

[1650]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, section 34.1 is our attempt to take what we've been saying in policy and spell it out very clearly in legislation to the benefit of the Mayors Council.

Section 2, which the member has referenced…. Again, it's the tool that provides the ability to enable a referendum. I would point the member to subsection 2(6), which says: "The mayors' council on regional transportation must make recommendations to the minister respecting the content of the question or questions to be prescribed."

It's really in that subsection, subsection (6), where there would be a sightline between section 2 and section 34.1. But it's not a direct connection.

K. Corrigan: I'll say it's not. When we're looking at new or amended legislation, we need to say what, in theory, could happen. Is it not true that under this legislation government would have the new-found power, I believe, to decide that there had to be referenda on every dollar of transportation funding in the Lower Mainland?

It could require that there be recommendations to the minister respecting the content of the question or questions to be asked. That was what the minister just referenced. But I see nothing in subsection (6), because that's only advisory. Those are recommendations.

Again, to the minister, just a really clear question: theoretically, could the government not, with this new legislation, require that every penny of transportation funding in the Lower Mainland be subject to a referendum?

Hon. T. Stone: TransLink and the Mayors Council, as the member knows well, have authority to raise the funds they require to fund their operations with existing funding levers. Those authorizations that TransLink and the Mayors Council have in the existing piece of legislation, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, don't change as a result of this legislation.

[1655]

There's no requirement for TransLink and the Mayors Council — as a result of this section 2 or this act, substantially — to put to referendum a vote in order to fund existing operations or even to fund an expansion if that expansion doesn't involve new funding levers. It is only in the case of new funding levers. Again, that's why we wanted to spell it out clearly in section 34.1, what that actually means. It's only in the case of new funding sources that a referendum would be required.

Furthermore, again, I come back to section 2, which very clearly states that the authority in this section — the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor to provide for regulation, to order a referenda — can't happen if the Mayors Council hasn't made recommendations to the minister respecting the content of what the question would be.

K. Corrigan: Well, subsection (1) doesn't say that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by regulation, order that referenda respecting new funding for the regional transportation system be conducted. It says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, order that referenda respecting funding for the regional transportation system be conducted."

Would the minister agree that funding includes — could include and does include — present funding?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is no. Again, I encourage the member to read this legislation — the word "funding" in the context of the legislation within which it's contained. It doesn't say "new," and it doesn't say "existing," because it's referring to the provision for tools to hold a referendum related to new funding sources.

Again, the context is so critically important here. The word "funding" in the context of this piece of legislation refers to the triggering event of new funding required or asked for by the Mayors Council to fund an expansion of transit and transportation. Existing funding sources that fund current operations of TransLink — which are, again, at the discretion of TransLink and the Mayors Council…. The authority relating to that is dealt with through a separate piece of legislation — namely, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.

K. Corrigan: Well, I don't see that. I don't see the connection between section 34.1 and section 2. I see nothing in section 2 that would indicate that this does not give the government new powers to order that referenda respecting funding of the regional transportation system.

What a court does — if this was ever to come to a court — is it takes a look at what the natural meaning of the words are. When a section doesn't say anything about new funding or additional funding, and in another part of the section it refers to additional funding and specific requirements with regard to that, I just really can't understand why the minister would interpret that section…. The natural reading of it says that the government essentially can order that referenda respecting funding for the regional transportation system.

To me, funding for the regional transportation system is money that is raised by the taxes of the people of the Lower Mainland in order to pay for the transportation system. To me, the natural reading of the section would certainly read that way. Let's hope we never have a court having to interpret it, because I think there's a real challenge there. We're obviously in disagreement about that
[ Page 3112 ]
interpretation.

I want to go on and ask the minister about…. This is quite a prescriptive section. It says: "The mayors' council on regional transportation must make recommendations to the minister respecting the content of the question…." It doesn't mean the minister has to take the advice. It says that they must conduct referendums. They must do it. They're being ordered.

[1700]

Because this is very prescriptive and is giving a lot of orders, essentially, to municipalities about how they are going to fund transportation within their communities, I'm just wondering if, before putting this section together, the minister talked to municipalities, the government talked to municipalities, about whether or not they thought this was a good idea.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly it's no secret that, with few exceptions, the mayors that constitute the Mayors Council have not been supportive of the concept of holding a referendum in the Lower Mainland for the purposes of the expansion of transit and transportation. It's not rocket science for anyone to suggest that. That has been a pretty clear position of the mayors since we took this position. But we answer to the taxpayers, not the mayors.

We made a very clear commitment to the people of the Lower Mainland in the last election that if the mayors asked for new funding sources to fund in part or in whole an expansion of transit or transportation in the Lower Mainland, then the people of the Lower Mainland will have a vote. They will have a say in that. We're following through on that commitment. Very proud to be following through on that commitment.

I will say that I am also proud of the fact that despite the mayors very clearly not supporting the concept of a referendum, they have engaged and are working very hard on a plan. They have held, I believe, seven or eight full-day sessions over the last couple months. Greg Moore, the mayor of Port Coquitlam, is the chair of the transportation subcommittee of the Mayors Council and is really doing a tremendous amount of the heavy lifting in leading this group forward. It's hard work. But the mayors are doing it. They're putting their plan together.

We received assurances from a number of the mayors involved in that that are on the Mayors Council that they fully expect to provide a plan well before the June 30, 2014, deadline. So again, I compliment the mayors for the hard work that they're doing in putting that plan together.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I think everybody is aware that there are real concerns. I wanted to ask a question about the dates and what would happen. I guess essentially the main question is: if there was not a triggering under section 34.1, then what would happen? Can the minister explain what would happen or not happen under section 2? There would be no referendum. Is that correct?

[1705]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, we have said through policy I think very clearly since before the last election, through the election and since, that we intend on ensuring that a referendum is held if new funding sources are requested by the Mayors Council to fund all or part of an expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

This act is our effort at, through legislation, providing the tool to enable said referenda. I think I've been clear on the triggering event for that. It's a new funding source, an additional funding source, which will be defined through this new section 34.1.

K. Corrigan: I want to make clear…. I think what the minister is saying is that if the Mayors Council decides not to come forward to the minister with the request for an additional funding source and decides they just don't want to do that…. They don't think it's good for their municipalities. They don't believe, as they've often said…. They do not think that referenda are a good way to fund public services.

If they are so convinced that it's going to fail anyways, that it's a waste of time and it's a waste of taxpayers' money in the millions of dollars, I would presume…. If they decide to do those things — I just want to make it very clear, then — and don't come to the ministry, don't make a proposal to the minister, then the referendum would not happen. I just want to make sure that that's the case. There would not be a referendum in that case. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Stone: That is correct.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for pointing out what I concur with her is a flaw in the language of 2.1, but I think it's important that the minister has stated a couple times now that the referenda are intended to apply to newer additional funding, and if there is a dispute, I'm sure that record will be very useful.

Let me go to subsection (3). I note in subsection (3) that there's a reference to holding referenda in conjunction with general local elections in the transportation service region in a year no later than 2022. I noted that the letter that the minister sent to the Mayors Council on February 6 referred to if a referendum was not held in 2015, which would be triggered by the mayors coming up with a detailed list of priorities and costing by the end of June of this year, that it would take place with the next municipal elections.

There was initially some dispute over whether that meant the ones later this year, but apparently the minister clarified it to be the next set, which would be in 2017, although if legislation currently before this House passes, it would be 2018.
[ Page 3113 ]

I'm curious as to why the date contained in sub (3) is 2022 and in what circumstances the minister would contemplate that referendum taking place in 2022. I understand there may be further referenda, but that appears to be covered by the consequential amendments in section 9, and this would appear, in my reading at any event, to apply to the first referendum, should such a referendum take place at all.

I'm interested in the thinking behind what would push a referendum to 2022, being mindful, as I've spoken to on second reading of the bill, that once the referendum passes, if it does pass, there's still a considerable lag time in terms of tendering before buses or light rail or SkyTrain technology actually is in place. It would be a considerable delay.

[1710]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, let me just clarify something for the member. If the Mayors Council determines that they wish to hold a referendum concurrent with the next municipal election, which is scheduled for November of 2014, they certainly could do that. I made that clear in policy and through the letter that the member accurately referenced. Indeed, section 2(1) of this legislation would be the section that would allow us to enable a referendum concurrent with the current municipal elections.

The member's interpretation of subsection 2(3) is correct. If the referendum isn't held concurrent with the upcoming municipal election and is not held before June 30, 2015, then the two windows of opportunity that we've provided would be concurrent with the next two municipal elections, which are 2018 and 2022.

G. Heyman: I understand that, but I guess I'm asking the minister to outline in what circumstances he believes that a referendum would be delayed to 2022 as opposed to being held in 2018 or 2014. I mean, 2017 is a remote possibility, but only if the legislation before the House doesn't pass. What would the circumstances be? What would give rise to that?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the date will be completely driven by the Mayors Council. It's not the provincial government that's going to mandate that it be held in 2014 or 2018 or 2022 or before June 30, 2015. Which of those windows the Mayors Council opts to run with is completely up to the Mayors Council.

Obviously, they're working hard on a plan right now. My understanding at this point is that the odds of the mayors suggesting November 2014 might be less than a date after that. But I've also got a pretty good sense that a number of the mayors are keen to put their vision in front of the people of the Lower Mainland in the form of a referendum sooner rather than later. The timing will be up to the Mayors Council.

G. Heyman: In other words, this is the result of thinking through a bit more, since the February 6th letter, and allowing a bit of insurance space.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the intent behind this is to provide the Mayors Council with some flexibility. The member will recall that initially in policy, our position was that if there was to be a referendum, the only date that would be acceptable would be concurrent with the municipal elections in November of 2014.

[1715]

After hearing from a good number of the mayors in the Mayors Council on that, it was strongly suggested from a number of them to me personally and to my staff that some additional flexibility beyond November 2014 would be advisable. We then made the determination to effectively change our policy on that and provide these additional windows of opportunity for the Mayors Council, who, again, will ultimately determine which time frame they wish to hold a referendum.

G. Heyman: I'll move to sub (4), which says:

"If the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a regulation under subsection (1), a referendum must be conducted, in accordance with and in the manner provided for under this Act, (a) by each municipality in the transportation service region, of the electors in the municipality, (b) by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, of the electors in Electoral Area A, (c) by an added entity, of the class of persons prescribed to be electors of the added entity, and (d) of the class of persons in respect of a treaty first nation who are prescribed to be electors."

[D. Horne in the chair.]

My question has to do with…. It's the provincial government that is requiring the referendum in the first place. The mayors, as the minister has acknowledged, haven't exactly been wild about the idea of the referendum. Why has the government chosen to impose and mandate a referendum but require…?

Actually, it's the second part of the question that I mean. Why is the provincial government requiring the municipalities to conduct a referendum that they're not ordering and they haven't asked for rather than simply conducting the referendum itself? I'll leave the question there.

Hon. T. Stone: If I understand the member's question correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the member is asking why the province isn't overseeing the logistics or the mechanics of holding a referendum versus requiring the member municipalities and the Tsawwassen First Nation to hold the referendums in their respective communities. Did I understand that correctly?

G. Heyman: Yes.

Hon. T. Stone: Okay. I've consistently said that in
[ Page 3114 ]
terms of the logistics and the mechanics of holding the referendum, the two key principles that were very important in my mind were: first, how can we best maximize turnout? And: secondly, how can we minimize the cost of holding the referendum?

When we looked at a myriad of different options, it was very clear that the requirement of local governments to…. Well, piggybacking upon the local government elections that take place, presumably every four years if other legislation before the House passes, was the best vehicle to maximize participation and minimize cost. So that's the rationale behind this particular section.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer, and I understand the logic. But it also appears to me to be somewhat unique that the province would prescribe the need for a referendum, maintain control over the question or questions, and yet require the municipality to carry it out whether it's their idea or not or whether they like it or not.

[1720]

I'm wondering if the minister, or the minister with the assistance of his staff, can inform me and others of other situations where this has actually been done — where the province has required a particular referendum but insisted that it be carried out and administered by municipalities.

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows well, we actually don't have a tremendous amount of examples in British Columbia on the referenda front. There haven't been too many referendums held in British Columbia. The two that do come to mind, the HST and the Nisga'a treaty, were referenda that had a pretty broad provincial impact or application.

This particular referendum is very specific to transportation expansion in the Lower Mainland. I also believe that it's a tremendous opportunity to essentially link a vote on expansion of transit and transportation…. I think that it's a unique and very high-value opportunity for that to be linked with the municipal elections. After all, it's the mayors themselves who have been clamouring for years to the province saying: "We want to have more say over the priority-setting of transportation in our communities."

We agreed with that. Hence, we're making the governance changes. We're providing the mayors with the authority that they're asking for. I have said consistently that I believe that the mayors, as the locally elected representatives they are, are best placed to understand and articulate the transit and transportation challenges within their respective communities.

What better time to ask for the people of the Lower Mainland region to participate in a referendum on transit and transportation expansion? What better time to do that than during a municipal election? I think that it's a terrific opportunity for the mayors of the region to define what they stand for, to stand up and say to their respective electorates: "This is what we believe is critically important in terms of transit and transportation expansion in the years ahead."

They are asking to lead on this. They are asking to be the decision-makers on this. They are asking to have the authority over this. So I think linking the two makes a tremendous amount of sense.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer. It has some logic. But it's also true…. It's a bit of a contradiction, in that I think most people feel closest to local government, and then local government elections appear to have the lowest level of turnout of all elections, which I haven't actually figured out an answer to.

[1725]

I know that the Premier has expressed hope that the referendum will actually focus on an issue of importance to people in the Metro Vancouver region and perhaps drive up turnout. That may be true; that may not be true. We won't really know until we see if in fact there is a referendum.

I'm curious. I'm pursuing this a little bit, because it is unique. It's potentially a precedent, and not necessarily a good one. The province requires a referendum. It retains control over the form of the referendum and the questions on the referendum.

Has the minister or anyone in government actually explored other methods that might be very cost-effective, especially given the electronic age we live in, to conduct the referendum? I mean, it could theoretically be conducted by mail. It could be conducted by some form of Internet balloting, notwithstanding the recent glitches with the Heartbleed bug.

Was there any thought given to cost-effective means, other than a connection to the municipal elections, which could have been administered directly by the provincial government?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, this piece of legislation effectively provides a tool to hold a referendum concurrent with municipal elections.

As the member knows well, one of the options around timing that we provided the mayors through policy — we talked about that a moment ago, and it's certainly in the letter that I wrote to the mayors recently — does provide them with an alternative window. That is to hold it not concurrent with the municipal election in November of 2014 but to hold it at some point between now and June 30, 2015. If the mayors determine to do that, then again, through policy, we've said that that would be acceptable.

We would obviously sit down with the mayors and work through with them what the logistics and mechanics of that could look like, but it's most likely that a referendum under that scenario effectively would be a plebiscite held under the Election Act. We could look at
[ Page 3115 ]
a number of different options in terms of how the vote is actually undertaken. It could a mail-in ballot, as the member referenced. It could be held through a traditional voting means.

We are not at this point contemplating or doing any serious consideration of any Internet voting or any of the Internet technology–type voting. Certainly, a mail-in ballot or a traditional vote could be considered, obviously ensuring from our perspective that the principles of maximizing participation and minimizing costs guide us through that discussion. Those options would be available to the Mayors Council.

The last point, I would say, on this…. Part of what we are trying to do with this act in suggesting, as the most cost-effective and the best way to maximize participation perspective in holding this referendum by piggybacking on the municipal elections….

[1730]

Part of our rationale for moving forward on that basis, from a short-term perspective, is that there are some members of the Mayors Council that have said publicly that their preference would be to hold this referendum this coming November. They would prefer to hold it sooner rather than later.

This act provides, again, the tools to piggyback a referendum on the municipal elections, which could be held, again, in 2014, 2018, 2022. An alternative to that would be the mayors picking a date between now and June 30, 2015, in which case, the referendum would be held as a plebiscite by the Election Act, which would require further discussion with the Mayors Council to determine the mechanics and logistics of how to best make that plebiscite happen.

The Chair: Both the questions and the answers appear to be beginning to be repetitive and circular in nature, so if we could continue on section 2.

G. Heyman: Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you, Chair.

The Chair: The questions and answers begin to become repetitive, so I'd ask that perhaps we could have a fresh line of questioning or move to a different section.

G. Heyman: Well, with respect, I don't think I'm repeating the question. I think there are some important questions to ask with respect to what's, in fact, unique and potentially precedential.

This next question, I think, will be fairly quick. I'd like to ask the minister if the minister sees…. If the mayors chose some other form of referendum or vote other than in conjunction with a municipal election, would that involve any oversight by Elections B.C. — potentially or otherwise?

Hon. T. Stone: The simple answer is yes. If the vote were to be held between now and June 30, 2015, not concurrent with the November 2014 municipal election, and, thereby, was to be held as a plebiscite under the auspices of the Election Act, then Elections B.C. would oversee the holding of that plebiscite.

G. Heyman: I don't mean to jump ahead in sections, but there's an element in section 9 in the amendment to section 34.1 of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act that potentially has impact on section 2, so I'm going to refer to it.

Section 9, in terms of proposed additional funding sources, sub (2) says: "The mayors' council on regional transportation may present a proposal to the minister that demonstrates the need of the authority for additional funding sources." And (3) says: "The mayors' council on regional transportation must demonstrate to the minister's satisfaction that a majority of the electors in the transportation service region supports the proposal referred to in subsection (2)."

I stand to be corrected, but I read that to indicate that it's possible to demonstrate to the minister's satisfaction in some manner other than a referendum that the majority of electors support the proposal referred to in subsection (2). Does that potentially apply to an initial referendum or at least another mechanism other than an initial referendum that's referred to and contemplated in section 2, and if so, what might those be? Or is this only something the minister will contemplate at some point in the future beyond an initial referendum?

[1735]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'll do my best to answer the member's question here, if I understood it correctly. We have said, again, in policy…. We have established a requirement for there to be a referendum on new funding sources for the expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

We've provided for a number of different windows for that referendum to take place, through to 2022, so, concurrent with the municipal elections in '14, '18 and '22 or prior to June 30, 2015. This act provides us with the legal mechanism, the tool, to actually hold that referendum within those time frames.

If the member is asking what the criteria would be beyond 2022, that would need to be established in conjunction with the Mayors Council.

G. Heyman: I just want to be absolutely clear. In effect, I was asking what the criteria might be beyond 2022, but I was also asking if those criteria or the provision that's contained in the request for additional funding — if the minister contemplated that something similar could apply in the initial stage. I think I understood you to say no.
[ Page 3116 ]

[1740]

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, that's correct. You understood me correctly.

G. Heyman: Sub (4) refers to what happens when the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council makes a regulation and who will conduct the referendum, and (c) in sub (4) says: "by an added entity, of the class of persons prescribed to be electors of the added entity." My question is: can the minister indicate what the prospective added entities might be?

Hon. T. Stone: In answer to the member's question, I would refer him to the definitions section, where "added entity" is defined. It's defined as "a regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an added area."

G. Heyman: Sub (5) says: "The referenda must put the prescribed question or questions to the electors." It also says, in (6), that the Mayors Council must make recommendations to the minister respecting the content of the question or questions to be presented.

Notwithstanding a number of comments by both the minister and the Premier in recent months that it's up to the mayors to decide on the question, apparently it's just up to the mayors to decide on the recommendations. I presume — and correct me if I'm wrong — that it's the minister that will decide whether the recommendations form the question or whether the question is different — entirely different or somewhat different.

Can the minister elaborate on what the process for arriving at the question or questions will be, ultimately?

Hon. T. Stone: I'll try and answer both of the questions that I think I heard in the member's comments there.

First, subsection 2(5). Again, the purpose there is to simply clarify that the purpose of a referendum is to put a question to the electorate and that that question can be set through regulation. With respect to subsection 2(6), what we're doing with this sub is requiring the Mayors Council to come forward with some recommendations on the question.

At the end of the day, we're going to define that referendum question together with the Mayors Council. It will be a collaborative effort. That's the intent. We want to make sure that the mayors are putting their best eyes on this and that we put our best eyes on it as well, all with the goal being to come up with a question that sets the referendum up for maximum chance of success.

G. Heyman: Yes, I did understand what the purpose of sub (5) was. My question was: what is the process for arriving at a question or questions? I think the minister has described that.

[1745]

The Mayors Council makes recommendations. The minister wants to engage in a collaborative process with the Mayors Council on the ultimate question. Clearly — and correct me if I'm wrong — the legislation gives the minister and the government final decision-making power on what the question will be.

Is the minister saying that the government won't impose a question that the mayors have disagreed with? There'll be a collaborative process to resolve differences on the question, but there won't be a government override. What I'm trying to find out is: is it possible that the government or the cabinet would prescribe a question that the mayors simply do not want to have taken forward?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I want to come back to the intent of this section. We want to make sure that any referendum that ends up taking place is set up for success, that it has a maximum chance of succeeding.

To that end, the mayors are working very hard on their plan, and we've been facilitating behind the scenes with the Mayors Council, with TransLink, ensuring that there's been a good flow of information. I think the feedback from the Mayors Council on the participation of TransLink and the provision by TransLink of resources, as the mayors work on their plan, has been very good.

There has been good collaboration between the province, TransLink and the Mayors Council in the development of the plan. I have said consistently that the province will continue to collaborate with the mayors on funding sources. So there are discussions ongoing with respect to potential new funding sources.

Thirdly, for any referendum to succeed, there needs to be the right question. We need to make sure that we get the question right. To that extent, the intent here is to collaborate fully with the Mayors Council on the question. We will seek their recommendations, put our best eyes on it, as well, and collaboratively come up with the best possible question to maximize the success of any referendum.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer from the minister. While I sort of asked a yes-no question, I appreciate that's a difficult answer for the minister to make. I also appreciate that he spoke at some length about his intent and the intent of the legislation to enable a collaborative process and that he personally is committed to that. I'll take that in good faith. I hope the mayors will as well.

[1750]

I think that's probably as far as we're going to get with the answer to that question. My colleague the member for North Island, I believe, has a question with respect to section 2 before we finish that section.

C. Trevena: I appreciate this. This is one that I'm not sure whether the minister can answer easily. I realize that we are talking about section 2 on Bill 23, but my
[ Page 3117 ]
colleague from Vancouver-Fairview mentioned that the reason we're trying to be so thorough about this is that it could be precedent-setting. We don't have referenda very often in B.C.

I'll be asking questions, and I know my colleague will be. I hope to ask some questions under section 3 about why this is a separate system than the Referendum Act, because we so rarely have referenda. We've got a Referendum Act that we could be working under.

One of the questions that I do have: is this going to be a template for transit funding elsewhere in the province? We have a number of transit areas where we need extra funding. Whether going to the local electorate through their mayors and council — will this be the format for transit funding? You know, we'll have the greater Victoria transit commission. Is that going to be the body that's going to be setting a question and so on through the province?

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for North Island, I certainly welcome her participation in this discussion as well.

We are not contemplating the holding of a referendum in any other instance around the province. What we are doing here through this piece of legislation is very simply delivering on a commitment that we made in the last election to hold a referendum on any new funding sources, should the Mayors Council of the Lower Mainland request those new funding sources as part of the expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

We think it's critically important because the Mayors Council is talking about potentially what could be billions and billions of dollars of investment over the next 10 to 20 years. That was the commitment we made. We're following through on that commitment.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. However, there are many millions of dollars spent on transit elsewhere in the province. It seems very strange that this should be working uniquely as the way forward for finding new sources of revenue. I'm intrigued that the minister should be putting so much effort into this and ignoring the rest of the province, if he's trying to get what appears to be a hands-off approach from the ministry on finding new revenue sources and putting it back out to the mayors.

My other question is…. My colleague was talking about the issue of in some ways working against common sense. There may have to be fare increases to pay for extra capital infrastructure. This is something that we've seen, as the minister well knows, on B.C. Ferries a lot — that the users are actually paying for the capital costs.

I'm wondering, to the minister, whether he would be willing to see referenda used for the decision on fare increases for B.C. Ferries also.

Hon. T. Stone: I'll reiterate the response I gave to the last question. We are not contemplating any referendum to be held in any other part of the province.

[1755]

I would point out to the member that there is a very significant differentiating factor here between the TransLink service area and the area serviced by B.C. Transit in other parts of the province.

If the city of Kamloops wants to expand its transit in Kamloops, the only way that Kamloops can do that is by increasing property tax and/or increasing fares. Those are the levers that are available to communities outside of the Lower Mainland to expand transit.

Those same levers exist for TransLink. The Mayors Council has the ability to make adjustments to property tax. They have the ability to make adjustments — or they soon will, anyway, once we conclude Bill 22 and provide them with the governance enhancements related to the farebox. The Mayors Council and TransLink have that ability today.

What we're talking about here and why the commitment was made relating to a referendum is that the Mayors Council of the Lower Mainland has been saying they believe they need funding sources beyond property tax and the farebox. So, looking the taxpayer in the eye, what we said to the taxpayer is: "There will be a referendum. You will have a vote. You will have a say over any new funding sources to fund transit expansion in the Lower Mainland."

The Chair: Member for North Island. Noting the hour, I think we should….

C. Trevena: Yes, I'll leave the minister to note the hour. That's fine. The minister can note the hour.

I think we're leaving section 2 open. We had not passed section 2 yet.

The Chair: So shall section 2…? We'll leave it open? Okay.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:57 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 3118 ]

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until Monday, April 28, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $64,217,000 (continued).

[1340]

N. Simons: I guess we'll just resume where we left off before the break. My question is: when was the core review of the Agricultural Land Commission completed?

Hon. S. Thomson: March 27, 2014, with the announcement of the process for moving forward with the legislation.

N. Simons: Were there any reports written on the core review results?

Hon. S. Thomson: On March 27 what was released was the announcement, a backgrounder around the process to table legislation, the principles that were a result from the review, the documents and the process within core review. As I mentioned previously, cabinet committee and those processes are part of the confidential cabinet process.

N. Simons: When was the Agricultural Land Commission informed of the results of the review?

[1345]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've mentioned earlier, the process of the deputy minister meeting with the commission and senior staff of the commission during the process, discussing the work in the process in terms of a final process…. The commission was advised on a confidential basis prior to the public announcement of the results and the public announcement in terms of the process for tabling the legislation.

N. Simons: Let me get this right. The core review took place with respect to the Agricultural Land Commission, the results of which are a backgrounder that related to a piece of legislation that we're not talking about in this House. Is that correct?

Maybe the minister would like me to clarify my question. What we have is — from my question about where the report is, if there's any report on the results of the Agricultural Land Commission core review — the only report mentioned by the minister is a backgrounder, which is a two-page document or a four-page document, outlining potential changes that the government is contemplating through legislation. Is that the only documentation related to the core review currently in existence?

[1350]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I answered previously, the core review process at cabinet committee…. Documents are part of the cabinet committee confidentiality process. The results of that process are what was communicated publicly, prior to the tabling of the legislation.

Again, I want to seek some guidance here. This is a process here where it's really focused on discussion of the legislation that is before the House, and the House is the appropriate place to debate that legislation. As I made my opening comments or in response to the first question…. I seek the guidance of the Chair about the process of, in this case, discussing legislation that is before the House. The process for estimates is to discuss the budget and budget items of the Ministry of Agriculture and ministry operations, as we read into the motion.

I'm prepared to continue to discuss this. You'll continue to get the response that the core review process was a cabinet committee process. I talked earlier about how that process worked and the results that were communicated coming out of that process. That legislation is in front of the House currently.

N. Simons: I'm asking about the core review. If we are going to make synonymous the core review and changes in legislation, then maybe that needs to be just outright said — that the public process that was involved in the core review resulted in legislative changes. We have no idea where that consultation came from. I'm talking specifically about the core review. I'm asking the minister: did the core review make any recommended changes to the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the core review process undertaken…. As I've said, the documents with respect to the core review process are part of cabinet confidentiality.

Obviously, out of that process came a result — a result
[ Page 3119 ]
that was the indication that legislation would be tabled, which it was. Bill 24, which was tabled, proposes a number of principles: a fully independent tribunal decision-maker, two ALC zones, regions, six regional panels, formalizing the law of local governments, engaging earlier in land use, ALC operations improved through enhanced governance and accountability frameworks.

[1355]

The Chair: Minister, we are….

Hon. S. Thomson: Those are the principles, and that's what the subject of the legislation is. Those are the elements, and that's what's going to be debated on the bill that's currently before the House. Again, we've talked about the process. We've talked about the outcome of the process. The outcome of the process is what will be debated in the Legislature.

N. Simons: I seek guidance from the Chair, if in fact we're talking about legislation. I've restricted my questions to the process of the core review and the results of the core review. I didn't ask that the minister start talking about legislation that comes as a stand-alone piece of legislation tabled in the House from whatever process it emerged.

I'm speaking about a process that preceded the tabling of all the legislation that we've seen this session. I'm just concerned. Maybe it's uncomfortable for the minister because, in fact, the public is clear about the core review and the Agricultural Land Commission being involved in that.

I think the sector is clear that the core review did not involve adequate consultation with respect to the core review. If the minister wants to make the legislation synonymous with the results of the core review, that's his prerogative. I'm speaking about the core review in its entirety as it relates to the Agricultural Land Commission.

My question, again, to the minister: did the core review result in a recommendation to change the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the question that is being asked really is about the legislation. The question is: did the process result in a change of mandate?

The member opposite and I will probably disagree about whether — that will be the subject of the debate — what resulted changes the mandate or doesn't change the mandate. That's not the subject of the debate here.

This is asking about the legislation. Again, I would seek the guidance that this is not the appropriate venue for debate on the results of the process which resulted in the legislation. That debate will take place on the floor of the Legislature.

N. Simons: With due respect, I have admiration for the minister and his history in the sector. But I fundamentally disagree with his characterization of my questions as relating to legislation. It wasn't my fault they decided to make a little trick out of it and put this all into a finance and government services review, nor was it my idea to put it into a core review.

Legislation and the core review and every other aspect of the government's programs have nothing to do with legislation. I'm not talking about legislation. I haven't mentioned it. The minister started talking about zones and panels.

My question is…. In the process of developing a budget for the Ministry of Agriculture, the Agricultural Land Commission was a subject of that. It seems to me that the only investigation of the role of the Agricultural Land Commission was through the core review. So I need to ask about the core review.

I'm not asking about the legislation. Who was consulted for the core review? Who was consulted in the process of the core review for the Agricultural Land Commission? Were the members of the B.C. Ag Council systematically consulted on the core review?

[1400-1405]

Hon. S. Thomson: I've talked about the process, the cabinet committee process with core review.

But I think it's important to point out that, firstly, the minister travelled extensively during the summer, meeting with farm organizations, meeting with farm families across the province, meeting with individual farmers, getting their views. During the process there was communication with key stakeholder groups.

In the process we received many submissions. Again, the process involved the cabinet committee process. It's part of the core review process. The outcome of that process was the announcement and the legislation that has been tabled in the House.

There was a process of communication, again, with key stakeholder groups — discussion with the key stakeholder groups. The industry and commission, as I mentioned earlier, had input during that process.

N. Simons: Can the minister state unequivocally whether or not the B.C. Agriculture Council is in agreement with the results of the core review, as they see them? In other words, as they appear in the legislation, I guess.

Hon. S. Thomson: The members opposite will have seen the response from industry, from the key leaders in the industry, on the tabling of the legislation, saying that they recognize that the independence of the commission has been maintained. They recognize that the core values have been maintained.

They all made very clear in their comments that they understand the need to look at some additional flexibility. Groups have called for that and have talked about that
[ Page 3120 ]
previously — that the legislation…. I’ll have to be careful not to stray into talking about the legislation again. I'm sorry.

The core response from the industry and through the Agriculture Council is the importance of being involved in the regulations, the policy development, that will support the foundation of what were the results of the core review process.

N. Simons: Specifically, does the BCAC support the changes as recommended to the core review?

[1410]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I mentioned, the key member organizations of the Agriculture Council all commented, following the introduction of the legislation, stressing — legitimately stressing — the importance of being involved in the consultation around the development of the regulations, the policies that would support the legislation. We've committed publicly to do that as a result of the process — coming out of the process.

Again, this is asking about specific response to a piece of legislation or a bill that's currently before the House. But again, the chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council…. We look forward to openly engaging with the province as regulations are developed. The B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association supports the core review objectives of modernizing the Agricultural Land Commission and looks forward to the results of consultations that create the details and regulations.

The representative of the Grain Producers Association looks forward to working with the B.C. government and the Agriculture Minister to draft new regulations forming the administrative panels in our regions — all supportive of the direction but supportive of ensuring that there is a process of consultation and engagement in moving forward with this. All of those groups are core and key members of the B.C. Agriculture Council.

N. Simons: I'll ask the minister for a list of who he considers the key members of the B.C. Agriculture Council. They've got some 30-plus members, and maybe the minister can identify which ones are the most important and which ones are the less important ones.

When we're talking about, "Oh, we're going to do regulatory changes after, and we're going to be involved in the consultation later," how are they going to know what those regulations are going to be about if, in fact, they had no input into the legislation that'll define those regulations? I think there's a fundamental….

Something is being hidden here. Something is being convoluted to the point where the public isn't…. At first, they were told that they'd have some input. Then they didn't get a chance for that input, even though the Finance Committee was supposedly responding or accepting it. There's just something that is not right about this, and I think that the people of the province actually recognize that.

The Certified Organic Associations of B.C. — are they supportive of the results of the core review?

[1415]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite is pursuing a line of questioning around industry response to legislation that is currently before the House and will be tabled.

I need to point out that, in my view, there are not more important organizations or less important organizations that are part of the B.C. Agriculture Council. They have a broad-based association membership. They have a board of directors and accountable process, with directors on the council that represent the sectors of the industry — so a broad base of membership narrowed down to directors, based on sectoral representation.

For example, a director representing community agriculture, a director representing berry groups and other associations, a member representing the Interior horticulture organizations. Those are board members that take input from their members, and the board chair takes the advice and direction of the board. So the elected chair of the council, again, pointed out: "We look forward to openly engaging with the province on new regulations as they're developed."

What will be the ongoing process for the council is they will continue to seek the advice and direction of their membership through their process. That process will come up through the ongoing engagement.

Very clearly, we have committed to ensuring that the industry, the Agriculture Council, their member organizations, as they have requested, across the organizations — that they participate in the regulation policy development process that will potentially flow from a process of legislative process of the current bill through the House.

Again, they're looking for a response to a specific legislative initiative that's before the House and would seek advice on whether this approach and line of questioning is consistent with what is to be debated and canvassed through the estimates process.

The Chair: I would just like to remind members that legislation is not a proper subject for the Committee of Supply. Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor the conduct of certain public servants or the decision of a judicial order.

N. Simons: I'm sure the minister feels absolutely chastised by those comments. I hadn't raised the issue of legislation. I'm raising the issue of core review.

I'm sure that other agencies and commissions and ministries have been subject to core review, and those are
[ Page 3121 ]
perfectly open topics in the process of the estimates, and no less opportunity should the critic for Agriculture have to ask questions about the core review. I'm asking about the core review. I've only asked about the core review.

The minister has introduced discussion around legislation, and I don't think it's necessarily an appropriate thing to suggest that I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about the results of a core review. If their only response to that is that they wrote legislation, that's their problem, not my problem. I'm asking about the process of the core review, the consultation process, what agencies were involved in that consultation and if they were pleased with the outcome.

My question to the minister right now is: does the minister know of any concerns raised by the sector since the results of the core review have been made public, and have those concerns been raised recently?

[1420]

Hon. S. Thomson: I've pointed out the responses of the industry to what was the result of the core review process — concerns that we've heard from industry quite clearly. We've committed to ensure that those concerns are addressed. The concerns that have come forward from the industry, as I've pointed out, are a very clear message that they need to and want to be involved in any future consultation process with respect to the land commission regulations and the policies of the commission.

N. Simons: Has the minister heard from members of the agriculture sector in the last couple of days over concerns about what appear to be the only results of this core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: I've talked about the concerns that I've heard from industry around the need to be involved in the consultation process.

[1425]

I think it's also very fair to say that since taking some responsibility here for the ministry and the role as the supporting minister — the backup minister to this process — I've talked to industry as much as I can, given the overall responsibilities. I've heard many areas of concern from the industry, in many areas of agriculture policy.

I continue to engage in discussions around domestic feed-grain supply for the Fraser Valley, issues around animal health, around porcine epidemic in pork and the potential impacts there, and many other issues. That's all part of the ongoing discussion.

I helped launch the minister's advisory committee on behalf of the minister when he brought the leaders of the industry together in a new, broadly based advisory committee to the minister and attended that on his behalf. I helped welcome the industry representatives — a broad range of industry, primary producers, the value chain, food processers, people in the retail industry, academic representation.

It was all part of that advisory committee process, and we had a very good discussion around overall agricultural policy direction in that process. I continue to hear those broad-based agriculture policy concerns from the industry.

Obviously, preserving the important role that the Agricultural Land Commission plays in agriculture policy in British Columbia is part of those discussions. But again, the specific concern — the response of the ministry — is ensuring the ongoing involvement in the consultation process around policy that would support direction coming from the core review process.

N. Simons: Well, I have no doubt about the minister's involvement and attention to many aspects of his ministry and the ministry that he's currently overseeing, and I thank him for his work. I think that's essential. But right now I'm talking about the Agricultural Land Commission.

I need to stay on this subject, because I think it's a fundamental one and one that has an impact on the future of agriculture. I think that the core review is clearly something that will have an impact on the ministry. So my question is: who is on this ministry advisory committee, when does it meet, and what were its recommendations with respect to the core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: I will get the specific membership of the committee here shortly.

[1430]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

As I pointed out, there are about 20 representatives on the committee, including primary producer representatives from a broad range of sectors; representatives from the food-processing industry, including the B.C. Food Processors Association, the Small Scale Food Processor Association, the organic producers association; membership from the retail part of the value chain; academic representation.

There are terms of reference for the committee, which we can provide. As I said, I was able to launch the initial meeting of the committee. I'm not sure of exactly how often it will meet, but it is a very important forum for consultation.

I think the initial plan was that it would meet semi-annually at least, but there was also a recognition from the committee during that first meeting that at its initial start, in order to provide good, ongoing information and to get the process underway, they would need to meet more regularly than that to start. It was a very engaging, useful process.

I, unfortunately, was not able to be there with them the whole day because of a couple of other commitments, but
[ Page 3122 ]
I managed to participate in a lot of the discussion at the committee level. I think it will be an excellent forum for ongoing overall agricultural policy advice to the minister.

We can provide the specific membership list as soon as it's received.

N. Simons: I would just want to add a little suggestion. There are a number of MLAs who aren't represented in the government caucus who may or may not have some interest in agriculture. I can't help but suggest that maybe there is a place for a committee to be representative in a non-partisan way around issues around agriculture because, quite frankly, our food security and the future of the agriculture industry is something that we're all concerned about.

I'm just curious. When was this committee established? Did it have any input into the core review? How is it different fundamentally? Is it a parallel committee to the BCAC? Does it have a significantly different mandate? What's the nature of this committee, and who's on it?

Hon. S. Thomson: The committee was established, appointed — populated, I guess, is the better word for it in terms of the representation — in late December. Due to the minister's circumstances it didn't initially meet until…. The date was mid-March when the committee first met.

As soon as I have the list I'll be able to advise you of the broad representation that's on the committee. Again, it is not meant to replace or do away with the important input that comes from producer organizations and their structure of organizations within the industry. This was a process to bring together broad, cross–value chain representation to provide strategic direction to the minister.

[1435]

I think the member opposite may be aware that there were a number of specific advisory committees in place: the minister's advisory committee on trade, the minister's advisory Ranching Task Force, the minister's advisory committee on competitiveness. This approach was for the ministers to bring those processes together in a broader strategic committee — again, as I said, one that I think is going to prove very valuable and helpful.

It's not meant to replace or be contrary to the role of and important advice we receive from specific organizations that are in place. They represent the interests of their membership, whether that's the B.C. Agriculture Council or the B.C. Food Processers Association or others that bring their specific interests forward. This was one that brought all of those interests together into one forum.

N. Simons: Is it fair to say, to recap, that the result of the core review into the Agricultural Land Commission resulted in nothing but the one public document available to the people of the province? That's it? With all the advisory committees and all the different sectors within the BCAC, the only….

Where are the other recommendations? Did they only go to cabinet? Did anyone in the public know about what the government was contemplating? Or was it just a cabinet secret little plan that resulted in what the minister has characterized as the only result of the core review?

Was the Finance Committee input considered? Was that the only consideration that the public had in terms of the results of the core review? Am I hearing that correctly? And does the minister think that's a good way to make policy?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I respond to the question, I do have the information on the minister's ag advisory committee. Maybe we'd just like to read that into the record, because I've made the comments that this was a broadly based committee. I think that when you look at the representation there — knowing the industry and the key associations and leadership within the industry — you'll agree that it meets that purpose.

[1440]

The committee is chaired by the minister and the deputy minister. It includes retail — Gary Sorenson, who's the executive VP and CEO of H.Y. Louie; Dave Eto from the B.C. Food Processors Association and B.C. Dairy Association; Candice Appleby, executive director of the Small Scale Food Processor Association.

Rhonda Driediger, the chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council; Dennis Lapierre, who is the community agriculture and organic representative and also a director of the B.C. Agriculture Council; Jen Gamble, who is with the Certified Organic Associations of B.C.; Heather Pritchard, manager of farm programs for FarmFolk CityFolk.

Fred Steele, president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association; Marcus Janzen, with Calais Farms, who is a pork and greenhouse and berries producer; Mike Makara, chairman of Berryhill Foods and blueberries; Josie Tyabji with the B.C. Wine Institute.

Tom Syer with the B.C. Business Council.

Kevin Boon, general manager of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association; Garnet Etsell, poultry industry, owner of Coligny Hill Farms; Chris Sporer, executive director of the Seafood Producers Association of B.C.; Bill Vernon, owner of Nelson Island Sea Farms, aquaculture.

Irmi Critcher, with the B.C. Grain Producers Association.

Yves Potvin, the founder and CEO of Gardein Protein, for food processing.

David Dobernigg, who is the owner of BX Press Cidery and Farm, with the apple and cider industry; Kyle Botkin, the owner of the Botkin Farms; the cranberry sector.

The regional director for Agriculture and Agriculture-Food Canada, Sharan Evani, the acting deputy director for the B.C. regional office.
[ Page 3123 ]

Dr. Richard Barichello, who is a professor of food and resource economics, land and food systems, at UBC; and Dr. Eric Davis, who's the provost and vice-president, academic, at the University of the Fraser Valley.

That is the membership of the minister's agriculture advisory committee. I won't read it out, but we're prepared to table, with the member opposite, the agrifood advisory committee terms of reference. We'll provide that to him as a follow-up.

Back to the core review process and the output. That is a cabinet committee process. The documents and information considered by the committee are part of that cabinet confidentiality process.

What's important to recognize is that as they go through that process, they consider…. A wide range of information is provided — previous reports that were done, like the Auditor General's report, the previous Agricultural Land Commission review report, information, submissions that were provided.

All of that process is part of that cabinet process, and the outcome of that process is what was announced with the public announcement of the intent to bring forward and table the legislation that is currently before the House.

N. Simons: In fact, I would be interested to know if the minister was surprised when the Minister Responsible for Core Review said that the Finance Committee was the place for the public to have input in the core review. If the information provided during the Finance Committee meetings was in fact part of the cabinet decision-making….

Maybe the minister can answer that. Was the input from the Finance Committee considered as relevant in terms of cabinet decisions around the core review?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I indicated, the process of core review, a cabinet committee…. Documents and information that were considered by the committee as part of their process are part of cabinet confidentiality records, as I indicated. The committee considered information that was available.

I think, again, the more appropriate place to direct the questions around the process and what was considered would be the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

The Chair: Member, I just remind you that the debate of anything with respect to legislation and policies is not for this venue.

N. Simons: I had heard rumour that I wasn't supposed to bring up legislation. I think I'm adhering fairly closely to that message from the Chair, so I appreciate that.

My question to the minister: do the results of the core review in fact recognize that the majority of prime agricultural land is situated in the Interior, the Kootenay and the north regions?

Hon. S. Thomson: The results of the core review process did not change at all the current process around classification of farmland — the way that farmland is classified in terms of the principles or the criteria that go into determining the classification of farmland.

[1450]

The member opposite will know that in my career with the industry, I've travelled all parts of the province. I know the range of land and quality uses of land throughout the whole province and the importance of the agriculture land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission in the province.

They'll know that I'm a strong defender of the principles of the reserve and the work of the commission. Again, the core review process did not change at all the classification of farmland.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for his candour, his comments and his personal views. I would ask the minister: does he believe that the results of the core review are actually in the best interests of the future of farming?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I know the member opposite is making the assertions that I opened the door and I'm the one that is talking about legislation. I think the result of the core review process was the legislation, so again, the process for debate of the results of the core review process will be on the floor of the Legislature. The purpose was to meet the mandate in the mandate letter that the minister received. I believe the outcome maintains and protects the core principles of the land commission, which I support.

N. Simons: Let's talk about boundary reviews. Does the minister believe that the boundary reviews currently being undertaken are of value? And are they meeting the mandate of the ALC?

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, the targeted boundary review process was something that was recommended from the 2010 ALC chair review. It's why additional funding and support were provided to the land commission. It's a targeted review to ensure that land that's capable and suitable for agriculture is reviewed, and boundary adjustments undertaken if the review warrants that.

They're based on scientific and technical information conducted in an open and transparent manner. They've engaged local governments, agricultural organizations, other stakeholder groups and the general public. The first area of review in the East Kootenay is complete. In 2014 the ALC plans to initiate other reviews that will support
[ Page 3124 ]
targeted boundary reviews in the Cariboo, Interior and northwest.

V. Huntington: I appreciate the opportunity to stand briefly. There's never enough time for the estimates, and I don't even know if I'll get three of my questions in, let alone all of them.

As the minister knows, there are four regulated municipalities or cities: Delta, township of Langley, Abbotsford and Kelowna. I think that the mayors of all four of those communities have indicated their intent, in the absence of ministry guidelines on medical marijuana production, to present the ministry with bylaws for approval.

Delta has now given third reading to a bylaw that would prohibit medical marijuana production facilities and medical marijuana research and development facilities in all zones within Delta. Obviously, that would require the approval of the ministry because that includes the agricultural land reserve. Could the minister tell me what the status of that bylaw application to the ministry is at this moment?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the member for her question. She is correct in advising that those four communities have made requests to the minister. The minister is statutory decision-maker in this circumstance. What I can advise the member is that the requests are under active consideration. Decisions have not been made, but they're under active consideration.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Minister. Perhaps as you answer the next question, you could give me some idea of when the ministry might be able to provide the corporation of Delta with an answer.

Similarly, Delta is the first jurisdiction that the ministry has given noise bylaw approval to on your edge-planning initiative to move blueberry cannons from 200 to 300 feet back. Delta has just approved a new noise bylaw that would enable Delta's bylaw officers to respond to complaints about the timing and the location of blueberry cannons. They've been in some consultation with the ministry for quite a while on this. Again, I'm wondering if the ministry has received this bylaw as yet and what its status might be.

Hon. S. Thomson: In response to the first question, just to advise the member opposite that when I made reference to active consideration…. I think, hopefully, she can read into that it means soon. I understand the need to provide those local governments and other local governments with clarity around the policy and their requests. It's an important area. There are changing federal situations with respect to all this, so that's part of what's under consideration — but soon.

In respect of the other bylaw she referenced, I will need to apologize. I don't have it. It hasn't come up to me yet or to my office. I'm advised that we're not sure we've had a formal request yet. There may be discussions staff to staff. I'm not sure. Probably I'm even confusing the question.

I think the better response is to say thank you for the question, and I'll undertake to find out exactly where that sits in the process. It's not one that I'm aware of yet, and I will get back to the member opposite directly.

V. Huntington: Sorry, maybe my information that the bylaw has been approved and forwarded has beaten the actually forwarding of the bylaw. I recognize…. I should have given the minister advance notice of these, because I realize these are very narrow questions. There is no time to go into all the questions that I would dearly love to go into with you. However, just one last one, then.

In 2013 the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative released reports on three regional areas — climate change adaptation strategies for agriculture in Delta, the Peace and the Cowichan Valley. The Delta report recommended strategies around flood impact mitigations; a cost and benefit study on water storage on non-ALR land; tools for managing salinity; stormwater and drainage issues across the agriculture land base; and farm-level emergency plans, especially in Delta.

[1505]

The report also suggested that the Agriculture Ministry was a potential partner and lead agency on conducting all of these reviews and programs. I wondered if you could perhaps discuss the status of the work that the ministry has undertaken and whether you have started work with Delta or any of the other regional areas on this work.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for her question. Again, this is a file that I have some knowledge but not full knowledge of where everything is on it. Just to confirm, the ministry is working closely with the industry to support the adaptation.

The ministry is providing funding to implement the regional agriculture adaption strategies for Cowichan, Delta and the Peace. The ministry has also funded research on farming practices that have the potential to reduce producer risk and increase producer resilience. In 2014-15 there will be funding for a program to pilot those practices on B.C. farms.

The programming is undertaken in partnership with industry and is funded under the federal-provincial Growing Forward 2 initiative. I'm advised that that funding in total is about $4.2 million and approximately $1 million in '14-15.

In terms of the specifics for the initiatives in Delta, that's follow-up information that we can provide. But just to confirm, funding will be available to give life to the plans and the work that was done jointly between the ministry and Delta. We can certainly provide more detail around the specifics of the funding, but I'm pleased to
[ Page 3125 ]
note that there will be funding provided to support that work in the '14-15 budget of the ministry.

V. Huntington: I just want to thank the minister and hope that he realizes that I would love to ask him a lot more questions.

Thank you very much to my colleague.

N. Simons: I just want to, for the record, point out that the minister claims that the B.C. Cattlemen's Association is supportive of the results of the core review, as we're euphemistically calling it now.

[1510]

Just to look at some of their documents, one of their recommendations was that the Agricultural Land Commission should adhere to their mandate to preserve agricultural land and encourage and enable farm businesses throughout B.C. — annually review delegation of authority, periodically review improved governance, ensure uniformity between regions. As well, it speaks to the experience of the chair and the folks on the commission.

Would the minister be able to categorically say that members of these organizations that he quotes have had an opportunity, in fact, to discuss the proposed results of the core review with their parent organizations? And do you think that adequate consultation with the membership of these groups has been allowed to take place?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated previously during the process, discussion with the key stakeholder organizations…. The process…. The key response from industry has been to ensure that there is consultation on the regulations, the policy, that come out of the results of the core review process. That's been communicated clearly by the associations. It's been communicated clearly by the Cattlemen's Association to me.

We have committed publicly and I have committed publicly that that process will clearly take place. The response of industry has been that they look forward to that process.

A number of the points that the member opposite made are parts of what is ongoing work of the commission, coming out of the other recommendations and work from previous reports. Cattlemen's is an important organization representing a broad range of membership across the province and regularly provides comment and advice on land policy, agricultural land reserve policy. It has, again, clearly communicated the need for an ongoing consultation process on the policy and recommendations that flow from the core review process.

N. Simons: It's interesting. What's at issue here is the fact that the core review was a very exclusive and secretive process, one that was basically pulled by one member of cabinet because of his own prejudices and preconceived notions about what agricultural land protection means.

[1515]

Just 21 days before the results of the core review were pulled out of a hat, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, in an update, in a message, said this:

"The timing of this message from the chair reflects my awareness that a government review process continues to consider the future direction of the agricultural land reserve system. While the nature, timing and outcome of those deliberations is not known, I want to provide whatever assistance I can to facilitate the development and discussion of public policy based on an up-to-date picture of the work in progress of the ALC in achieving its legislative mandate and strategic objectives."

Was the chair given an opportunity to provide input into the core review of the Agricultural Land Commission, and if so, how was his input received?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I commented previously, the minister initially and the senior staff of the ministry engaged with the commission. The commission's advice was provided, was inputted and was considered in the process. The reports that the member refers to by the chair are reports that communicate — and I think they're good reports — what the commission is doing, the important work they're doing and they're undertaking and provide valuable information for local governments, for the public and for the ministry.

[1520]

Again, the process of the input that was provided, the core review process, cabinet committee considers all the input received, and the outcome of that process is the announcement and the indicated direction with the tabling of the legislation.

N. Simons: Does the minister know whether the Agricultural Land Commission agrees with the proposed changes resulting from the core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: The commission has not provided a formal response. What the commission understands is that…. The process is that there was review. There was legislation tabled. The government sets the legislative framework under which the commission operates. They understand their mandate and role. But they have not communicated a formal position in response and have also, along with farm organizations and others, recognized the important role of consultation in development of the regulations and policy. We've committed to commission local government and farm organizations in that process.

N. Simons: Let me just touch on the issue around regulations. It sounds to me like the minister has had to explain to some of these sectors: "Don't worry. The results of the Agricultural Land Commission core review made a number of changes, but don't worry. We'll get to you after. We'll get to you once you realize what those chan-
[ Page 3126 ]
ges are. We'll figure out the regulations."

It's a situation where they're not being asked what they like on the menu, but they're asked if they'd like two or three forks. It's irrelevant to how they're going to have their interests met. It's irrelevant. I think it might be a little bit of a carrot, but setting regulations after a legislative mandate changes seems to me a little bit backwards.

[1525]

I highly doubt that the large and diverse agricultural sector in this province is going to be satisfied with a few crumbs after the loaf of bread is gone. I think that's fundamentally at issue here — that the Agricultural Land Commission core review resulted in what the minister just referred to as a change in the legislative framework.

I don't know anywhere in the core review mandate where fundamental legislative changes were going to be contemplated as the result of a core review. But it's this minister who's talking about that as the only outcome of the review of the Agricultural Land Commission. Does the minister recognize that many people see the changes that he's recommending as an effort to, in fact, neuter the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. S. Thomson: I guess the member opposite and I are going to fundamentally disagree here. The member opposite knows my background in the industry, my commitment to farmers and farm organizations in this province, knows my commitment to and history of the core principles of the agricultural land reserve in the province.

The results of the process are not designed to reduce independence, to reduce the critical role of the chair, the commissioners, people that are appointed to responsible positions to undertake the fiduciary responsibilities of the act and its mandate — one that is supported by professional staff who do a great job in supporting the organization. The process around the regulatory approach coming out of the core review process is one that is consistent with many approaches to legislation where legislation sets the framework.

A commitment is to develop the regulations. The regulations come through the public process, through order-in-council. I think, clearly, we have said that the industry, the commission, local governments — which all play critical and important roles in this — will be fully consulted in the regulatory development process. Those regulations will be developed with their support and agreement. This is not a process of a predetermined structure around what those regulations will be.

[1530]

The industry has asked and we have committed that we will undertake the consultation around those, around any amendments, just as we do currently when the commission considers regulatory changes and policy changes with respect to on-farm permitted uses on agricultural land, policies around things like homesite severance and the policy there. Those are regulatory policy processes that are developed in consultation with industry, with local government, and that remains the case.

N. Simons: The minister began his comments in response to that last question with his reiteration of his support for farmland, for the history of the agricultural land reserve and its importance. It must strike him as, at the very least, problematic that a minister who has been openly hostile to the Agricultural Land Commission for many years was allowed to go in and essentially elbow his way around and come up with what is, in effect, recommendations from the core review, which I can't discuss, which essentially do everything to undermine what the minister just said he held in high esteem.

I don't understand how that can be reconciled. I sincerely hope that that's understood, that in fact the recommendations of the core review are going to be fundamentally contrary to those values that the minister just reiterated his support for, his commitment to farmers and to the principles of the ALR — that those are important. Those are fundamentally important.

How would the minister explain, in fact, that 100 scientists today and a dozen soil scientists earlier this week all vociferously point out that the fundamental principles that the minister holds in high esteem are at considerable risk?

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Again, the member opposite and I are going to fundamentally disagree here. That is the debate that will take place on the floor of the Legislature in terms of the bill.

Again, the process. The fundamental core independence, the core principles of the commission, the changes resulting in increased opportunities for farmers to earn a living, to continue farming on their land — all part of the public release — recognizing regional differences to support farming families, improving land use planning in coordination with local government and modernizing their operations….

All of those are looking to strengthen the commission and are not designed to fundamentally, at all, reduce the core, fundamental principles of the commission, the independent nature of the commission and the important role of the chair and commissioners in the process who are appointed to those responsible positions and are required and responsible to manage the commission under the fiduciary responsibility of the core principles of the legislation.

[1535]

The Chair: Member.
[ Page 3127 ]

N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the chair.

My question is: does the minister believe that the Agricultural Land Commission has, over the last two years, been conducting its work in accordance with its legislative mandate?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I believe they have, as they always have.

N. Simons: If, in fact, the commission has been acting in accordance with its legislative mandate and the core review is an attempt to find efficiencies, yet the Agricultural Land Commission core review has resulted in some significant recommendations that are not legislation now, how can that be squared?

If it's been working, if it's been doing what the legislative mandate is, then what process gave the Minister Responsible for Core Review to change its legislative mandate…? Where in the core review list of expectations is there a full-scale change of its legislative mandate? It's nowhere. I see that as fundamentally just incongruous.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite and I have, and continue to have, the fundamental disagreement that the outcome puts at risk the mandate or the core work of the commission. This core review process was a broad process. It was not restricted in any respect to say it can't be about this or it can't be about that.

It was about confirming the structure and role of government, ensuring that government was structured for success, looking at delivery models, governance overlap, answering the fundamental question of who is in the best position to deliver which programs and services and how and to make sure it was done in the most effective way.

[1540]

It was about ensuring that we had a solid modern process of going forward. It did not say that it couldn't deal with proposals around whether legislation would help support those objectives.

Again, clearly, coming out of the process were the core principles around increasing opportunities for farmers; recognizing the regional differences; improving land use planning and coordination — another key aspect, something that we've had very positive response from local government on; and modernizing their operations. They're all recommendations that came forward from the process, where the legislative recommendations coming out are part of ensuring that we meet those objectives and meet the objectives of the mandate letter that was provided to the minister.

N. Simons: The chair of the Agricultural Land Commission…. I asked about whether or not the commission provided input into the core review and the findings of the core review. I would like to just ask that again on the record. Was the chair's opinion sought? Was the chair's opinion given? Was the chair's opinion considered? Was the chair's opinion reflected in the recommendations of the core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again for the record, I'll respond as I did previously. During the process there was discussion with the chair at the beginning with the minister. There were discussions during the process with the senior staff of the ministry. The chair's input was provided, sought and considered.

N. Simons: When was the chair's opinion sought? And when was the chair's opinion provided?

[1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that that was late summer and late in 2013, in December, and subsequently further discussion in the final stages of the process.

N. Simons: Is it fair to say that the chair has been kept apprised of changes as they were being considered throughout the process?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've indicated, the process involved discussion with the chair, involved follow-up discussion with the commission — kept apprised of considerations during the process. Again, the cabinet committee core review and all of the process around consideration of reports, documents, information is part of that cabinet confidentiality and review process. But as I've said, the commission was kept apprised of the process and communication and engagement with the chair and the senior staff at the commission in the process.

N. Simons: I just want to refer back to previous work that's been done when addressing issues affecting agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission. I recognize that the minister here today was, in fact, the minister responsible for agriculture in 2010.

He provided direction to the Agricultural Land Commission to do a number of things. Subsequent to that, the commission itself undertook a number of strategic directions that would increase their efficiency. I think those at the time were seen as very positive and important steps to address some issues that needed to be addressed to make sure that the ALC was meeting its mandate while looking to improve the ways it makes decisions. That was 2010.

[1550]

The results of the minister-directed review were a number of changes that, just looking at the government's response, they were in agreement with — very recently. Very recently there was a slight increase in the budget in order to undertake some of these changes.

In fact, the subsequent minister said that the ALC chair
[ Page 3128 ]
was doing a phenomenal job and that everybody seemed to be happy with the way the commission was working. It had undertaken some strategic initiatives to prioritize applications and to streamline and to digitize their information. That was a significant update in terms of how the chair and how the commission itself operated.

This is what leads the people of the province to suspect that there's an ulterior motive in including the commission in its core review. Quite frankly, I agree with the cynicism and suspicion, and not just because I'm a member of the opposition but because I've looked at some of those studies and at the long-term goals. For a while, government members were in total agreement with me. Surprise.

Now I find it strange that a secret process protected by cabinet secrecy, contrary to best practices in policy development, has come up with recommendations that really, unequivocally — and without any doubt among people who read the legislation and who analyze the legislation, not to mention the scientists who take issue with it — will in fact take a whack at the independence of the commission and not turn it into a provincial land resource that we've set aside for future generations.

Does the minister not…? How does the minister explain why the commission needed to be reviewed a third time after being reviewed twice in the previous three years? That in itself seems like an inefficiency, and if the government wanted to save money, they probably could have gone that way.

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the member opposite's comments around the previous important work that was done to ensure the continued important role of the commission. I recognize and appreciate his comments around the fact that I initiated that process. I also need to recognize that while I started that process, there were other ministers who helped ensure that that work was brought forward with increased funding and support for the commission and some other changes.

[1555]

What the situation now…. The mandate that was provided to the minister was to continue to look at meeting that mandate of ensuring it's delivering on its promised steps: the improvements promised from the increased budget; that it's working for British Columbia; that it's achieving that balance of protecting valuable farmland and allowing responsible economic development opportunities; bringing forward changes that would encourage stability of farm families and the farming industry.

The process, the review, focused on ensuring that we continue meeting those mandates to provide the continued core work, supporting the core work of the Agricultural Land Commission and maintaining the independent role of the commission.

Again, the member opposite and I are going to fundamentally disagree here on his assertion that the steps taken undermine the role of the commission, remove the independence of the commission or the chair in any way. These are changes that were designed to increase opportunities, to strengthen the commission, to recognize regional differences, to provide opportunities for farmers and farm families, to support their farm operations in ways that are consistent with agricultural land preservation and with supporting farm families and their farm operations. The land commission and its appointed chair and commissioners maintain the decision-making process, the independent nature. They are the decision-makers.

We have committed to ensure that we have the consultation process around developing the regulations, the policy approaches and the land commission orders that would meet their core legislative mandate.

N. Simons: Can the minister describe the Agricultural Land Commission's experience with the panel system, whether or not there were problems with that and whether or not the Minister Responsible for Core Review understood the issues around panels in the past?

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: The panel structure has been in place for many years and has operated with the full panel process, sometimes without a full panel process. I think it's probably fair to say that the panel structure had some inconsistency in terms of its operation over the years since the panel process was put in place.

Much of that probably was as a result of fiscal pressures within the commission in terms of the panel process with the approved funding and strengthening. I believe that the panel process operating under the mandate and the role and the responsibilities can be an effective process, and it's been in place since 2002.

When I worked in the industry, it had evolved from the industry side of it in providing recommendations for panel participation members. We viewed the panel process as being fully operational and being effective.

N. Simons: Does the minister believe that the area or the regional panels result in better decision-making?

Hon. S. Thomson: Going back to the rationale for the panel process when it was brought in, yes, it viewed that having regional panels with members who understand the communities, the regions, the industry in the regional structure of the commission, the zones structure of the commission, the six panels…. Yes, I believe that having that local input, local knowledge, with representation panel members who are committed to the principles of the commission, understand their fiduciary responsibilities in terms of the mandate…. Yes, I believe it results in good decision-making.

I wonder if I could ask for a short recess.
[ Page 3129 ]

The Chair: Sure. We'll have a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

N. Simons: I found the minister's response to the last question about the effectiveness or efficiency of the regional panels a little surprising. Maybe not, because there's a defence of the results of the core review, and I understand the minister's role in that.

The chair of the Agricultural Land Commission in a 2010 report listed some of the concerns around the panels and recommended against them, in fact.

He said at issue were certain things like "the decision-making is too close to local government and people affected by the decisions." I think that's understandable by most people. There's a "lack of provincial focus to the agricultural land reserve program." We have seen this. A principle of the land reserve is that it's a provincial resource for the people of the province.

It does not provide the "breadth of experience, knowledge or opinion needed to examine the host of issues that need to be considered and debated."

The fourth reason why panels are not a good idea is the "increased potential for commissioners to be placed in situations of an apprehension of bias or potential conflict of interest." In my experience, it's never comfortable for the person or the people who are affected by the decisions.

Number 5. The "recruitment is often difficult, and some important agricultural areas are not represented." As much as we think that having regional panels means that regions are going to be represented, if you just look at the Island panel and if you look at various other places, there are small pockets of geography that may have nothing to do with the people who represent them on the panel. I can think just of the Sunshine Coast, as an example.

The commission is "unwieldy," just in its number. They function more as "permitting agencies rather than as an administrative tribunal." That, I think, is what we need to guard against: considering the land reserve, instead of a reserve, as a land bank. That's a fundamental principle that I'm sure that the minister would speak eloquently about.

The "inconsistent approach to considering applications and administering the Agricultural Land Commission Act and provincial policy." That is certainly a big issue. If one area next to another sees inconsistency in the application of the act, I can only anticipate…. It doesn't take a great imagination to do it, even if I may have one. It anticipates the possible concern around inequality.

"Personal biases can prevail" when there's such a small decision-making body. That's self-explanatory. I think that's something that really needs to be guarded against when we're talking about a resource for future generations.

The chair "lacks the statutory authority to intervene on a matter before a panel." Fundamentally, I think we've got a booby-trap kind of system. I wonder if it's intentional.

Another concern about the regional panels is the considerable staff resources. This is interesting because, ostensibly, the core review was seen and touted as an effort to save the people money and to be more efficient. This is just contrary to that on the face of it. "Considerable staff resources are needed to administer panels rather than more thorough in-depth review of applications and issues."

Finally, they are "costly to operate."

[1615]

Why wouldn't the considered opinion, even if it wasn't sought specifically in the core review, of somebody who would be considered by most people in the agricultural sector as a straightforward-talking, honest chair of the Agricultural Land Commission…? Why wouldn't the opinion of Richard Bullock be considered when coming up with recommendations for the Agricultural Land Commission core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite has pointed out the views of the chair around some of the challenges with respect to the panel process. I think this could be a good policy debate, and it will be, I'm sure, as part of the debate in the House. But in the view…. Having the well-structured regional panels making the decisions in the regions, with people who understand the needs of the communities and the industry and the nature of the area they represent is…. In fact, it was put in place in 2002 or 2003, when the regional approach was put in place. As I said, it had operated somewhat inconsistently over the years.

[1620]

Part of the effectiveness approach is to ensure that those panels are established, fully in place. The concerns the member opposite raised about the chair — that was part of the legislative fix previously in terms of providing the chair the authority so that if any of the decision-making processes out of the panel process are inconsistent with the objectives and the mandate of the commission, those decisions can be pulled forward to the executive — that's the current structure now — and can be reviewed, varied, amended in the process.

That was a change that was made previously. It provided that role for the chair. That was recognized as one of the gaps.

The member opposite said that there are regions…. People feel, in that panel process, that there are important regions that may not feel represented in that process. I think you can extrapolate that argument even further. If you say it's provincial in nature, there will be many regions that feel they may not be represented.
[ Page 3130 ]

Bringing the panels into the regions, ensuring that you have people on the panels that are part of that regional zone within the panel process of the commission, brings those decisions into that region, made by people in that region. I think it can be effective.

It does require ensuring that the process of appointing of commissioners will be a key part of it. It's also one of the points that industry has raised: to make sure that when we are appointing commissioners to the commission, in whatever role, that they have an important role in determining who those commissioner representatives are, whether it's in a vice-chair or a commissioner position.

N. Simons: I'm not sure I heard that correctly. Did the minister say that there were industry representatives who wanted to make sure that they had a say in who was selected as chair or vice-chair?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm what I said. I've said this consistently when I worked for the industry, and I'll say it again consistently now, and I said that publicly when the core review process was announced. The industry, I know from four organizations, has and wants to have input and recommendations into who are those representatives that would take those important positions.

It always has been the case and still is the case that those appointments are order-in-council appointments. What the industry has said is to make sure that when those are being considered that they have advice and information and important recommendations to make in the process. That is something I committed to in the process and something that has been, I think, good practice.

N. Simons: How long is the current chair's term, and when does it expire?

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that the current term expires November 2015.

N. Simons: Can the minister let us know who, specifically, in industry reiterated the point that they wanted to have a say in who the commissioners were?

Hon. S. Thomson: This has been a general request. I can certainly…. B.C. Agricultural Council and other organizations have indicated that. That's been the case in the past. Again, what the industry is asking for is the opportunity to provide recommendations and advice. They recognize that decisions are under our order-in-council appointments.

Through the board resourcing process, when there are vacancies, they're posted publicly. It's about creating awareness of those positions. I made a number of commitments in public around consultation, in terms of the regulatory process, and indicated to the agriculture organizations that having their advice and suggestions around potentially good candidates for commissioner positions would be valued and considered.

N. Simons: Who in industry has recommended that Carmen Purdy be a commissioner? Or was it a recommendation of the minister?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, I'm not aware…. While this process is before the Legislature, there is not an appointment process underway.

[1630]

There have been vacancies in the panels. Notifications of those vacancies — people may have applied and indicated their interest, but there is not a current appointment process underway.

N. Simons: I have a bit of an issue with the regional panel. I don't know if the minister is sort of skirting that issue or if he recognizes it and doesn't want to talk about it. Essentially, when you have the opportunity to be picking and choosing who is on a panel, when you're well known for being critical of the preservation of farmland and you're responsible for choosing panel members, there seems to be, in my mind, an obvious conflict.

The opportunity for a minister to stack a panel or for the panel to be made up of specific interest groups…. I think it just opens it up for potential abuse. I'm not just saying that it's going to happen. I would never characterize any minister of planning that ahead of time. But that is what happens in situations like this when independent panels are chosen. There's got to be some transparency into how they're chosen.

Fundamentally, when I read out the long list of reasons why local panels are not healthy for communities, that's what I was talking about. It's about the fact that, in reality, people are under extreme pressure at the local level. They see the issues.

It contradicts the central principle that the land commission and the reserve is a provincial resource. Why would a particular industry representative or a particular local government person be more appropriate or be chosen in one area and then other, different people chosen in other areas?

Does the minister agree with me that the potential is there, under a regional panel system, for losing the faith of the public that the best interests of them and their future generations might be compromised by the ability of elected officials to stack the deck, as it were?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, I don't agree with the member opposite. I recognize some of the challenges that the member opposite raised and pointed out.

[1635]

I think the important step in the process to recognize is that the process is run through the board resourcing office. It's a merit-based process, one that is transparent and consistent, where the qualifications and responsibilities are set out in that process. I've commented publicly about the important role that industry needs to play in the process in terms of providing the process with advice and recommendations of individuals that they feel would be worthy candidates and advising those people when the opportunities arise to be able to make application to the process.

The legislation sets out the conditions, the overall requirements of the individuals — must be knowledgable on matters relating to agriculture, land use planning, local government or First Nation government. It sets out the overall general qualifications. Then the process is a merit-based process.

As I pointed out earlier, the request from industry, from agriculture associations, is to be able to ensure that as they can see some opportunities come forward, they can provide that important role in suggesting candidates who they feel would make responsible and good commissioners in the process.

N. Simons: Well, I guess I don't mind if this is going to be characterized as a difference of opinion. I think it's a difference of policy right now and a difference of ideology, maybe.

The people that are going to be appointing commissioners are people who says things like: "People who are sitting on a piece of land that's covered by rocks and trees, land that never should have been inside the agricultural land reserve boundaries in the first place, are constantly being turned down when they want to use their own private land — land that they purchased — for purposes of maybe a small subdivision, or maybe they want to put a small campground on it, and they've been flummoxed by the land commission for years." That's the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

Another quote: "If the land doesn't produce food, if there's no topsoil on the land, it can be put to better use. I don't think that we should keep ranchers, for example, in poverty just because of a principle that has no basis in reality." That's the Minister Responsible for Core Review. Then, basically denigrating anybody who's interested in local food: "I get a kick out of the 100-mile diet, except that where I live, you'd have to eat hay."

Despite the fact that he's fundamentally wrong, this is the kind of character who could, in fact, with the stroke of a pen, be responsible for the selection of people who may, based on merit…. They may have a degree, or they may have some experience in the sector. That would qualify them as being people who are going to administer, in an independent and fair-minded way, applications from their neighbours.

I can't believe, actually, that the minister really believes that this is not contrary to the fundamental principle of a provincial agricultural land reserve. It stretches the bounds of credulity, and I think that the minister recognizes that too. The idea that we'll be able to preserve the equality of the application of the Agricultural Land Commission Act when we have people who have opinions, prejudices, that exist….

Some of these quotes are very recent, but some of them go back to 2007. This is what informs the decision-maker. That's troubling to me, because we're talking about a resource that isn't supposed to be for him, and it isn't supposed to be for today. It's supposed to be for future generations.

I'm just wondering how the minister can say to the people of the province that the system, the supposedly merit-based system, isn't going to be fundamentally impacted by the people who are putting forward the names for these commissions.

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to reconfirm, the process is a merit-based review for applicants and people who would be considered through the board-resourcing process. As I've indicated, the important commitment that industry would have a role in terms of providing advice and recommendations — it's important to recognize that the decisions are not decisions of an individual minister. They are decisions of cabinet broadly. The Minister of Agriculture is the one who brings recommendations forward.

If you've looked at the legislation — current legislation, just to be clear — you will know that the chair and vice-chair are order-in-council appointments. The commissioners are ministerial appointments. But the process has been, given the importance of these positions, that the orders on the ministerial order approach for the appointment of commissioners are also vetted by full cabinet.

It is not an individual minister of any nature making the decision. It is a Minister of Agriculture's responsibility to allow the merit-based process to work and to bring recommendations forward to cabinet in a merit-based, transparent process through the board resourcing office.

N. Simons: Just to be clear that it's not just the minister who makes comments that indicate a strong bias against farmers in the north, this is a quote from the Chilliwack-Hope MLA: "In the north farmers are less prosperous because the growing season's shorter and land is not always high in quality. This means farms in the north are less viable. In the long term this is a recipe for decline, but that's not where our government's interested."

L. Throness: Right on.

N. Simons: "Our government is not interested in managing decline." This is the statement about farms in the
[ Page 3132 ]
north. It shows an incredible ignorance, actually.

Besides the fact that it's insulting to the farmers and the ranchers of the north, I think this is an indication of the type of potential decision-makers who are appointing board members. The "right on" that we heard in this room seems to indicate that's not something that he's necessarily embarrassed about, which adds to my concern.

The conflict-of-interest disclosure of these potential commissioners — do they have to sign conflict-of-interest disclosure forms? What if, in fact, they fail to disclose all conflicts? What would the ramifications of that be?

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: The process through board resourcing includes the standards of ethical conduct for directors of public sector organizations, including compliance with the law, conflicts of interest. That process is managed by BRDO, just as it is for all other public sector organizations and appointments. Internally, the commission also has its own governance and guidelines for managing conflict within their own operations.

N. Simons: Can the minister clarify if that's the same process applied to all the other boards?

Hon. S. Thomson: My understanding is it's generally consistent. From the guidelines, that is part of the board resourcing process. I know that other organizations, just as the commission does, will have their internal conflict management processes. Recognizing the nature of this role….

It's one of the points the member opposite made in terms of whether they're provincial or regional panel processes, there may be no conflict at all in terms of the overall appointment, but there may be situations that arise during the consideration of applications and processes and things that may give rise to that. That's why it's important that the organizations have their own internal conflict management processes.

I'm not the minister responsible for the board resourcing office or those processes. My understanding is that it is generally consistent and a very important consideration in the process.

N. Simons: The conflict-of-interest guidelines would be the same for boards and commissions — Farm Industry Review Board, Agricultural Land Commission? Just to clarify: that's what the minister has said?

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: The board resourcing process is — as I said, I'm not the minister responsible, but — generally consistent in terms of the internal management processes. The nature of those processes may be a little bit different, depending on the nature of the organization. If you're on the Farm Industry Review Board, it may be potentially different kinds of conflict that could arise, the same as if you're a board member of a regulated marketing board or something like that. That's why it's important that those organizations have their internal processes.

N. Simons: Some of the recommendations out of the core review of the Agricultural Land Commission may result in a change in how practice is done. What considerations have been taken into account to deal with the projected expenses related to those changes?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, through the budget process, the land commission has been provided with additional support and resources, over $4 million. We're again prejudging the process of legislation. We are committed to continue to work with the commission in ensuring the fiscal resources are in place to manage the operation efficiently. A number of the additional resources that have been provided in the fiscal plan help improve efficiencies within the commission, and we'll continue to work with them through the fiscal and budget process.

[1655]

N. Simons: I'm just curious. Looking at the budget of the Agricultural Land Commission, it doesn't seem to me that the budget reflects possible changes that have been contemplated through the results of the core review process. Can the minister explain how that is reflected in the budget?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I pointed out, the budget provides an additional $4 million for the commission through the fiscal plan. That investment is to work through systems upgrades and things to achieve efficiencies in savings within the commission. We recognize that as the process comes forward, we need to continue to work with the commission in terms of addressing their ongoing budget requirements as part of the fiscal plan.

We've always worked closely with the commission in that respect. Again, as potential changes are brought in, we'll continue to work with them, but through the good work of previous ministers and previous Ministers of Agriculture, in terms of being able to provide the additional support, it's currently the view that with that additional support, we'll be able to manage the changes as they come forward. We'll continue to work with them in a collaborative manner to address the needs of the commission.

N. Simons: What percentage of applications for exclusions comes from farmers and ranchers?

[1700]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair. ]
[ Page 3133 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just getting some numbers here. I think, on average, the commission deals with about 450 to 500 applications per year. It's important to note that only about 50 to 60 of those applications per year are exclusion applications. The majority of applications that come forward are for permitted uses — for homesite severance, for those kinds of things.

Of those exclusion applications, it is my understanding that it's difficult to determine how many you would classify under those as coming from farmers versus non-farm. As you know, the definition around farm status and the qualification of a person farming — how you define a bona fide farmer versus a farmer who has a farm for farming and farm classification, farm status, for taxation purposes — has always been an issue of policy debate.

I'm advised that the majority of those applications in the exclusion process would come from applicants who would probably be considered in the non–bona fide farm status. The number of applications from bona fide farmers is probably a relatively small percentage of that total.

N. Simons: Thank you for that answer. I'm just wondering if the 50 or 60 are for straight-out exclusions. Maybe I should phrase it in a different way.

[1705]

How many applications of any sort, I guess, are from farmers? Would that maybe be an easier question to answer, as opposed to specifically for exclusion? So for other farm use or for subdivisions — I'll start with that.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, I think it's probably fair to say that whether you're dealing with exclusion applications or the overall broad number of applications, the percentage of those applications — whether it's for exclusion or for change of use, permitted use, homesite severances and those kinds of things — would be depending, again, on how you define the farmer versus bona fide farmer and scale of operation.

The percentage would be smaller on the lower end of the range, from bona fide farmers, versus ones that would be classified as not so bona fide farmers, although they are farmers, and they're on ALR land and all the applications come from the landowners.

In terms of trying to run that percentage and where those numbers fall on that continuum, I don't have that specific information. But as a general comment…. I'm sure the member opposite probably already knows that that's the general situation with the application process. It's also one of the reasons why the change in legislation was made previously around repeat applications.

If you've made an application and have been turned down, you can't apply again for five years. That's also to recognize that the majority of those applications came from the non–bona fide farm process, and steps were taken. I think positive steps were taken in that case to address that.

N. Simons: My next question. Is there any way of determining how many landowners…? With relation to when they purchased the land, when they apply for exclusions…? Can we tell by the statistics that we keep, if people purchase land within the ALR, how long it takes for them to apply for an exclusion? I'm sure there are some people who have been on the land for years, some maybe even back to the time when the agricultural land reserve was established. But my sense would be there is some speculation around land.

While I'm asking that question, has the Agricultural Land Commission seen any marked change in the number of applications since discussion around changes to the Agricultural Land Commission were first brought to the fore?

[1710]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that following the changes in 2011 around the repeat application process, the commission advises that there hasn't been a marked…. At this point, and recognizing that it hasn't been in place for a long period of time, they haven't noticed a marked decrease in the number of applications coming forward. It just means that there are other people coming forward as opposed to repeat frequent flyers, I guess you want to call them, in the process.

On the other point with the timelines in terms of length of property ownership and application, I don't have the specific information. I think it's information that could probably be provided. I think what's important to recognize, though, is that as part of the investment that's been provided to the commission is in the systems reporting side of it…. What I could undertake is to say that we could see what level of information could be provided in response to that question.

What I don't want to do, though, is create a whole bunch of work for the commission trying to drive that out while we're focusing on the resources to improve the systems and things, but if something could be provided that would give a sense of that without a great deal of data mining and analysis, we can see what could be provided in that regard.

[1715]

The third element of your question, if I understand it correctly, was: have they seen any marked increase in applications since awareness was generated that there may be changes in the process of review of the commission? I'm advised that the answer to that is no.

N. Simons: One person who seemingly has been encouraging the Minister Responsible for Core Review to open up the land reserve to more options for removing land from the land reserve is Faye Street. I'm wondering if the minister knows…. Did Ms. Street ever apply and successfully have land removed from the agricultural land reserve? Is she a farmer?
[ Page 3134 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm not aware of that. Commission decisions are posted publicly, so I'm sure that information could be researched and found. As far as current occupation status, I'm not aware.

N. Simons: I do know that she has been quoted quite a bit by this government in supporting their proposed changes as recommended by the secret core review.

My next question has to do with the prospect of land that had been removed from the agricultural land reserve in the south and compensated by additional land being added in the north.

Isn't there some sort of philosophical problem with the idea that the land that was once preserved in the south and supposedly going to be preserved in the north would now be open to a broader range of options for people to remove it from that reserve? Is that not some sort of an issue where people could see the lack of fairness in that?

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: I want to, again, be careful here and draw back to concerns raised previously around the process of whether the member opposite is now into the process of debating and making assertions with respect to intent of the legislation that's currently before the House. In my view, that is the case. I would ask that the Chair remind the member opposite because he's making assertions about the intent of legislative change, which, in my understanding, is not the purview of these estimates.

The Chair: Reminder noted, Member?

N. Simons: Reminder noted, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. That's not the first time I've been reminded. Let that be a lesson to me.

A Voice: Won't be the last time either.

N. Simons: Probably not. We have another 25 minutes.

Okay, let me talk about the secret core review findings, which I only found out through code what the intentions are. I'm wondering: if we're talking about the budget of the Agriculture Ministry, which under its purview includes the commission, if potential changes as a result of the core review could have an impact on the Agricultural Ministry's budget. Has the minister contemplated those potential changes?

Hon. S. Thomson: We don't anticipate that the changes have any impact on the ministry's operating budget, which is the subject of these estimates. The Agricultural Land Commission vote is a separate vote. I've already responded to the questions with respect to the Agricultural Land Commission budget in previous responses.

N. Simons: I have a vague memory of that. It happened today, didn't it?

My question is: what is the purpose of having a CEO of the Agricultural Land Commission?

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: The current legislation provides for the chief executive officer of the commission, establishes the terms of appointment. The commission determines the functions and duties of the chief executive officer — sets out roles and responsibilities of the chief executive officer in the legislation. As you know, currently the chair performs the dual role of both chair and CEO, and a senior staff member performs the role of deputy CEO.

In the view of governance, there is a view that having an individual solely responsible for the CEO roles and responsibilities and the ones that are laid out in the legislation providing that focus on the administration in those roles and providing the focus for the chair to concentrate on the strategic direction of the commission, the oversight role on operations and panels, is a good approach to governance and will strengthen the role of what would be in place with, in a sense, a deputy CEO and then having a chair that has both chair and CEO responsibilities. Separating those two responsibilities is viewed as a good approach to governance.

N. Simons: The question is: was this a request of the chair to have a CEO, or is there something that's changing that would make government want to formalize the position of the CEO and change the system? Or is the status quo, as the minister mentioned earlier, fine?

Hon. S. Thomson: The role of the CEO currently exists, and it's currently provided for in the legislation. In terms of modernizing the operations, separating the role of chair and CEO is good governance. It's standard practice in agencies and organizations, and we believe it is a positive step in ensuring continued good operations at the commission.

I believe, given the important role of the chair and the strategic responsibilities that the chair has, that will provide for a more effective alignment of responsibilities and provide for improved administration and leadership at the commission.

N. Simons: Earlier the minister said that he felt that the commission was operating and fulfilling its mandate well. I'm wondering if requiring or ensuring that a CEO and a deputy CEO are appointable…. Would that have an impact on the budget of the Agricultural Land Commission?

[1730]

Hon. S. Thomson: The CEO position currently exists in the legislation. The deputy CEO, in fact, doesn't. That was an administrative decision within the commission
[ Page 3135 ]
to provide for that role to ensure that those responsibilities of a CEO could be carried out when the chair wasn't available, given his new roles. In fact, the change to have a chair and a CEO — separating those roles — was actually a recommendation of the current chair.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain the relationship between the chair and the CEO and what levels of authority they have? Are they ever in conflict, or are they always completely separate? How is that? Can the minister describe that?

Hon. S. Thomson: The legislation sets out the appointment of a CEO. The commission may determine the functions and duties of the chief executive officer. I think what's important to recognize is that this is good governance: separating the roles to ensure that you don't create those conflicts that the member opposite was saying could be potential.

If the CEO, as part of his responsibility, is dealing with enforcement or compliance activities and then there's an appeal process up either through the panels or to the chair, you don't want to have that conflict. In fact, the commission's and the chair's comment and response to the report — this is to the Auditor General's report — was: "It is imperative that the duties of the chair and CEO be separated to avoid any complications that may arise from a potential apprehension of bias or conflict of interest."

So this step is being taken. It's also the general practice through the board resourcing process with other public agencies and organizations and a step that is supported by the chair.

[1735]

N. Simons: Just the last part of that question: what are the financial implications of the appointment of the CEO?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the position exists. It's not in a separated role. There's a deputy CEO position that exists that is not provided for in the legislation. In our view, this change can be implemented and managed within the existing budget of the commission with minimal impact because the position exists.

Again, it's one that is strongly supported and recommended by the current chair, because he understands the nature and the need to separate those roles. In fact, that's why the deputy position was created, in one sense, and we're saying that we really need that full separation in response to the recommendations.

N. Simons: I'm going to presume that that money wasn't just sitting and accumulating while no CEO was appointed.

How many commissioners are there currently?

Hon. S. Thomson: Currently there are seven, which is the minimum that you can operate under by law.

N. Simons: Are they staggered appointments? Are they all at once? And when do they expire?

Hon. S. Thomson: They are staggered.

N. Simons: I was just curious as to how long those appointments are. I guess that's a bit of a complicated question: when are they all going to expire? If you can include that in the next answer.

My next question is: if one were to hypothetically double the number of commissioners, would that not have an impact on the budget of the Agricultural Land Commission?

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the member asked about the staggering process. To advise, my understanding is that there are a couple of appointments that would expire in late summer this year, one current appointment that expires in May of the following year and a couple more in November or December of 2015.

In terms of the appointment process, in terms of the theoretical question, it's hard not to say…. Theoretically, the answer would be yes. But again, this is all part of the budget development process for the commission, in concert with the other investments that are being made in the systems and changes there. So whether it has a budget impact on the existing budget of the commission — that's theoretical, in terms of the way forward.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for that response. I think it's almost like we're playing with theoretical money.

I'm sure that when I read the mandate letters and when I saw the commitments of the Premier…. There was one specific line: "We'll grow government." I picture a watering can. I know it doesn't meet what the ministers are talking about.

But here we are talking about recommendations from the secret core review that we've only found out through other means. We see, in fact, that the number of positions on a commission will potentially go from seven to 13. I think that it would probably stretch the imagination of most people to suspect that these people would all be volunteers and not have any travel costs and not have any meeting costs.

[1745]

That's the minimum number, potentially, I think, that the core review has determined are going to be necessary for the functioning of the commission.

In closing, as we are drawing near the end of this sitting before a break…. The people of the province, I don't believe, would be reassured by most of the answers, despite their forthrightness. I think that most British
[ Page 3136 ]
Columbians believe that a review of a commission that oversees a reserve that has been set aside for the people of the province for generations to come…. To come under scrutiny and be subject to serious curtailing of their powers is not necessarily something the people of the province anticipated when the core review was announced.

I think the legislation that we're not talking about today is troubling to many. I hope that the government has an opportunity to reflect on who is making recommendations for change and what their motives are and to really consider the long-term impacts of how the minister oversees the Agricultural Land Commission. The preservation of its integrity means the preservation of its independence. The preservation of the provincial reserve means the preservation of the provincial outlook.

I certainly do hope in complete sincerity that the government does reconsider, if not abandon the plans to weaken the protection of our agricultural land, that consultation take place and that the people who are affected by potential changes are consulted and given ample opportunity to provide their input as they were asked to do in liquor control legislation, as they were asked to do in water sustainability and a number of other pieces of legislation that we could talk about in here, but we aren't.

With that, Madam Chair, I would move that the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 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