2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 28, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 2

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

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014

The House met at 1:38 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

[1340]

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Ministerial Statements

NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
FOR WORKERS

Hon. S. Bond: I rise in this House today to recognize the National Day of Mourning. It is a day when we take time to honour workers whose lives have been tragically cut short or changed forever by injury in the workplace. It is a day when we express our heartfelt condolences for the pain felt by families who have lost a loved one and for families dealing with the aftermath of a workplace injury.

No words can adequately capture and neither can we understand the impact of the pain and heartbreak that families, co-workers and communities have experienced. But it can motivate us to do more and to do better.

Today both sides of this House wear an orange pin to demonstrate our respect and in a show of remembrance. The Canadian flag is flying at half-mast in front of this building and at legislatures in many parts of the country. Together we are honouring those lost or injured while on the job.

I want to thank the member for Surrey-Newton, the opposition Labour critic, for raising the idea of formal recognition of this important day in the House and the idea of calling on the House to stand in a moment of silence.

As we stood in this House together, it will remind us. It will be a symbol of our commitment to work together to support those who are dealing with loss — with the tragic loss of a son, a daughter, a husband, a wife, a grandchild, a neighbour, a co-worker. Any loss or injury is one too many. We can and we must do more. Together we are committed to doing just that.

H. Bains: I also join with the minister and rise on behalf of all of the members in the opposition to give our support, to remember and to honour all men and women who died or have been seriously injured on the job in British Columbia and everywhere.

I'd like to begin by thanking you, Madame Speaker, and both sides of the House for agreeing with me and, for the first time, formally and officially observing this very important and significant day in the lives of workers, especially those who lost their loved ones. Today we observe a moment of silence, and the flags are flying half-mast outside.

It is an important day. But it is also a very sad day for those families who lost their loved ones — those members of their family who went to work and never came back, and those who came back but, due to their injuries, are no longer able to live their normal lives.

The Day of Mourning is a solemn occasion, but the lessons it imparts are important ones. Workers go to work to turn the wheels of our economy by producing a product or providing service to our society. It is a normal everyday occurrence until they are tragically reminded that one of their co-workers is killed in a preventable incident.

The National Day of Mourning was started by Canadian Union of Public Employees in 1984. In 1985 the Canadian Labour Congress declared it as an annual day of remembrance and picked April 28, as that is the day the Workers Compensation Act, in 1914, received its third reading and was declared law.

[1345]

In 1991 Canada was the first country to recognize April 28 as the National Day of Mourning, and since its inception the observance has spread to over 80 countries in the world.

The purpose of the day of mourning is twofold. We remember and honour those who were killed or injured, and secondly, we redouble our efforts and commitment to improve health and safety in the workplace to prevent further deaths, injuries and exposure to harmful substances at work.

The annual day of mourning serves as a reminder that safety in the workplace is paramount but that we have a long way to go to achieve our goal of preventing injuries and deaths.

Today we rise above our differences in this House and have a frank and open discussion about ways and means to protect workers' health and safety. Today there should be no two sides in this House on this issue. We work as one House, united, to ensure we enact laws that are adequate to provide worker safety and to enforce them vigorously.

We also need to change and work towards changing attitudes of people in authority and to educate workers that no work is so important that it cannot be done safely.

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE

Hon. T. Wat: I would like to recognize in the gallery Rabbi Harry Brechner of Congregation Emanu-El, Victoria; Rabbi Jonathan Infeld of Beth Israel synagogue, Vancouver; Peter Suedfeld; David Zimmerman of Victoria Holocaust Remembrance and Education Centre;
[ Page 3158 ]
and Jason Murray, Stephanie Goldberg and their teams at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs for the important work they do educating both students and other groups throughout the entire province on the important lessons learned from the Holocaust.

Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, a time for society to solemnly reflect on history. Both organizations continue to play a significant role in fostering a more tolerant multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious society here in British Columbia.

We also have many members of B.C.'s Jewish community in the gallery here today to commemorate the occasion. Would the House please greet them with me.

B. Ralston: I want to join with the minister in the expression she's made on this day of Yom HaShoah. We stand with Jews in Canada and around the world to remember the murder of innocent men, women and children in the Holocaust.

Several years ago, with my family, I visited the former Sachsenhausen concentration campoutside of Berlin, and many years ago, as a young man, I visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. The authenticity of those surroundings makes very vivid and emotionally penetrating to what is sometimes something that people have only read of or only heard of indirectly.

Today it's important that we reflect on the Holocaust, the lessons learned, recognize survivors and commemorate the victims of this momentously tragic event.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: In 2012, the last year for which we have statistics, 181 workers died in workplace-related incidents. One of those workers was Alan Little, who died in the Lakeland explosion in Prince George along with Glen Roche. Alan's dad, John, gave a speech, which is available to people on the Internet, in Prince George last week about his son and about the circumstances and about the need for justice.

John and his wife, Mary Ann, obviously have a special reason to mourn on this National Day of Mourning. They've joined us here in the galleries, and I wish all members to make them welcome.

[1350]

Michelle Stilwell: Today I recognize a guest in the Legislature — one of my constituents, Jim Stewart, who is an active community member, well known on many fronts. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome friends from the real estate industry. Of course, visiting us today we have friends from the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board, the Association of Saskatchewan Realtors, believe it or not — they're moving out here; they want to buy real estate in B.C.; welcome; keep coming — and the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board.

There are 24 names in total. They are all very important people. I'm sure you've seen their names on billboards in your communities. I won't read them all, but please make them feel very welcome in the House today.

Tributes

PARTICIPATION IN 10K EVENTS

Michelle Stilwell: Over the weekend British Columbians from across the province gathered to put months of hard work and training to the test, to show off their running skills here in Victoria in the Times Colonist 10K, in Vancouver in the Sun Run and in Kamloops in the Boogie the Bridge.

I would like to congratulate all those who took part and give special thanks to our Deputy Clerk of the House, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, who helped coordinate our Parliamentary Pacers, over 70 members strong, who were out in front of the Legislature for the Times Colonist. They were people from all political stripes, staff, family members and friends. I hear she even outran the Minister of Health, who actually left his entire staff in his tracks.

I congratulate everyone. Well done, and thank you for being such a shining example of healthy living.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to welcome Don McLeod from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and you've seen his sign on the real estate sign. Thank you to the member for Vancouver–West End for saying that.

I also want to recognize Maggie Hathaway, my constituency assistant, in the House today. She's looking right down on me, so it's a little intimidating. We all have constituency assistants. We know what that's like.

I'd also like — my third introduction — to recognize Darrell Powell, who's worked tirelessly on behalf of injured workers. He himself has gone through the process and has accomplished quite a bit. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for the work he does on behalf of all those in this province who have suffered or who are suffering from workplace accidents.

Moira Stilwell: I would like to recognize, in the gallery, members of British Columbia's Jewish community and the staff of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Pacific region, for the important role they play in advocating on behalf of British Columbia's Jewish community. From issues of anti-Semitism and support for the B.C.-Israel relationship, CIJA continues to play an important role in British Columbia's civil society, yet another example
[ Page 3159 ]
of the historic contributions made by B.C.'s Jewish community to our province.

At lunch today we commemorated today as Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust Memorial Day, and reminded ourselves of tragedy so that we may learn its lessons and never repeat it. Thank you to the survivors and descendants and to CIJA for being with us to mark this solemn day.

In the gallery with us are Amalia Boe-Fishman, Jack Fraeme, Ella Levit, Peter Gary, Rabbi Harry Brechner, Rabbi Jonathan Infeld, David Zimmerman and Jason Murray. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

A. Weaver: I have a number of introductions today. I'll be brief, as brief as I can. First I'd like the House to welcome my sister, Alexandra Weaver, visiting from Calgary with her husband, Dan Biggs, and their three children, Nicholas, Charlotte and Georgia. I've recommended they leave shortly before question period.

I also have the pleasure to introduce three grade 6 students from Arbutus middle school — Reina Girvan-Randall, Liv Dunsdon and Saffron Sobkin. They're accompanied by Anita Girvan and Robert Randall. As well, there are two grade 4 students from Campus View Elementary school — Ella Dunsdon and Amira Ahmad — and one grade 5 student from the same school, Calder Wheatley. They're accompanied by their principal, David Hovis. They, too, will be leaving shortly before question period today.

Finally, I'd like to introduce Maia Green, who's here today. She's a founder and board chair of Friends Uniting for Nature, otherwise known as the FUN Society here in Victoria. Will the House please welcome all these young children and their accompaniers here today.

[1355]

D. Horne: I have the pleasure of introducing new staff for the parliamentary education office today. This summer 15 post-secondary students have been hired to work in the parliamentary tour office. Over the next four months the nine summer student guides and six Parliamentary Players will provide free guided tours to about 100,000 schoolchildren and tourists from around the world.

You certainly will notice the Parliamentary Players, as they are dressed in period costumes and portray six prominent personalities from British Columbia's history, including Queen Victoria, Nellie Cashman, MLA Ellen Smith, Francis Rattenbury, Sir James Douglas and Amor De Cosmos.

I would like to welcome today Nabil Ayoub, Rachel Baker, Tabitha Black-Lock, Jacquie Brower, Claire Harwood, Kevin Eade, Danielle Florence, Annika McDowell, Bridget McGowan, Monica Ogden, Alex Schoeddert, Ian Simms, Lauriane Soutif, Megan Sylka, Melissa Taylor. Would the House make them truly welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to introduce a couple of guests who are here from the Lower Mainland. First is Christine Bridge, who is currently completing her doctorate at UBC. She's here today with her husband, Steven Encarnacao. Steven is the president and chief executive officer of Dayton Boots.

Dayton Boots was started 68 years ago, producing boots on Hastings Street. It was a pub owner who decided that people working in the forest industry needed to have good-quality boots. Over those 68 years Dayton produces, I would say without a doubt, some of the very best boots made anywhere in the world. They're of a high quality and craftsmanship, without doubt.

I'm proud that Steven has kept the company on Hastings Street, in my constituency. It's fabulous. I would ask people to make Christine and Steven welcome and also to wish Steven a happy birthday. I understand it's his birthday.

Hon. A. Virk: I also want to join the member from the opposite side to recognize the members of the real estate board from all across the Lower Mainland and, in particular, right in my own riding, members of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board and my dear friend Brenda Lee that's accompanied them. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: It's my great pleasure to introduce some guests from a great company in our region. With us today is Barry Fisher, who is president of the Vancouver Island Brewery, and his wife, Annie Fisher, who's a member of the company's board of directors. They're proud residents of Vancouver Island and staunch believers in supporting other local businesses and suppliers.

With them today there are two long-term employees: Brent Pottage, who's the manager of brewery operations, and Ruth Hall, who's responsible for the orders desk. I would ask the House to please make these four guests most welcome here this afternoon.

J. Yap: Madame Speaker, I have one introduction: a constituent of mine in the gallery, who I know you know. Mark Sakai is here. Please, all members, give him a warm welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to introduce my constituent who's here with us today: Da-Hye Seol. She's a student of political science and enjoying her visit here and tour of the Legislature. I'd ask everybody to please make her welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today is Mike Currie, president of the consulting firm Kerr Wood Leidal. Mike
[ Page 3160 ]
is in town with ACE-BC, the Association of Consulting Engineers of B.C., a group which collectively bills $3.8 billion of services around the world, is growing at 10 or 11 percent per month and accounts for about 20 percent of our tech sector. Would you please make the engineers welcome.

S. Robinson: I join the member for Vancouver-Langara in welcoming the CIJA staff, rabbis and Holocaust survivors who helped us earlier today commemorate Yom HaShoah. As a member of Jewish community, it was a real treat to see so many come out in support of that very important day.

I'd also like to welcome Jan Fishman, who, to my delight, joined us as well. He and I were summer camp counsellors just a few years ago, and it's always a treat to see someone from just a few years ago. I'd like the House to please make them all feel very welcome.

[1400]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Barbara McNichol, here from the B.C. Business Council today. She has served the province of British Columbia in her role for over 33 years. She has outlived five BCBC presidents and 19 board chairs, and I know that she has worked on many initiatives, like NAFTA and many other things that have been absolutely critical to the province of British Columbia. I'd ask all members to welcome her to the House today.

J. Shin: I have some of my favourite people in the House today. I have my former students from VCC, Nahida Hussein and her sister Aveen Hussein. I also have my colleague Dr. Shrikant Sridhar. I think he's in the back. I was hoping that everybody could make them feel very welcome.

I also have a Korean friend who is joining us before she goes back to Korea, and her name is Hye Young. If the House would please make them feel welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hate to introduce anyone as an afterthought, but after the glowing introduction of Barbara McNicholls, I'm sure that the man she currently serves, the president and CEO of the B.C. Business Council, would feel neglected if he weren't also introduced. Please welcome Greg D'Avignon.

B. Ralston: I'd like to ask the House to welcome today a constituent from Surrey-Whalley, Karlo Avenido, who's here with the delegation with the member for Burnaby-Lougheed. He's also a student at SFU.

M. Bernier: It's a pleasure for me to welcome here today Derek Badger, who is joined by his colleagues at Janssen Inc. Janssen's a pharmaceutical company of Johnson and Johnson and has been an innovator for the Canadian health care industry now for over 50 years.

In the gallery today we have members of Janssen's government and community relations team from across the country who are holding their annual meeting over the course of the next few days right here in our beautiful provincial capital. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: Last December I had the honour of lighting the menorah at the Legislature, and at that event I had the opportunity to reconnect with a longtime friend, Dr. Peter Gary. Dr. Peter Gary has done amazing job talking to young men and women about his Holocaust experiences so long ago to make sure it's very much alive today. Dr. Gary also had the distinction of having his 90th birthday celebrated while we were on break week, so I would like the House to please give him a belated happy birthday. He's in the audience today.

I also have two guests from the Comox Valley today. Jenn and Stu Tunheim are here today from the Comox Valley. They used to live in Alberta, but, like many, they saw the beauty and opportunity in British Columbia and moved out here. Would the House please welcome Jen and Stu.

M. Hunt: It's with great pride that on April 14, just two weeks ago, we had the wonderful opportunity of introducing Katrina Faith Hunt into this world to draw her first breath. She is our 12th grandchild, and so I would ask this House to please join me in welcoming her to this beautiful province of British Columbia.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M210 — WORKPLACE
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2014

H. Bains presented a bill intituled Workplace Accountability Act, 2014.

H. Bains: I move that the bill intituled the Workplace Accountability Act, of which notice has been given under my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

H. Bains: In 2004 Bill C-45, the Westray bill, was enacted with the unanimous support of all parties in Parliament. Since that time more than 1,350 unnecessary deaths have happened in British Columbia, and no one has been held accountable for those.

The Babine sawmill and the Lakeland sawmill explosions killed four and injured 42 others very seriously, and yet no one has been held accountable. This bill ensures
[ Page 3161 ]
that corporate executives and directors are held accountable for cases of negligence causing workplace death or injury. A Crown prosecutor will be dedicated and trained to deal with workplace fatality and serious injury cases so that the likelihood of conviction may be determined more accurately.

This bill also requires both police and WorkSafe B.C. inspectors to be trained on section 217.1 of the Criminal Code. This would ensure that these parties understand this law and its application and would in turn lead to better collection of evidence to support Crown counsel's decision-making.

[1405]

In addition, this bill requires mandatory police investigation of all workplace fatalities and serious injury cases, which is essential, because these investigations are necessary to determine whether criminal negligence exists.

Finally, this bill also calls for Crown and police to develop a specialized prosecution policy for workplace fatality or serious injury cases, similar to what is done in domestic violence.

This bill is introduced in the hope that justice is served to the victims and their families and that those in authority are held accountable for negligence causing workplace deaths or serious injuries. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M210, Workplace Accountability Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ST. THOMAS MORE KNIGHTS
BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM

R. Lee: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize the boys basketball team at St. Thomas More. I would like to congratulate the St. Thomas More Knights for claiming their first high school provincial boys basketball title in almost 40 years at the Langley Events Centre. Together, they have practised hard and developed their skills on the court, at school, in their parents' driveways and at community recreation centres. Together, they have played as a team to communicate and share a common goal.

Basketball is a team sport where five players on the court play as one. The boys basketball team at St. Thomas More has built lasting friendships and strong memories, and they have demonstrated leadership and sportsmanship. They have striven for excellence, and they have accomplished a milestone. They have made their team, their school and their community very proud.

In basketball an individual is only as great as their team and the people that support them. Thanks to the St. Thomas More Knights head coach, Aaron Mitchell, and to all the coaches, staff, supervisors, chaperones, parents and volunteers for truly making this milestone possible. Thank you for helping these athletes develop their full potential this season and for preparing them for success so that they could claim their first provincial hoop banner in almost nearly 40 years.

Congratulations for winning the provincial triple-A title. I wish the entire St. Thomas More basketball team best wishes on the court, in the classroom and in the community.

HOSPICE SERVICES IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: Hospice is a wonderful concept, helping people with terminal illness as they progress towards death. Hospice is fundamentally different from hospitals. In hospital you're seeking a cure; in hospice you're not. You're seeking peace, comfort, support and dignity as you approach death.

It's those diametrically opposed approaches — finding a cure or accepting death — which really underline why hospice needs its own place, not just a bed in a hospital ward. While palliative care doctors try to make those last days as peaceful as possible, a hospital is never a peaceful place.

Campbell River is extraordinarily lucky to have the hospice society, a dedicated team of volunteers, with just a few staff, who work to bring the philosophy and practice of hospice into people's homes and, where necessary, into hospital. It has a modest dream: just one dedicated hospice bed. It's not much, really, for the support it would give countless families in the north Island. Most people know someone touched by the work of hospice, but so much more could be done.

Hospice makes sense on more than an emotional and psychological level. It's cheaper also. It costs around $1,100 a day to keep someone in the hospital, while it's $270 a day in a hospice.

Sadly, the Campbell River Hospice Society has to spend an extraordinary amount of time fundraising just to provide the services it does. This weekend sees the annual Angel Rock dinner, but there are concerts, draws and auctions through the year. This is partly due to the disproportionate money spent on hospice in Victoria compared to the rest of Vancouver Island: $10.40 per capita here in Victoria and 22 cents per capita in Campbell River.

It'd take $100,000 a year to run a hospice house in Campbell River. That'll be a long time coming at 22 cents a head, so while people in Campbell River continue to support, however they can, the dream to have a hospice house, it still feels very distant.

[1410]

The sad truth is we know about death. We know about terminal illness. We do not translate that knowledge into financial, legislative or mandated support of hospice houses.

WORKER SAFETY AND
DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to recognize the National Day of Mourning, today recognized across our great country. Today we take the time to honour workers whose lives were tragically cut short or changed forever by workplace injuries.

Canada was the first nation to recognize the Day of Mourning 30 years ago, in 1984. Since then, acknowledgment of the Day of Mourning has spread around the globe.

Since 1997 the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Business Council of B.C. and WorkSafe B.C. have co-hosted a public commemorative ceremony for the Day of Mourning in Vancouver. In 2001 these same groups dedicated a permanent workers memorial in the sanctuary in Hastings Park in Vancouver. It is the first of 45 permanent worker memorial sites that now exist across our province.

Today tens of thousands of workers and employees will attend Day of Mourning ceremonies across the province. We stand together with them today by wearing Day of Mourning ribbon pins on both sides of the House. That's because it's important for each and every one of us to take part in addressing worker safety. It is why we must all build a safety culture that makes the kinds of tragedies marked today a thing of the past.

Together we have made progress. The traumatic fatality rate is almost 40 percent lower than it was 20 years ago.

The Day of Mourning reminds us that every life is precious and that all workplace parties need to be diligent in health and safety. Each of us, on both sides of the House, wants every worker to return home at the end of their working day to family and friends.

Together, workers, employers and government need to build a culture of safety every day and for every workplace. If we all work together, we can prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future, and perhaps we can forever put an end to the need for a day of mourning.

VANCOUVER ISLAND BREWERY AND
CRAFT BREWING INDUSTRY

R. Fleming: Victoria can trace its brewing history back to 1858 when, during the time of Gov. James Douglas, thousands of thirsty miners rushed to the wilds of New Caledonia. Victoria's clean spring water produced beers of great reputation and wide export. Then in 1917 this entire industry was doomed with the passage of the temperance act in this very chamber.

Thankfully, in recent years craft brewing has had a remarkable renaissance, and thanks must go to Vancouver Island Brewery, celebrating a milestone anniversary this week — 30 years in business. So, too, are many long-term employees, as well as members of the company's board of directors.

The pioneering spirit of Vancouver Island Brewery is kept strong by the guiding hand of long-term owners Barry and Anne Fisher, whose time, effort and resources have kept alive their commitment to producing award-winning natural craft beers. Victoria is now regarded as the hub of this industry, outpacing other self-styled craft brewery centres like Portland, Oregon, to win Victoria respect as home to some of the best craft brewers in the Pacific Northwest and, indeed, the world.

Vancouver Island Brewery was the island's first craft brewery, and from its humble beginnings in Central Saanich grew the company's belief that British Columbia could compete in a global industry. This Island-owned, Island-grown institution has maintained an unwavering commitment to supporting B.C. communities, local partners and suppliers, helping to keep dollars within our community.

Breweries historically have played an important role in their communities, and this brewery holds true to this tradition by supporting so many local non-profits, arts, sport and music organizations, festivals and events.

Though times have changed and many new players have emerged on the scene, Vancouver Island Brewery celebrates not only its accomplishments but those of their friends in the craft beer industry. Together, craft brewers are providing a unique and sought-after product British Columbia has become known for in quality and excellence.

An anniversary such as this wouldn't be possible without the exceptional efforts being put in by its people, and a number of employees who've worked at the brewery are now celebrating 20 and 30 years with that company.

I would ask the House to join me in congratulating Vancouver Island Brewery for its 30 years in business.

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE

Moira Stilwell: It is with sympathy, compassion and humility that I rise today in commemoration of Yom HaShoah. Yom HaZikaron laShoah ve-laG'vurah literally translates to the "day of remembrance of the Holocaust and heroism." Each year, based on the Jewish lunar calendar, the global community recognizes, pays tribute to and honours the six million voices that were silenced during the Holocaust.

[1415]

In fact, many of us here today attended the memorial service here at the Legislature, where we stood together to unite with Jewish people throughout the world in remembrance of those who faced these events firsthand, to mourn them and to remember them. By remembering
[ Page 3163 ]
them, we pledge to learn from this dark chapter in our history and to prevent it from ever being repeated.

We all have a part to play in making our world a better place to live, to assist those who are indefensibly oppressed and being discriminated against. In saying this, I would like to quote from the words of Simon Wiesenthal, an Austrian-born Holocaust survivor, who said: "For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing."

Keeping in mind the wise words of Mr. Wiesenthal, let us strive to be stewards of justice and righteousness in our communities and within our global community. Let us always keep in our hearts and prayers those whom we have lost in the Holocaust and other mass genocides.

GREEN TEAM AND EARTHFEST AT
CAMPUS VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

A. Weaver: Today I would like to share an inspiring story about children at Campus View Elementary School in my riding. They are making a difference in our community. In 2011 two grade 3 students, Reina Girvan-Randall and her friend Holly Edquist, pitched an idea of creating an environmental club to their school principal, Mr. David Hovis. He thought it was a great idea, and so it all began.

The Green Team started small but quickly grew when Liv Dunsdon, Saffron Sobkin and four others signed on. By the time the Green Team was in grade 4, they had a vision, a vision of hosting an Earthfest at their school to coincide with Earth Day. Thanks to the generous support of Maia Green and the Friends Uniting for Nature Society, otherwise known as the FUN Society, Reina Girvan-Randall and her team were able to launch their first Earthfest in 2012.

In 2013 Campus View's Earthfest won a national prize, one of only ten schools from 600 submissions to receive $25,000 in computer equipment from Staples Canada. This past week I had the honour and pleasure to attend the third year that Campus View hosted its community-wide Earthfest, the goal always being to have fun and create broader community environmental awareness and change.

There are now 42 students on the Green Team in grades 4 and 5, including Amira Ahmad, Ella Dunsdon and Calder Wheatley. They are coached by parent volunteers Anita Girvan and Narda Nelson, Campus View teacher Ladena Racine-Tran and principal David Hovis.

Many organizations from our community participate in Earthfest, including the CRD sustainable education, Victoria Natural History Society, Capital Region Beekeepers Association, Orca Books and many more.

And what happened to those grade 3 girls who started this all off? Well, they're now in grade 6 at Arbutus Middle School. They've gone on to form an organizational team called VERT — Victoria Eco Rally Team. We have so much to learn from the creativity and innovation displayed by the children and youth in our society. They are our future, and their passion fills me with hope and optimism for a prosperous and sustainable tomorrow.

Oral Questions

CONSULTATION ON CHANGES
TO AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

A. Dix: Over the break there was a change on the government side. First of all, I know on behalf of all members of the House, we want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with the member for Peace River North as he continues his health struggles. Those circumstances led…. We want to congratulate the new Minister of Agriculture, as well, on his appointment and the spirit with which he took that appointment.

When the minister took on his new assignment, he committed to a wide-ranging provincewide consultation on the future of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. People in British Columbia took him very seriously when he said that and saw that as a positive sign for the future of the reserve and the future of the commission.

The next day the Minister Responsible for Core Review said something very different. He said: "Am I open to changes? I can tell you the government is not interested in fundamentally changing." In other words, the Minister Responsible for Core Review said that the Minister of Agriculture's consultations were a sham.

[1420]

My question to the Minister of Agriculture is simple. Who speaks for the government in agriculture matters — the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister Responsible for Core Review? And is this process what he said it would be?

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the leader of the hon. opposition for his comments. I appreciate the congratulations. Also, I'd like to join him in wishing our colleague the member for Peace River North the best of health. Hopefully, he'll be back in this place representing the people of Peace River North and working on behalf of all British Columbians as soon as possible.

It is a privilege to be back in the chair as Minister of Agriculture in British Columbia. It's been two weeks since I adopted this role once again, and I can definitely say that I've been listening to and reading a lot about the Agricultural Land Commission and Bill 24 in particular — which, I understand, according to the rules of the House, we're not debating here at this time. But definitely over the last two weeks a lot of my attention has been on that.

I've had an opportunity to meet with the leaders in agriculture as represented by the B.C. Ag Council. We had a good meeting for an hour and a half. At that point,
[ Page 3164 ]
I invited them to meet with me again, whereby we spent all day Wednesday, seven hours, in Abbotsford, going over, I'd say, Bill 24, but going over issues of the Land Commission and the land reserve. From that prospect and the consultations that I have been getting, with the communications I've been getting from people all around B.C. stacked high on my desk, I believe that we have a good process that is proceeding right now.

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

A. Dix: What the Minister of Agriculture said subsequent to that meeting was that there would be a provincewide consultation. What he said was that all options are on the table, something his colleague excluded the next day, something his colleague said no to the next day. "We are not fundamentally changing." That's what the minister said. You know, it's not the usual invective, but still.

The question is pretty simple to the Minister of Agriculture. If you want a full-scale consultation, you want to listen to British Columbians, because British Columbians have something to say about the agricultural land reserve. They support it, and they oppose this government's direction. This is about those consultations. What is the minister going to do to engage in a full-scale consultation, and what does he say to his colleague who says nobody over there is going to listen?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, it gives me great pleasure to stand and respond to a question from the Leader of the Opposition. The key thing to remember here is that the legislation was introduced to help sustain farming families on good agricultural land. It's exactly what the legislation purports to do. It's to help farmers grow their businesses so they can continue to be successful on that land. It's to help farming families so that they can….

I'm getting the look as if I'm moving over into the bill. All right, so I will continue.

It was really to ensure that the ALC can continue doing its great work. Also, in addition to that, in addition to all of the letters that I've been reading…. I would encourage all British Columbians that have some more comments to make on ALC and ALR matters to continue writing to me. I'm reading every letter that I get, and I'm using those letters and the consultation that I've had with the leadership on the BCAC and the leadership on the ALC to form a consultation process that will move out over the next few weeks.

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

[1425]

A. Dix: The minister was clear. He was clear, and I'm referring to the consultation process here. What is the consultation about? It's about everything from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill. "I haven't landed on any particular recommendation yet." Well, his colleague has landed on a recommendation.

The question is: who is it? Is this a sham process? Is the Minister of Agriculture coming in and presenting us with a sham process? Or should we take him at his word, which we all hope to do, which is that it's a serious process? Really, there's a choice here. There is nothing, no reason — the government has broken its election promises on this question — to proceed with changes now.

There was a process in 2002. That's out the window. There was a process in 2012. That's out the window. If you want to be serious about this, if you want people to take you at your word on this, then there's only one thing you can do, which is withdraw the legislation based on consultation.

If the minister is sincere in his consultation, they can come back any time. But it is not right for a new minister to come in and claim consultation, claim he's listening and then have that process turned into a sham. Is it a serious process, or is his colleague the Minister for Core Review correct?

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, many people in this House can get very passionate about many issues. I am one of those as well. I show my passion maybe in a different way. I show it by rolling up my sleeves and taking the time to read every letter that I've received from British Columbians all across this great province.

Everyone in this House believes in the ALR. Everyone in this House believes in agriculture. Everyone in this House wants to see farm families succeed all throughout British Columbia, from coast to coast.

The hon. member, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, poses a very straightforward question. I am showing through my actions that I intend to follow with what I said. I am moving forward with working on reading the letters. I am moving forward with consulting with the members of the BCAC. I am working with the leadership in the Agricultural Land Commission. I have asked staff, as I said before, to come back to me with some proposals on how we can do the consultative process on Bill 24, and I plan to update my caucus on that in the near future.

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON
AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE CHANGES

N. Simons: I'm afraid that the minister's response has probably satisfied no one. A reading process is not exactly a consultation process, especially when another member of the same cabinet is contradicting the minister.

British Columbians should know what led their government to consider threatening the agricultural land that we have reserved for future generations. But a freedom-of-information request to try to find out came
[ Page 3165 ]
back with 93 blank pages.

The people of B.C. deserve to be consulted before major changes are contemplated, not after. They also deserve to know how these changes came about. We get 93 blank pages. Will the Agriculture Minister, whoever is responsible, show us what's on those blank pages? Will he tell British Columbians exactly what they considered before threatening the agricultural land reserve?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the critic for a good question once again. The FOI requests were processed by our trusted, professional staff in the Legislature, in the government — those public servants who are tasked with the responsibility of making sure our FOIPPA legislation, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, is followed. And they did so, as they should.

Let me add one more thing while I'm up in this particular case. As soon as I got the job, I said: "Well, I wonder how things have changed in the last year or so since I was here before. I opened up Country Life magazine and started reading things like: "The greenhouse industry is booming. Things are better."

The greenhouse industry is one of the things we brought in — the tax exemption for carbon tax — prior to the election. I see: "Farm sector back in the black," "Farmers markets increase membership," "Bull market in B.C. beef business," "Cherries going to China" — and, hopefully, soon blueberries.

[1430]

A 20 percent increase, of course, in last year's budget. All of these things help to continue to sustain agriculture right here in British Columbia. I'm proud of it. I'm going to help them achieve that $14 billion that we set as a goal for 2017, and I hope one day we can all stand here with that goal behind us.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: Four questions in, and he's already ducking the questions. Before the election the Premier promised openness and transparency, and before the election there was no word about making any changes to the agricultural land reserve. Now we have a minister making vague plans to consult or read letters that he receives, which would be a first. The other thing is that we have the other minister who just folds his arms and says no to everything.

British Columbians deserve to know who and what are behind the changes being proposed. Why is there such secrecy, and what is the rush? Will the Agriculture Minister commit today to release all studies, reports and assessments, including briefing notes, so that we as British Columbians will have the openness and transparency that the Premier and this minister promised?

Hon. N. Letnick: Not to be too repetitive, but I'll try my best again. The FOI requests are processed by trusted professional public servants whose decisions and actions are guided by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. If anyone disagrees with a decision about the release of information, a request can be filed with the Information and Privacy Commissioner to conduct a review of the decision.

As far as the question as to where this came from, I think it's clear in the mandate letter to the former Agriculture Minister, which I assume that I've adopted as well. It says in here: "Ensure the Agricultural Land Commission is delivering on the improvements promised arising from the budget increase it received in balanced budget 2013," also, "Ensure the agricultural land reserve is working for British Columbia and propose any changes necessary. These changes must successfully balance our desire to protect valuable farmland while allowing for reasonable economic development opportunities." It's right in black and white.

The previous minister was trying to achieve the mandate letter in a public process. I'm trying to continue that work, and I have every intention to continue filling out all of this list before I'm done.

CONSULTATION ON CHANGES
TO AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE
AND SUPPORT IN KOOTENAY AREA

M. Mungall: Recently, in speaking with the media, the Minister for Core Review claimed that the Kootenays support his proposed changes to the ALR. Two weeks before he made that claim the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments rejected his direction for the agricultural land reserve at their AGM. The meeting was in Creston. Both the minister and I were there. How can he continue to claim the Kootenays support his changes to the ALR when we don't?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you again to the member from Creston for that question. It's interesting as I read through the letters that I've received, and I've received thousands of letters. Some of those letters go into detail, several pages. Some are a little shorter than others and make it easier to read.

I would encourage British Columbians — from Nelson to Terrace to Prince George to Kelowna and everywhere between and everywhere afar, just in case somebody accuses me of missing their community — if they have other points of view, to send them to me. I'd be happy to read them and put them in the perspective of the whole province and how this piece of legislation is there to actually enable the continuation of our strong farming families on good agricultural land.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston
[ Page 3166 ]
on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: There's no doubt that it is simply irresponsible to make provincewide, long-term-impacting policy without any provincewide consultation.

[1435]

It seemed that the Minister of Agriculture knew that. He said: "The opportunity is everything from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill. I haven't landed on any particular recommendation yet because I'm not finished my consultation process."

Since the Minister of Agriculture wants to answer questions, can he answer this: is that process a sham — yes or no?

Hon. N. Letnick: It's been interesting for the last five years to watch my colleagues take questions, sometimes with personal accusations, and sit on the other side of the line and watch how they react — first time I've actually seen someone try to do that to me.

Anybody in this House recognizes that the integrity of all of the members of this House, I think, goes without question. Every member on both sides of this House comes here willing to serve the people of British Columbia. That's exactly….

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: As I said last week, I haven't landed on any recommendation yet because I'm not finished reading through all their letters. I'm not finished consulting with the BCAC. I'm not finished consulting with the members, the executive of the Land Commission, and I haven't made any update to my own caucus yet. Once that is done, then at that time I'll be happy to announce if there are any changes that'll be proposed to Bill 24.

STATUS OF AGRICULTURAL
LAND RESERVE LEGISLATION

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister stated that he was open to amending the bill, leaving the bill as it is or withdrawing the bill. Are those options still on the table — yes or no?

Hon. N. Letnick: I think it's good to come back to the original purposes of the bill. We have to remember that the legislation was introduced to help sustain the sector and those who work in it, to help sustain farming families, to make sure that the independence of the ALC continues as it has been and to make sure we have a strong, robust agricultural community in British Columbia.

Having said that, the question is whether or not proposed changes to the bill could occur. The answer is: of course. Of course proposed changes to the bill could occur, but I'm not there yet. I still have to go through all of the letters. I'm probably going to get some more after today, and I would welcome them.

Also, there's the little communication piece that I said I wanted to do, which I still have to do, and then, of course, update my caucus before any decision is made.

B. Ralston: The minister said there were three options: leaving the bill alone; amending it, which he agreed is still a possibility; and the final one was removing the bill. Is removing the bill still an option?

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, I'll be repetitive. I haven't finished doing my consultation piece yet. I'm still reading through the letters. I expect a few more; I'll be reading through those. I still have to…. I'm sure there's going to be some more communication with the BCAC. Also, I'm going to be working with the members of the leadership of the Land Commission. Once all that is done, I will provide an update to my caucus. At that point, afterwards, I'll have some form of announcement to make on where we go from here.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
INTO MILL EXPLOSIONS

H. Bains: In 2012 in Burns Lake, Carl Charlie and Robert Luggi lost their lives in what WorkSafe B.C. called a preventable incident.

In Prince George three months later Alan Little and Glen Roche died in a nearly identical, entirely preventable incident.

Today, workers around the province are making the Day of Mourning a day to remember workers killed and seriously injured at work. With no one being held accountable for death after death, workers are losing trust in the system to keep them safe.

[1440]

Will the Deputy Premier take steps to restore that trust in WorkSafe and call for a full, public and independent inquiry into Babine and Lakeland sawmill explosions?

Hon. S. Bond: As we've said earlier today and on the floor of this House, any loss of a worker in British Columbia, or any injury, is one too many. What happened in Babine and in the case of Lakeland were absolutely horrific tragedies, and all of us — it doesn't matter where you sit in British Columbia or whether you're in this Legislature or not — want to get to the bottom of what happened there. That's why, since the day of the explosions, steps have been taken. In fact, there have been aggressive investigations and inspections at mills across British Columbia. Those have shown that there is more work to do there.

In addition to that, we want nothing more than for families to have and to get the answers that they deserve. That's why the chief coroner of British Columbia will
[ Page 3167 ]
conduct what will be an open, transparent fact-finding process — an inquest — which will allow families and all British Columbians to get the answers they deserve.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: Sympathetic words are appreciated, but they do not do the job that these families deserve — to get the answers.

The minister has talked about steps taken, an investigation by the Premier's right-hand person. Now she talks about the inquest. We all know how narrow the scope of the inquest is. They will never be able to get to the answers that the families are looking for.

Last week I was at a rally in the Labour Minister's riding, near her constituency office in Prince George. I understand the minister was unavailable, but if she was there, she would have heard John Little, Alan's father, say this about WorkSafe B.C.'s report into the Lakeland fire. He said: "In these 99 pages I can find the source, cause, warnings, spot fires and that it was preventable, but I cannot find any record of due diligence."

These families are crying out for justice — something that has been denied to them so far. Will the Premier, the Deputy Premier, take the first step towards providing that justice by calling for a full, public and independent inquiry into these two tragedies?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member's comments about the rally that took place in my riding. In fact, I issued an apology to the families for not being able to be in attendance. I was made aware of the rally late Monday night, and in fact, my constituency office didn't receive the invitation until Tuesday morning. I simply was not in a position to be there, and I apologized to families.

To imply that a coroner's inquest, first of all, is not independent is incorrect. Secondly, to imply that it has a narrow scope is also incorrect. The coroner has broad powers to subpoena and to require witnesses to actually testify, to bring that evidence. In fact, one of the other things that's critical is that it is a process of inclusivity. It means that you can participate. If someone wants to become a participant in the inquest, they need to ask. They don't require a lawyer to do that.

We have confidence that the chief coroner of British Columbia will conduct an inquest that will allow families to participate. Agencies will be required to participate. There will be a broad and inclusive scope.

[1445]

As I said earlier, there isn't a person in this House or in British Columbia that doesn't want to find answers. The chief coroner will ensure that families have the ability to ask the questions that they want and need answered.

B. Routley: These workers' deaths were entirely preventable, as were the injuries sustained by other workers at these mills. Nothing can bring these men back home to their families or take back the pain and suffering caused by these preventable tragedies. But we can learn from their deaths, and that's what these families want.

The Premier has the power to make all that happen with simply a stroke of a pen. Why is this government and this Premier refusing a proper public inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: It is essential that we learn from what happened in these circumstances. It's the only way that we have a hope that ensures they won't happen again in British Columbia. That's why we're doing a number of things. That's why we are looking at what happened at WorkSafe.

We have asked a very competent person, Gord Macatee, to go into WorkSafe to look at what happened, to look at the 90-day agenda that needs to be concluded, to make sure that the recommendations provided by John Dyble are completed. All of those efforts are to ensure that we learn lessons from what was a tragic and horrific set of circumstances for these families.

But we also need to ensure that the chief coroner in British Columbia has the opportunity to conduct an independent fact-finding process that allows for participation by family members, by agencies that have been involved, allowing the questions that families are longing to have answered, allowing them to ask those questions, to make sure that the jury recommendations…. The jury will be made up of members of that community. It will be open, transparent, independent, and it will get to the bottom and find the answers that families are looking for.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B. Routley: Today thousands of people across the province will attend Day of Mourning activities. They have one expectation of government: that the government will enact and enforce laws that will keep workers safe. This government has utterly failed.

Since the Westray law became law in 2004, there have been 1,350 workplace deaths, and not a single criminal charge has been laid. Workers die on the job, and no one is held accountable. WorkSafe fails to do its job, and government asks its friends to investigate.

It's clear that fines alone are not working to keep workers safe, so why is this government refusing to do what it takes to learn from these tragic and preventable deaths?

Hon. S. Bond: I have said and will continue to repeat that we need to be absolutely focused on ensuring that workers go to work and feel they can be safe.

The hardest questions to answer in this House are the ones when members on the opposite side of the House stand and imply that people on this side of the House,
[ Page 3168 ]
members of the government, don't care about workplace deaths or injuries or families. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[1450]

We are committed to ensuring that WorkSafe is reviewed and that we look at possibilities in terms of making sure that this does not happen again, from an investigative or an inspection process. We all want families to get the answers they need, to get the answers they deserve. We are going to continue to work relentlessly to ensure that workplaces in this province continue to see an improved culture of safety.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the Forest Appeals Commission Annual Report 2013.

I have the honour to present the Environmental Appeal Board 2012-2013 Annual Report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, to be followed at some point by the Ministry of Education. In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[1455]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

On section 1.

D. Eby: This is in relation to part 1 of the proposed Bill 17, in relation to requests made by accountants in British Columbia to be able to use a new designation, a unifying designation, in order to allow them to compete, for our province to be up to date with other jurisdictions and to allow our accountants to have the advantages of being able to use this designation across Canada and internationally.

My question in relation to this section is…. It doesn't reflect what the accountants were asking for. It's an ad hoc designation that does not respond to what they were asking for, which was a unified piece of legislation that brings the different designations together.

The question for the minister is: why does this not reflect a more comprehensive response to what the accountants were asking for? Why is it an ad hoc approach? And is this failure to provide anything other than an ad hoc approach symptomatic of a larger issue within the ministry? We didn't sit for 200 days. They had to wait this long for it, and now they don't even get what they're asking for. There is certainly support on this side of the House for it. Why is this such an ad hoc approach?

Hon. A. Virk: The CGAs, CAs and CMA associations of B.C. have agreed to unify to create a single professional body called the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia, and this legislation allows them to do so. The work is underway also for proposed changes that are going to require a major legislative change, and in future legislative sessions it will be brought to this House to do the fulsome legislation.

D. Eby: Well, that's exactly the question. Why are we doing this in such half-measures? Why was this change not in place in this piece of legislation? Why are we not providing them with what they asked?

[1500]

The ministry had at least 200 days, when we weren't even sitting, to prepare this legislation. What is the reason for this half-measure?

Hon. A. Virk: This is the first step that allows the three professional associations to use the "chartered professional accountant" designation — a first step, with fulsome legislation to follow as soon as practical.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a question about trade agreements. Is the change in designation and then, hopefully at some point, the wider change…? This is what the accountants asked for, which was harmonizing the profession. Has this got anything to do with requirements of interprovincial trade agreements that require harmonization of the qualifications and the standards for the professions across the country?

Hon. A. Virk: The chartered accountants, the management accountants and the CGAs across Canada have indeed agreed to merge as one association, in the interests of consistency across Canada. This first step is to facilitate that movement. They can all call themselves with the CPA designation, as a movement towards the fulsome legislation that'll follow as soon as practical.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could just give us a quick outline of how the other provinces are doing that are seeking to harmonize the requirements in the designation — whether other provinces have in fact passed the actual legislation which will complete the har-
[ Page 3169 ]
monization of the professions.

Hon. A. Virk: The question asked was: which jurisdictions have enacted or are working on legislation? As of last week New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Quebec have enacted legislation, and others are in various stages of doing so.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

The Chair: I understand the committee wishes to stand down on sections 8 through 48.

Sections 8 to 48 inclusive stood down.

On section 49.

The Chair: So on section 49…. Perhaps we should take a recess so the Minister of Education can get his staff.

Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. A. Virk: Section 8 speaks of commencement and/or applicable dates where there is a provision for the bylaws to be applicable and be postdated. Can I just add that examination of section 8, the commencement portion?

The Chair: I believe that section 8 has to deal with the Adoption Act under the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1505]

Hon. A. Virk: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Speaker.

The Chair: No problem.

R. Fleming: The sections of this bill that relate to Education are just a few, 49 to 51, so perhaps the minister will indulge me if I ask questions as they relate to those three sections and jump around a little bit.

This part of Bill 17 converts the children's education fund to the B.C. training and education savings program. This is a program that's been well announced for many years in different forms by the government. This allows them to change a couple things, including its name, and open flexibility to federal administration and, it's my understanding from the Minister of Justice's second reading speech, open it up for regulations that would allow children in care to be included in this program.

Those are the three areas that I want to ask questions about. First, I would just ask the minister to maybe update the Legislature on the status of the fund. It has now been managed I think for the last seven years without disbursements. I just wonder if you could give some information about how the fund has been managed, what its returns have been, whether it's grown and those kinds of parameters around the original amount of the $300 million fund.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The balance is currently $393 million as of January 31, 2014. It's being held in a special account under the Ministry of Education in a government bond at an interest rate of 1 percent.

R. Fleming: Am I correct, then, that the original amount of $300 million has earned $9 million in interest in the past seven years? Is that about right?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The fund, as I said, is $393 million currently, and that includes the annual contribution and the interest amount, which I don't have at my fingertips. But I can provide it to the member, if he would like to have that.

[1510]

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the federal administration of the program that is contemplated. RESP is obviously a federal program, and these amendments in this section of this miscellaneous bill would open the door to federal administration.

We asked on this side of the House about how that might work on previous occasions. If my notes are correct, we were told sometime around the February 2013 budget that it would take up to 18 months of negotiations with Ottawa to realize whether those negotiations would be successful and the program would be federally administered.

I wonder if the minister can give an update on the status of those discussions with Ottawa and where they sit today.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member opposite, we are still in negotiations with the federal government, but I can inform him that the negotiations are going well. We're anxious to get these completed as soon as possible. The announcement of the implementation with the federal government is important to everyone, so we are continuing to work hard with the federal government to resolve any of the outstanding issues.

R. Fleming: There are a couple of other western provinces that have similar programs to this: Alberta and Saskatchewan. I'm just wondering whether the negotiations with Ottawa have been in conjunction with counterparts in those two provinces and whether they're on the same timeline to get some kind of agreement with Ottawa or whether these are, in fact, separate negotiations.

Hon. P. Fassbender: These negotiations are separate, between each jurisdiction. However, we have reviewed
[ Page 3170 ]
the agreements because the other provinces already have programs in place. So we're, of course, looking at those in our negotiations with the federal government. But they are being dealt with separately.

R. Fleming: Could I ask about some of the sticking points, I suppose, with Ottawa during these negotiations? They have been fairly long, and we don't, I think…. I haven't heard that we have an end date as to when they will be concluded, although the minister is hopeful it will be soon.

What is the reluctance, if you can describe it, on the part of Ottawa to administer a provincial initiative like this, given that they do have, through their administration of the tax system and RESP programs in general, oversight over that already?

Hon. P. Fassbender: There are no sticking points. It is a government-to-government process, which sometimes, we all know, does not move as quickly as we might like it. But I can assure the member that our staff is working diligently to conclude those with the federal government and that at this stage there are no sticking points. It's just a matter of the process that it has to go through.

R. Fleming: I'd like to ask about the inclusion in this bill of children originally not contemplated to be part of what was called the children's education fund and is now renamed. I'm speaking about children in care who, to quote the Attorney General, have had "significant involvement" with the Ministry of Children and Families. Those are now contemplated as having access to this fund.

I think that's a very good move by government. It's certainly one that was urged by members on this side. But there are, perhaps, some complexities there.

[1515]

One is that for the 2007 cohort, the first cohort of children in this program, the date for enrolment, the deadline, was their seventh birthday. From the date of the announcement…. I think the last time I had estimates with the minister — and I look forward to those again this afternoon — the deadline date which was fixed was from about three months ago, so February 2014. Does that mean that children in care who were born in 2007 will not be included in this program?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The nature of this program for children in care has its unique set of complexities. But we've been working very closely with the Minister of Children and Families, and there will be a three-year application process. A trust fund will be set up so that we can ensure that children in care are treated in the same manner as children who may be in different circumstances.

The details of that are being worked out with the Ministry of Children and Families. But we can assure all British Columbians that children in care within that deadline at the age of 6, under control of MCFD, will be eligible for support.

R. Fleming: I want to ask a further question or two about children in care being included here. As the minister just said, some of the details have yet to be worked out. I understand that, but this is just an opportunity to ask some questions about what those details might have to touch upon.

First of all, we're talking about 8,000 children in care, I believe. That's not originally contemplated in the program. As the minister just said, there's been a fund created. Is that a separate fund from the original amount, which is now $393 million? Or is it included in that amount?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The amount will be paid out of the original fund and set into a separate trust fund while the details of disposition are worked out with the Ministry of Children and Families. It is part of the original pool of funds but would be set aside in a separate trust fund.

R. Fleming: In terms of separate rules, I understand that these two streams of the same fund — and the same program, as the minister just described it — will differ, if only because of the parent-versus-guardianship issues involved. But the program is a voluntary enrolment for children situated in their birth families.

We canvassed this last summer, and the ministry's estimates were that something like 57 percent of B.C. kids would be likely to enrol. That was an actuarial number that presumably they came up with. We had a bit of a discussion that 100 percent would be desirable, but it remains a voluntary program. Parents do have to register for it.

I'm just wondering, then, if there's going to be a distinction that the mainstream of the program, if you will, for children living within their birth families will continue to be a voluntary enrolment, whereas for children in care, it will be a mandatory or a 100 percent automatic enrolment.

[1520]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Because of the unique nature of children in care, they don't have to apply the same as children that are in their birth family would have to do. However, the funds will be set aside based on the numbers within the Ministry of Children and Families. They will apply whenever they enter into post-secondary education, and there will be an application process. Again, those details are being worked out with the ministry, but we will make sure that it is seamless for them.

R. Fleming: One of the other details that will be
[ Page 3171 ]
figured out later by government is which, I suppose, children in care, or which children with significant involvement with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, will be eligible for the $1,200 that will be invested on their behalf. So the question is: how expansive is that definition? Has government arrived at what "significant involvement" is described as?

I have a number, just from a media article, that it would be inclusive of about 8,000 children today. But I'm wondering if there are any details the minister can provide based on feedback he has received from the Representative for Children and Youth on this matter.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The intent, both working with the Ministry of Children and Families and through this legislation, is to put the details of that into the regulations. But the heart of it is to make it as broad and as inclusive as we possibly can. Again, those details will be set out in regulation and will be available once we have worked all of those details out.

R. Fleming: I'm just wondering if the province's Public Guardian and Trustee has arrived at a determination about some of the hows about how the program will apply and, also, whether her office has been in consultation with the independent officer, the Representative for Children and Youth, on who this should apply to and those kinds of things that are for government to consider.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, we will be and have been consulting with the other agencies involved to make sure that, as I've said, it is as broad and inclusive as it can be. It is complicated, but we're ensuring that we cover all of the aspects in that consultation.

R. Fleming: One of the details I'm interested in is that for British Columbians, for children living within their families, it's a matching program, so there's an opportunity to match the government contribution.

For those, for example, in foster care, will there be any assistance likely to the guardians or the foster parents to make contributions, or is it likely that the amount will remain at the introductory level?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do want to point out that the separate fund can receive private donations, so it can be expanded from there. The other thing I wanted to say is that there is no matching component to this. Whatever is put into that fund, families don't need to top it up or match it. They can exceed it if they choose to do that as well.

R. Fleming: I accept that clarification from the minister. I'm just recalling some of the contours.

I'm wanting to get an indication, then, one more time from the minister just when he believes that he and his colleagues will have worked this out so that children in care will become eligible. Obviously, you need this bill to pass. But following that, the regulatory process, the making of the regulations….

[1525]

Again, if you could just put on the record that those who were born in the 2007 cohort will be able to participate even though that deadline has passed for the others.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Our intent is to make sure that we cover all of the details and that we bring all of the components in regulation, we hope, in the coming months, and not many months. I can't give a specific date because there are some complexities, as I said. But we are intending, hopefully, by the end of the year to have all of those details worked out in regulation.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether the department is giving any consideration to how to maximize uptake on the fund and what programs you might be initiating with other ministries on educating the public.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We are working very closely with the private sector, who have a huge role to play in terms of the communication and promotion of this. They have indicated…. The credit union movement in the province and the chartered banks and so on have said that they see this as an opportunity for them to benefit families and children.

It also gives them the opportunity to encourage parents and grandparents to add additional funds to the future of their children's education. So it is a significant work that we're going to do with them, and they are very enthusiastic about it.

V. Huntington: I'll double up on this question, then. Does the minister anticipate this program applying to immigrant families resident in British Columbia? If so, how are you working within that community to bring it to their attention, particularly for those who have language issues? And is there a special program being developed that would consider support in application processes for low-income families or First Nations families?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Suffice to say, as I just said, the private sector is working with us. We've had discussions with them about the various language groups throughout the province. Through their marketing efforts, they will be ensuring that the message gets out.

The eligibility is based on residency. Again, those details and the application process for new immigrants and, of course, First Nations, who are an integral part of our province…. We've been working with those communities to make sure that that message gets to the various First Nations communities throughout the province.
[ Page 3172 ]

Sections 49 to 51 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Turning to section 8.

We'll take a brief recess as the minister's staff enters.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

On section 8.

C. James: Section 8 deals with definitions. Just starting off with the first definition, "caregiver." Could the minister tell me why this definition has been added into the Adoption Act?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The role of caregiver was used in the Adoption Act but not defined previously, so a definition is now providing clarity and aligning the definition with the definition of caregiver in the CFCSA.

C. James: I'll come back to the definition, because the definition has changed for the CFCS Act, as well, later in the section. I'll perhaps save that for section 17 when it speaks to responsibilities and talk about whether that's made any changes in this definition.

The other definition here under this section is the issue of the "director of child protection." Now, the director has had a number of different names over the years in the ministry. It has changed — director of child welfare, director of child protection. I wonder if there is any significance to having director of child protection back again from director of child welfare.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Child, Family and Community Service Act director is referenced in the Adoption Act. This definition is now added to contrast the director of adoptions from the director of child welfare in the CFCSA. There is no policy intent to the change. This is just to distinguish the difference between the two in the Adoption Act for that purpose. It doesn't change any of the definitions in the CFCSA.

Sections 8 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

C. James: This speaks, as I was mentioning, to the definition but speaks to the responsibilities under the definition in the Adoption Act, where it talks about allowing a director, by agreement, to authorize a caregiver to carry out any of the rates and responsibilities of the director or administrator with respect to the child.

Just a question to the minister on this. Are there any limitations to any rights and responsibilities being designated?

[1535]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, this amendment gives clear legal authority for the director or the administrator to enter into an agreement with a caregiver, a foster parent, to carry out necessary responsibilities of the director on a day-to-day basis for a child who's available for adoption when placement with the prospective adoptive parents is not yet possible. The ministry is doing this. It puts legal authority into the statute and makes the Adoption Act consistent with the CFCSA.

C. James: Just to explore that a little more, if I may, with the minister. Under the Adoption Act if a child is waiting for adoption and therefore being placed, the director still remains the legal guardian for that child. Therefore, does not the director have the responsibility for long-term planning or for placements? Whereas it appears from this that the director would then have the ability to be able to delegate all responsibilities to a caregiver.

That's my concern. There appears to be a contradiction to the legal responsibilities of the director under the act.

The Chair: The Attorney General seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: We have visitors now — Mr. Narinder Nijjar and his wife, Mrs. Inderjit Nijjar. Mr. Nijjar has many businesses in the neighbourhood of Vancouver-Fraserview, which I am honoured to represent. He is joined today by his friends from England, Mr. Kulwant Hundal and Mrs. Kulwinder Kaur Hundal, who are here visiting from the U.K., coming to see democracy in action here in Victoria. I hope the House will make the Nijjars and the Hundals feel very welcome.

[1540]

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Cadieux: I will endeavour to make this clear. The intent is to allow the director, who has legal responsibility or guardianship for a child who is available for adoption, to relinquish some authority to a foster parent to make decisions on behalf of that child on a day-to-day basis — for example, whether or not they can go on a field trip, or that sort of thing. It doesn't in any way allow the director to give away or authorize away their responsibility for the long-term planning or consent to adopt.

C. James: I appreciate that, but the language leads you
[ Page 3173 ]
to believe, when it says: "authorize a caregiver to carry out any of the rights and responsibilities of the director or the administrator…."

Does the minister not see that as an issue — a possibility that it could be interpreted as any and all responsibilities could then be delegated?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I take the member's point, but what this does is parallel the section in the CFCSA which authorizes the director to, by agreement, authorize the caregiver to carry out any and all of the director's duties with respect to the care of a child. We are amending that to say "a child placed with the caregiver," just to be clear. It is to parallel that, and that has been used. It does not in any way limit or extend to a shift in guardianship.

C. James: Again, I take the minister's point, and I know that section will come up around changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, as well, but I think the same issue arises. Whether you're talking about the Adoption Act or whether you're talking about the Child, Family and Community Service Act, it still appears to be broad enough that this minister or future ministers could look at it as an opportunity to be able to pass along other responsibilities.

I just want to register the concern on this issue, because I think the language is too broad and does not include the director's legal responsibilities. I think the heart, in particular, of the Child, Family and Community Services Act, is the director's responsibility as the legal guardian and holding that very close to the protection of children.

To be able to authorize a caregiver to carry out any of the rights and responsibilities of the director, I pass along to the minister, I believe is much too broad and could be open to all kinds of opportunities. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I know that there have been concerns around privatization of adoption services, for example, south of the border, and what that has done to some of the services and concerns. So I just raise it. I leave it with the minister. I think the language is too broad and doesn't deal with the responsibilities that the director has.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

C. James: Section 19, for those watching, deals with the issue of civil proceedings against the government and individuals.

[1545]

I understand this is a routine kind of language that gets put into acts, but I wonder if the minister could explain a little more who might bring civil proceedings forward and why the language been put into the Adoption Act.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In essence, what this section does is to not prevent anyone from taking legal action against the director or government if they feel they were mistreated or harmed during the process of an adoption. However, at the same time, it does prevent anyone from taking action on the technical deficiencies that were identified and that this section now seeks to fix. We can go into any specific section details that you wish.

C. James: Basically, it prevents people from coming forward based on process rather than any kind of mistreatment or issues that ended up occurring one way or the other? Thank you.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

C. James: Just a question around this section. It provides that "a director may request a director of adoption to place a child for adoption" in the circumstances set out. As we know, this is kind of the purpose of bringing forward some changes in this act.

I wonder if the minister could just explain the difference between what previously used to happen and what will now happen with this change in the Adoption Act.

Hon. S. Cadieux: While this is a new provision, there is no change in practice or policy. In fact, this provision just sets forth what has been the practice and policy since the CFCSA and the Adoption Act came into effect in 1996 and 1997.

It provides the legal authority to request the placement of a child for adoption by the director of adoption. It was just something that wasn't there before.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, this basically puts down on paper what the practice has already been and clarifies that. The practice will not change for people who are looking at adoptions.

Okay, thank you very much.

The Chair: Further questions on sections 21 through 26?

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Take a short recess, and prepare for section 27.

The committee recessed from 3:50 p.m. to 3:52 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

On section 27.
[ Page 3174 ]

S. Robinson: Section 27 removes the requirement for the minister to approve local bylaws levying fees for soil deposit or removal. I'm just curious about why this was initiated.

Hon. C. Oakes: This just streamlines the bylaw approval process to create efficiencies for the province, local governments and developers.

S. Robinson: I'm wondering if the minister can just reflect on, then, who will be responsible for any of these requirements, these approval processes.

Hon. C. Oakes: The ministry's approval of fees for soil bylaws have largely become administrative, but we want to make sure that we clearly outline that the Ministers of Energy and Mines and of Environment will continue their approval function with respect to the regulation of soil removal and deposit.

Sections 27 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

S. Robinson: Section 30 speaks to removing the ability for the minister to establish policy around official community plans. Once again, I'd like to hear from the minister about what initiated this policy.

Hon. C. Oakes: This is just a consequential amendment, as the new policy guidelines are now in under a new section, 873.2, of this proposed bill.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

S. Robinson: Then I'll ask the question here, because I was guessing that it was consequential but thought I would ask at the first opportunity. I'm curious again, or still, about the minister removing the authority around policy guidelines. Was there a specific issue that arose that resulted in this change?

[1555]

Hon. C. Oakes: It actually doesn't eliminate the requirement for legislation. It's just that it's been moved into a different section number.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure that I understand. There's the addition of two sections here in section 31. It provides the minister with "authority to establish policy guidelines regarding process in respect of specified amendments, plans, permits and bylaws." I'm assuming that there was some consultation, but I'd like to know from the minister if there were particular issues that were arising that resulted in this change.

Hon. C. Oakes: Consultation has happened with UBCM and local governments around this, again, as it pertains to the removal of the bylaw requirement previous, but it continues to establish the policy guidelines in this. It's moved, but the requirement is still there. It's just moved to a different section.

V. Huntington: What initiated these changes? Could you describe what the earlier situation was — as opposed to setting up policy guidelines regarding process; I thought the process was pretty well established — and what the changes are requiring policy guidelines for content and why that appears to be necessary?

If I could add: who initiated these changes — local government, UBCM or the ministry?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this has been with consultation — a request from the UBCM and the local governments to look at that to increase efficiencies.

One thing has been ongoing. There has been, over the past ten years, a pilot project with regional districts. That has really looked at how we can support local government, specifically regional districts, to reduce the number of bylaws affected for ministerial approval.

As a result of the pilot project, approximately half of the regional districts in the province have been exempted already from the approval requirement to date under the pilot project. It's effectively reduced the requirement of approvals by 80 percent, from many hundreds of bylaws annually to less than 100 for several years, with no demonstrated impact on provincial interest and with a gain in the development of efficiencies for local government.

A pilot project has been in place for ten years. This is just looking at the rest of the folks that weren't covered under that pilot project, to implement that.

[1600]

Really, why we are getting out of this approval role is that the ministerial approval process occurs after the substantive work has already been developed by the bylaw — which has been done by the regional district after a public hearing has been held and near the end of the bylaw adoption process.

By setting up these policy guidelines, what in fact we are doing is starting those conversations much earlier with local governments, looking at where provincial interests come into play and ensuring that that process happens more at the front end than after the substantive work has been done through the bylaws.

V. Huntington: Could I ask the minister whether the bylaws in the regional district…? Will they or can they then apply to agricultural lands? Will you be developing policy guidelines for regional district bylaws as they apply to agricultural lands?
[ Page 3175 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: This will only be applying to official community plans, zoning bylaws, subdivision servicing bylaws, temporary use permit bylaws and land use contracts. The question that you have…. When it looks like ALR land, it would have to go through the Ministry of Agriculture. It wouldn't come through this process.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

S. Robinson: I know that this, in all likelihood, is a result of section 40, but I'm going to ask here anyway, because it's the first time it comes up.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Section 33 removes the requirement for the minister to approve regional district bylaws, which is consequential, of course, to section 40. I just want to confirm that this is what the minister had answered to the other member who's been very curious about these changes.

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes. Again, it's just that the amendments will help streamline the approval process.

Sections 33 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

V. Huntington: With regard to section 40, do I understand here that boards no longer have to bring the zoning bylaws or subdivision servicing bylaws to the minister for approval? Is the intent, then, to take the power to approve zoning bylaws out of the hands of the minister entirely but allow non-binding guidelines to be put in place instead? Is that the intent of this section?

Hon. C. Oakes: This section removes the requirement for minister's approval of regional district zoning and subdivision servicing bylaws. However, it enacts policy guidelines that ensure that the provincial interests are still in place, so you still have to go through the Ministry of Environment or the various ministries as we outlined earlier in the process.

[1605]

V. Huntington: Is there any individual within the ministry that will be monitoring the development and approval of these bylaws at the regional district level in order to ensure that they are going through the proper processes?

Is anybody left to monitor them? The inspector of municipalities? Any function at all?

Hon. C. Oakes: What we found in the pilot process — and it's been very successful — is that staff that have been involved with monitoring that and involved with the process of implementing the bylaws will continue through our ministry to be engaged in that process. What it means, what we're suggesting, is that that work…. What has happened in the pilots is that those conversations happened before they got into the final approval stages, so it's earlier on in the process.

That is what has been happening in the pilot project over the last ten years. They found that having conversations with the ministry early on in the development of those bylaws has been far more successful than leaving it and having those guidelines in place to ensure that provincial interests are included in that, as opposed to waiting longer down the road when bylaws are actually getting implemented in those readings. This has been far more successful, as the pilot has demonstrated.

V. Huntington: Has the inspector of municipalities had any role to play at all in the development of regional district OCPs, bylaws, etc., and is there any continued role for the inspector if he has had a role previously?

Hon. C. Oakes: The staff in the planning branch will continue to engage on this, but the director of municipalities did not have a role around regional districts in this process and will not in the future. But on the planning, the ministry has planning staff that will continue to engage and support the work around bylaws.

V. Huntington: Just for my own edification, did we rush through the adoption of section 42, or may I still ask questions?

The Chair: It's available.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much.

Does the termination of land use contracts refer specifically to those contracts for regional districts, or is this strictly within the municipal sphere at this point?

The Chair: Let's go back to…. Let me just confirm and make sure we are on the record properly.

Sections 40 and 41 approved.

On section 42.

S. Robinson: I had the pleasure of having to deal with a land use contract in my municipality, so it's very interesting to see this come forward. I'm curious about how many land use contracts exist in the province and how many municipalities will be affected by these changes.

Hon. C. Oakes: There are approximately 2,400 land use contracts in the province and 92 local governments.
[ Page 3176 ]

[1610]

S. Robinson: I didn't hear the number of municipalities. If the minister could just repeat the number of municipalities, that would be great.

Hon. C. Oakes: Well, it's not just municipalities, local governments, because this was set up in the 1970s. Local governments affected are 92.

S. Robinson: This is a huge change affecting a lot of contracts and a lot of local governments, and I'd like to hear what the minister's plans are for contacting all of the local governments and making sure that they understand what the implications are of these changes and the ability to phase out these land use contracts.

Hon. C. Oakes: First, I should talk about where we have gotten there. In the consultation process with municipalities, we have been consulting those communities that have the highest number of land use contracts. For example, Surrey has 321 land use contracts. Richmond has 163. Whistler has nine. Prince George has 170. Kelowna has 82. Langley has 65.

There has been a working group on land use contracts. This has been ongoing work that we've done with UBCM and a lot of different other agencies that said that, you know, the 1970s…. What was put in place really isn't effective use now on things that, when we're looking at trying to have smart growth and we're trying to do things with communities to encourage those kinds of principles, perhaps weren't necessarily in place in the 1970s.

The next steps that we will be doing…. First of all, it's a ten-year process that we have put in place so that there will be tools and support for local governments to help get them through these land use contracts. There is a process for local governments if they want to fast-track the termination of these land use contracts for those. For example, if you're close to a SkyTrain terminal, you may want to look at your land use contracts so that it matches up with your official community plan.

There is a process with public hearings and mailing to the landowners, so there will be that process in place. We've made sure that we will be working with UBCM. We'll be working with area associations and groups that will be affected with this to help support them and the administrators to make sure that that is in place.

The other thing that was really important…. There were a few communities that we looked at that are really small. One of the things that I said is that I didn't want, necessarily, to put a really small community on challenge of having to go and do their OCP again, to make sure that we are preparing for that. So if there is a local government out there that is challenged by having to go through an OCP update when they move forward on the land use contracts, we have the support within our ministry to help those local governments. We tried to look at the long-term — kind of a holistic approach of where the land use contracts are and put in place a process to help support local governments on phasing those out.

V. Huntington: I'm curious. Has the ministry been approached by municipalities to engage in this type of ten-year termination process? I know my municipality has been terminating land use contracts by the dozens, and there's certainly been no process that I'm aware of in terms of public hearing. What are the implications of these terminations, and is there any retroactivity back? What can the public expect to see handled differently as a result of the termination of them? I've just had some people indicate to me that they're very concerned about the implications of this, and I just wondered what the minister could tell us in that regard.

[1615]

Hon. C. Oakes: How we got here on the land use contracts…. There were several resolutions passed over the years by the Union of B.C. Municipalities for us to look at that. The question of why we're looking at the termination of the land use contracts over ten years….

One of the things we felt was that we needed to provide adequate time for those folks that have those contracts to prepare to go through that process, as well as for communities to prepare to make those, to allow the application of modern land use regulation tools across communities in the region, provide greater certainty and transparency for neighbourhoods and remove the longstanding barrier that's really prevented municipalities and regional districts from planning their communities effectively.

A lot of the things that we saw when we did the research…. You would have an official community plan. It was well planned out around transit areas. Then you'd have land use contracts, a few of them, and they, of course, don't fit into the official community plan.

It's great that some communities have decided to move forward on the land use contracts just so that they match the official community plan. There is no retroactive tool in order to say: "Well, this is the zoning process that you now have to follow."

What we're really looking at are those 2,400 land use contracts that are out there in the province…. This legislation — really, what it will do is to effectively move so that we're modernizing our official community plans and making sure that, strategically, municipalities and local governments, regional districts, have the opportunity to really frame what their communities are going to look like.

Sections 42 to 48 inclusive approved.

The Chair: We already have passed 49 to 51.
[ Page 3177 ]

On section 52.

[1620]

S. Fraser: First of all, I'd like some clarification that this part 5, dealing with energy and mines amendments, is the section of Bill 17 that's to facilitate the implementation of fees for notice-of-work permits.

Hon. B. Bennett: Correct.

S. Fraser: This is way better than estimates. It's way faster. Thanks to the minister for that.

The consultation or the input period has ended — I believe it was the end of March — for the proposed fees to be added at the very front end of the industry. This is the exploration side of the industry. Has the minister compiled that input that came in from the sector? That would include placer miners, prospectors and the smaller firms involved with exploration.

Hon. B. Bennett: There was no hard date in terms of the end date for final consultations on fees under the Mines Act. There was an end date for the first phase. We posted a paper on the ministry website.

From that posting and as a result of meetings with the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C.; the Mining Association of British Columbia; the B.C. Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; the Placer Miners Association of British Columbia; the East Kootenay Chamber of Mines; the Smithers Exploration Group and many, many other individual mining companies and exploration companies, we received 477 comments, 188 e-mails and 289 letters in terms of the written response and had many, many discussions with those groups that we just referred to.

The status of the consultation on the issue of fees that may be charged under the Mines Act is that we have had our first phase. We are in the process of putting together a second phase, going back out to those same individual companies and those same associations to get their views on a revised approach to fees under the Mines Act.

S. Fraser: Just to be clear, the minister was quoted a number of years ago that cuts to the ministries, the dirt ministries, have actually led to the backlog in permitting that I guess expanded to 110 days or something in 2010 from 55 days in 2007. Basically, according to the minister in his previous statements, the ministry did away with the people needed to address the permitting issues, so that led to a big problem.

Now, I was at the roundup, the Mineral Exploration Roundup, where the minister spoke. There was just a slight allusion to the fact that there may be some fees, but there were no workshops. There was the perfect time to discuss this first-time implementation of fees at the very front end of the exploration process in this province.

Does the minister still stand by his earlier statements that this was created, essentially, by government cutbacks, and now we're trying to get the funding to deal with the administration of permitting from those that can least afford it — the placer miners, prospectors, junior exploration companies?

Hon. B. Bennett: I won't respond to the invitation to debate the politics of all of this, but I will respond to the substantive part of the member's question. The ministry has been receiving roughly $5 million from contingencies for the last few years. Certainly, they were in that position when I took this job last June. I was asked to try to generate some revenue from the permitting in the mining industry, under the Mines Act, to try to recover those contingency dollars.

[1625]

The industry is well aware of that. It's not a secret by any stretch of the imagination. We will try to collect what we can under the Mines Act. Once this legislation is passed, it will enable the collection of fees. I should just clarify that the detail of what fees, how much and for what kind of permits will all be in regulation. That will enable us to have yet another round of consultation with industry to ensure that we get those fee amounts correct and at a level where the industry is comfortable.

The member made reference to…. He didn't use the term "notice of work," but the main permit for the exploration industry under the Mines Act is a notice of work that authorizes the company to create some disturbance on the surface of the claims area, whether it's roadbuilding, drilling, ditching or whatever it is. Three years ago that permit took, on average, about 110 days, and we have it down now to a total turnaround of less than 60 days. It's actually quite a big success for the ministry.

I haven't introduced my two staff in the ministry, so let me give them credit, actually, for doing all the work to reduce the turnaround time for notices of work from 110 days average down to below 60 days.

On my left is assistant deputy minister in charge of mines and minerals, David Morel, and on my right is a young up-and-comer, Nathaniel Amann-Blake. Both have been very much involved in this process of talking to the mining industry and finding out from the mining industry what is acceptable.

I note — since I'm on my feet, I might as well say this now — that other industries in the province, certainly the forest industry and the oil and gas industry, pay fees associated with their permits. The concept, at an overall level — not going to individual fees or anything but just the concept of charging fees for permitting — is not unique in British Columbia or anywhere else in the resource extraction industries.

S. Fraser: Thank you to your staff. Thanks for introducing them, and I wish them all well.

I don't agree with the minister's assessment of a good-
[ Page 3178 ]
news story. The good-news story is that we're back to the 2007 levels, after taking the industry for a ride for many years of extended permitting time, unacceptable permitting time, because of under-resourcing the ministry. Then, just before the last election, there was a one-time funding influx. The minister mentioned that — contingencies or whatever. That's the only thing that dropped that number back down to 55 or 60, as the minister has said. But that's just bringing it back down to somewhere in the ballpark of the 2007 timeline.

It's not really a success to take the industry on a ride and then bring it back down again after those lengthy permitting times probably caused a lot of damage to a lot of junior companies. That wouldn't be what any of the industry players that I've talked to would consider a success.

Again, the minister has referred to other sectors having to pay for their fees and notice of work. When it comes to the small prospector — the claim holder, the placer miner — the minister must know, because he has got many of them in his own constituency, that some of them have a budget of $2,000 a year. They're already paying permitting fees. They're already posting bonds. Adding, say, a $2,000 fee, a new fee, right at the top — a new tax that was not supposed to be added….

As we know, the Premier had been telling everyone since the election and before the election that there would be no new taxes. Adding a new tax without consulting with those that would be most detrimentally affected is not in keeping with promoting the industry.

[1630]

I would note…. This is from the Chamber of Mines of Eastern British Columbia, out of Nelson. This is regarding the Mines Act permit fees. It says here: "It is the position of the Chamber of Mines of Eastern British Columbia that the proposed Mines Act permit fees are a very bad idea." I'll just highlight that. "To me and others I have talked with, the proposal sounds more like fines for having the audacity to think you should work in British Columbia. In fact, different mining company executives that I have spoken to on the subject have suggested that they will likely spend their money in other jurisdictions if this proceeds."

The minister said he's got some input from across the mining sector. All the input that I've received as critic has been like this. It's all been very negative, the response. I am just wondering if the minister…. Is he getting a positive response from any of the sector involved?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I hope eventually we get to the legislation, but I'll answer as best I can.

First of all, the hon. member stated that the contingency funding that helped us get the notice-of-work turnaround time down to, actually, 55 days — we're saying 60 days on average, but it's actually down to 55 days…. It's not one-time money, as the member stated. It's money that comes each year. We still have it. That's the first correction I'd like to make.

The second correction I'd like to make to what the member just stated…. He suggested that we are proceeding with the development of fees to the mining industry under the Mines Act "without consultation," and that's a direct quote. That also is not true. We have spent considerable time and effort consulting with all levels of the industry, and we're going to spend considerably more time consulting with all levels of the industry.

I've corrected the member on a couple things. I actually want to agree with him on something else that he said, which is that the small placer miners, the small explorationists — we refer to them as prospectors — who are at the very grass-roots level of the exploration industry are typically the source of all the major discoveries in mining, probably across the world and certainly across Canada.

It's amazing. When you look at a mine that's either in operation or a mine that's in the process of becoming an operating mine and you look back to find out when the deposit was first discovered, almost inevitably you will find that it was some prospector or a couple of prospectors out poking around in the back country that have initially discovered evidence of a deposit.

So it is very important that whatever we do through the development of our fees pursuant to the Mines Act that we don't do anything that is going to discourage that grass-roots level of exploration. I think there is concurrence between myself and the critic on that point.

I forget what the last part of the question was. It was along — a lot of context there for it….

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister on that. I do agree with the minister. I think his assessment of exploration and the needs of the smaller player in the front end of the exploration field in this province is the future of this industry. I don't mean to put words in the minister's mouth, but I agree with him on that.

The problem I have is that putting these extra, pretty heavy fees on that segment of the mineral exploration sector will be detrimental to them continuing their good work because they are often on a shoestring budget. I would note that, unlike other industries, the profits that are derived from someone working a claim, from a placer miner, only happens once…. You know, they're able to turn over their claim — and in many cases they can't because they haven't found anything of value substantially — then, hopefully, they can get a junior mining company involved, and they might be able to take up the claim.

[1635]

The minister, of course, knows the steps better than I do as far as actually when you get a mine that comes to production. It can be many years later. But the fees, the cost of the exploration — it's never been taken from the front end of that industry before. It's come out of the production end of the industry. The $2,000 of a new tax on a small prospector will drive them out of business, so how
[ Page 3179 ]
does the minister reconcile that?

I know that if he's consulting with the industry, with the players on the ground on this, he's hearing the same thing I am. The minister had received that letter. It was from a legitimate organization, the chamber of mines. Of course, it's well known to the minister. That's near his own constituency.

Can the minister comment? Does he not see a problem putting an onerous fee on the front end of this industry which would drive those players, potentially, out of business?

Hon. B. Bennett: This amendment to the Mines Act enables the province to collect fees under the Mines Act in a general sort of way. It says absolutely nothing about which fees to which part of the industry — zero. Everything the member just said is sheer speculation, which is fine if that's the way the opposition wants to use their time in the House.

We, clearly, as a ministry have not decided what fees will be charged to what portion of the ministry. We've had one tranche of consultation. We're going to have a second tranche of consultation, and then we're going to have, after this legislation is passed, a third tranche of consultation around the regulations which will set out what fees will be levied, how much those fees will be and to what part of the industry they will apply.

None of that has any relevance to what we're debating here today. What we're debating here today is strictly the authorization under the Mines Act to charge fees. The member said — I think he said; he certainly implied — that we could charge fees to the big operating mines under the Mines Act and leave the little junior guys alone. Well, maybe I agree with him — perhaps. We haven't decided that yet.

The fact of the matter is that we can't even charge the big operating mines fees under the Mines Act. We don't have that authority. What we're here for today is to determine or to discuss, debate, the fact that we are asking this House for the authority to add this to the Mines Act so that we can charge fees to the mining industry — the components of the mining industry that we think ought to pay fees for their permits.

S. Fraser: Yeah, I get that. I understand why we're here. That's why I'm raising these issues on behalf of those that would be most affected by fees aimed at the front end of the industry.

Now, if the minister is saying that, yes, he's heard clearly from that front end of the industry like I have — from the placer miners, from the associations involved, from the prospectors and the claims holders involved — that this will put them out of business…. If he's going to say that this bill is simply housekeeping to allow fees to be charged in some way…. If he's suggesting that he's heard the message clearly from the front end of the exploration industry and that he's not going to drop a $2,000 fine on a small placer miner or a prospector, well, then, I guess I am wasting time. If I can get that assurance from the minister, that'd be great.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I think now we're getting somewhere. We do need the authority to charge fees to any element of the mining industry, and that's what these amendments are about. I can't make a commitment or a promise to the member in specific terms. We have to finish our consultation before we decide which sectors of the industry will be charged fees and which won't. I have to finish the consultation before we can decide how much those fees will actually be to those elements of the industries that are charged fees.

[1640]

Once this legislation is passed, we then go into this other tranche of consultation with the industry to make that determination of who exactly will have fees charged on them and how much those fees will be.

S. Fraser: I still don't understand. I cannot understand why. We have the biggest convention of the exploration sector in this province. They have their convention, and it's immediately before there's the quiet announcement that fees are being contemplated on the front end of this industry, including a fee schedule saying that $2,000 could be the potential fee for the smallest of the players, going up to $300,000 to the other end of the industry. We went and had a convention where those 5,000 members were there immediately before this quiet announcement.

The minister didn't initiate any discussions, any consultation, at the one event that would be designed to address and get that information if there was any meaningful concern about real consultation. How come the minister announced this quietly in a release — it wasn't announced in ministry documents — almost immediately after the largest exploration convention in the province, without bringing it forward in any meaningful way at that convention?

Hon. B. Bennett: We have not yet had a question that goes specifically to the legislation before the House. The member consistently seems to want to talk politics.

The member would like to present himself and his party as advocates for the mining industry. However, the history shows us that in fact the party sitting on the other side of the House is anything but supporters of the mining industry. When they were in government and they had their opportunity to show whether they supported the mining industry or not, for every mine that opened, two closed. Exploration essentially dried up in the province.

People went to Chile. They went to Peru. They went to the United States. They went to Ontario. They went to Manitoba. They went to Quebec. They went anywhere ex-
[ Page 3180 ]
cept for British Columbia. British Columbia was chosen by the Fraser Institute annual report on mining to be the second-worst jurisdiction in the world for mining under the NDP government of the 1990s.

I'm here to discuss the legislation. If the member insists on lecturing me about mining, this is the sort of answer he's going to get.

S. Fraser: The Fraser Institute, hon. Chair….

Interjections.

The Chair: Carry on.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for raising the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute's annual Survey of Mining Companies 2013 rankings for B.C., released in March of this year: the worst of the provinces and the tenth out of 12 Canadian jurisdictions on overall attractiveness for industry; 11th-worst on regulatory duplication, inconsistency; last of the provinces and tenth of Canadian jurisdictions on its taxation regime.

I mean, I can go on, on this. We can play this game all we want. This bill is about implementing new taxes that were denied by the Premier and this minister prior to and during the election. It's disproportionately these taxes — these new taxes that aren't supposed to be here because we were assured by the Premier and the minister that there were no new taxes — that will disproportionately affect the junior players in this industry. I'll put my Fraser report recommendations up against the minister's mythical ones any day.

How about this? If it's me — just hypothetical, theoretical worry about something that's nothing to worry about…. Perhaps the minister has seen this, if he's reading any of his consultation. This is an on-line petition to the B.C. government on the mines permit fees:

"The provincial government wants to start charging fees to process notice-of-work applications. The proposed minimum amount for less than one hectare is $2,000" — this was on the government's own website — "two to three hectares is $4,000, and over three hectares is $6,000."

This will shut down the exploration side of this province. It goes on.

[1645]

"A large part of placer mining is exploratory work," which the minister has already confirmed. "Mineral deposits have not yet been proven. If a viable mineral deposit is found, then the project would become a taxable venture.

"This will affect any claim holder who would want to use any type of mechanical equipment. At present the small pan-and-shovel hand miner is not affected. However, this could be the beginning of the government eroding the placer industry. This issue affects the entire province of British Columbia. Placer miners in B.C. should stand together and have a unified voice in this industry. The more people involved, the more awareness we bring to the issue.

"Any cost is wrong. There should be no charge for submitting a notice-of-work permit. The government collects taxation on mining earnings, and that money is used to cover costs to the system. It is wrong to front-load costs and fees to exploration work. This cost has a high probability to place exploration and testing of claims for small operators far out of reach.

"The cost to larger operations also represents money that can be used to buy or rent equipment or hire workers. This is money that could go to the economy, money that could allow a venture to carry on or perhaps to initiate the start of exploration.

"Currently in order to get a notice of work, the person has to stake a bond, which sits in place. The dollar amounts of these bonds can range from $2,500 to $5,000 or more, depending on a number of factors. If the mine inspector is not happy with the reclamation, they can pull that bond. Between the bond and the notice-of-work permit fees, this is a lot of money out of the pocket of exploration work.

"All placer miners should be addressing this proposed notice-of-work permitting fee. It's important that we all stay vigilant and unified to present our position on this matter. We urge you to fill out the petition and also add your comments. If you haven't already, please consider joining your local placer mining club. The members of all of the B.C. clubs, along with the affiliations to the B.C. placer mining association, provide a substantial lobby force to sit at the table with the B.C. government for matters such as this."

Then the petition goes on.

"As a free miner in the province of British Columbia, I disagree with the proposed fees for notice-of-work applications. I submit my digital signature below to reject the proposal of implementation of any fees for notice-of-work applications."

This isn't me being political. This is the industry, the backbone of the exploration industry, talking to the minister through me because the minister doesn't seem to be interested in listening. Will the minister reconsider putting new taxes on the front end of an industry that will drive the exploration sector of this industry out of the province?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, in terms of driving the mining industry out of the province, the member ought to know how to do that, because they certainly did a great job of it in the 1990s. Ask anyone in the mining industry in B.C. who was there at the time, and you'll get no argument. That's, in fact, what they did.

The Fraser Institute survey that the member referred to actually stated in this year's report that B.C. is one of three jurisdictions in Canada where government policy is improving. We're getting better. We need to get better. I think we can do a better job in our permitting process, but we are improving, based on a third-party objective analysis.

I'm astonished, actually, to hear a member of the NDP question the reclamation bonds that we charge to anyone who is going to disturb the ground with drilling, with road-building, with camp construction or with trenching.

It has been a policy of the B.C. government for many, many years that before you're allowed to do that, the mines inspector assesses, roughly, the estimate of cost to reclaim the area that the permittee is proposing to disturb, collects that money, pays it back to the permittee as long as the reclamation is done in accordance with the rules — but, as the member suggested, keeps that money if, in fact, the permittee does a less than complete job. Or in some cases, they actually walk away, and the govern-
[ Page 3181 ]
ment is then faced with having to use the reclamation bond to do the reclamation. I'm not sure why the member raised that.

[1650]

Once again, I have personally spent hours, probably more in the days and weeks over my 13 years, working with the mining industry. I'm aware that the junior explorationists, both on the placer side and on the mineral side, are very concerned about fees. I've talked to many, many of them.

That's actually the purpose of consultation. You put out a white paper, like we did, and you ask people what they think. We did that, and we've listened. Now we're going to go out again with a second, subsequent, approach to fees, and we'll find out what the industry has to say.

The member seems to want to assume what the regulations are going to say about how much the fees will be and who they will be charged to. That's not what this legislation does. I know it's an opportunity for the member to stand up and build himself up and pretend that he's actually a supporter of the mining industry. If that's his purpose, fair enough. But at some point we should try to discuss the actual legislation.

S. Fraser: That's certainly what I'm trying to do. The minister is obfuscating in the extreme. Suggesting that I had a problem with reclamation bonds is simply not true, for anyone who was watching or anyone who wants to look at Hansard. Or if the minister had taken the time to maybe read the petition…. I was reading from an on-line petition. It was explaining the number of fees that this sector of the industry is already facing and explaining, I think quite coherently, that adding these fees, $2,000, $4,000 or $6,000 fees….

The minister is saying I'm speculating on that. It came out on the ministry's own website, the proposed fees for the front end and the back end of this industry. That's what the industry is concerned about. That's what the backbone of the industry is concerned about.

This section, part 5 of Bill 17, will enable the minister to implement these fees. You can say: "That's not what we're doing. We just want the ability to do it." Well, the minister talks about consultation. He didn't consult with the industry at their convention on this. He put the notice up quietly on the ministry website without consulting with anyone in the industry.

A question for the minister totally germane to what we're dealing with here in part 5 of this bill is: what impact analysis did the minister have done before moving this fee schedule forward?

Hon. B. Bennett: Once again the critic is wrong. The 2012 mining survey that was published actually referenced the fact that the ministry was considering fees under the Mines Act. So it wasn't quiet. It wasn't secret. It was right there in black and white for anybody to read. It was on the website.

Subsequent to that, staff have informed me that they discussed the concept of charging fees under the Mines Act with both of the major mining associations in B.C. who represent all of the smaller regional organizations in the province. Then, unlike what the member has suggested, I actually talked about it in a speech that I gave at the roundup in January.

There has been a pretty concerted attempt to make sure the industry is aware of what we're thinking, to listen to them and to modify our initial approach to whatever extent we can. That's the stage that we're at right now.

[1655]

Again, what we're debating here today is simply the authority to charge fees under the Mines Act. The authority does not exist. So if this legislation fails, then the ministry, the Crown, would be unable to charge fees to any element of the mining industry, including the great big companies that the NDP hates so much. We wouldn't be able to charge fees to them either.

Again, I don't quite understand where the member is coming from. We're here to debate the actual legislation, which is purely the authority to charge fees under the Mines Act.

S. Fraser: A question to the minister. Going back to 2007, when the length of time for a notice-of-work permit to be processed was about 55 days, how did the ministry manage that without the fee schedule that the minister is proposing?

Hon. B. Bennett: You know, it's very simple. When I was Mines Minister in a previous iteration, 2005 through 2007, we had one mining project in the environmental assessment process and really not much on the horizon. We currently have 30 mining projects either in or about to come into the environmental assessment process. When I took over…. When I was first elected, before I was Mines Minister, in 2001, the exploration investment in the province was about $29 million. It's been up over $750 million under this government.

The clear answer to the member's question is that we have a far larger workload. The mining industry has confidence in British Columbia today. That's why we're so busy. That's why we need to charge fees — to pay for all the extra work that has come as a result of the policy changes we have made and as a result of the improvement of the investment climate in this province.

S. Fraser: The minister himself, in 2010, said that his government starved the ministry of the staff needed to do the work. That's what the minister said publicly on record. So we know how come the ministry had a dismal record, double the amount of time for notice-of-work permits to be processed. It was because, according to the minister, this government starved the ministry of the necessary re-
[ Page 3182 ]
sources and the staffing to do so. Now we're supposed to be implementing a bill so that the minister can determine how to get the money out of the front end of the industry, which will potentially shut down some or many of those people in the industry.

Again, this is the bill right here. This is part 5, which allows the government, the minister, to make the decision on that taxation. The minister has placed…. Right after the mining exploration roundup, where he made an allusion to some fees…. There were no discussions with the 5,000 people. It was just one side comment in a speech. He put on the ministry website, quietly, the proposed fee schedule, which included $2,000 to $6,000 for the smallest players in this industry — for the placer miners and the prospectors, the claim holders.

Is the minister planning on putting those fees in place? He put that on the ministry website. I'm not making this up. That's why the chamber of mines has written this quite concerned letter. That's why their on-line petition is happening. If this goes through, it looks like the plan is, based on the submission made and the information put on the website by this minister, that they're going to drive people out of the business.

[1700]

The minister says he's consulting now, after the fact. It doesn't appear he was consulting with the Chamber of Mines of Eastern British Columbia or the Placer Miners Association of British Columbia. These are the people most affected, disproportionately, by this fee schedule that the minister put on the ministry website. They're not making this up. I'm not making this up. Why is the minister denying that he is looking to tax the front end of this industry in a way that's going to damage them, according to the industry people themselves?

Hon. B. Bennett: Perhaps the member is hard of hearing. I'll repeat what I said a minute ago. The industry in B.C. has known since 2012, since the publication of our mining strategy in 2012, that the government was considering charging fees under the Mines Act. Both of the provincial mining associations were informed. They represent all of the mining associations across the province, so in fact the mining industry knew a full two years ahead of today that government was thinking about charging fees under the Mines Act.

The member is clearly and demonstrably wrong about what he's saying. In addition to the 2012 mining strategy that was published, I actually talked to many people at Roundup about this, including the executive directors of both mining associations. I've had several discussions personally. My staff have met formally and informally with both mining associations.

When we get a regional association that's particularly curious about this or particularly upset about this, one of our staff people calls the association if they're out in the region somewhere and they can't get to Victoria, to make sure they understand what is being proposed and where the consultation is at. Again, to repeat myself for the benefit of the member, we have made no decisions about which components of the mining industry will be charged fees or how much they will be charged.

As for the ministry and myself as minister and this government understanding what will impact the province's reputation around the world with regard to mining or anything else, I would rest our case on the basis of the last 13 years and how investment has improved in this province, not just in terms of mining but in terms of oil and gas, in terms of forestry, in terms of high-tech, in terms of film. Every single sector of the economy today is stronger than it was in 2001 because this government actually understands the economy.

While I appreciate the advice I'm getting from the mining critic, I would say that he should just wait and keep his powder dry and see what we actually decide in consultation with the mining industry about fees. If there is still a high level of concern being expressed by the mining industry at that time, then clearly I won't have done my job. I'm sure there'll be some, but I think it will be quite minor by the time we get to a final result on fees charged under the Mines Act, once this legislation passes.

S. Fraser: I guess I have a question. Why did the minister quietly put on the website that the proposed minimum amount for less than one hectare is $2,000; two to three hectares, $4,000; and over three hectares, $6,000? That's on a chart on the website where this was quietly announced. Where did he get those figures from, and what impact analysis, negative impact analysis, did he undertake with the industry before coming up with those numbers?

Hon. B. Bennett: The staff for the ministry, the very capable staff for the ministry, informed me that they did have preliminary conversations with the two associations about that fee schedule before it was ceremoniously announced and released to the industry for the industry to have a look at.

[1705]

We made it very clear that that was a starting point, which is why we're not done consulting yet. The industry is aware of that. The initial numbers were based on a 60 percent cost recovery estimate. The staff tried to calculate, as best they could, the cost of turning around the different types of permits under the Mines Act — how many resources were required, how many experts, how many days it took to process those permits. Some of those permits require very, very comprehensive work and considerable resources. After the ministry did that, they basically took 60 percent of the total cost and created that fee schedule, and that was where we started.

S. Fraser: So no impact assessment on the placer min-
[ Page 3183 ]
er, the prospector, the claim holder? Just a number pulled out on the one side to cover the ministry being starved of the resources, the government starving the resources of this ministry to do its job. Coming up with a number….

It's great to have the number that you want to have for your revenue, but what about the impact on those that would be most affected? That's what I'm asking. I'm not too concerned about how the minister came up with the amount of money he wants. What impact studies did he come up with to come up with those numbers?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are two parts to my answer. First of all, the staff inform me that they did do an analysis of each level. There are, obviously, different levels of the mining industry. You go all the way from the single prospector or the single junior placer miner all the way up to a large operating mine. The staff analyzed roughly how much at each level those folks spend to do what they do, and then, as I said a minute ago, we establish the actual number by calculating the total cost of turning the permit around and then taking 60 percent of it.

The impact analysis is being done today by actually talking to the industry. They are telling us what the impact is. We are recording what they are saying. We are going to continue to talk to them and ask them what the impact is, and at some point — I would think this spring or early summer — we will finalize what the numbers are. We'll finalize what aspects of the industry will get charged fees and which parts of the industry will not. After doing that, in concert with the industry, we'll have a final announcement.

S. Fraser: Well, then, this bill, this section, part 5 of the bill that enables the taxation, is premature. I mean, the minister has already made the decision to tax. He's already put forward the proposed numbers. Despite his claims that he's been consulting with the industry, it doesn't appear that he talked to the B.C. Placer Miners Association, because they've got a petition that I certainly read out. The minister remembers that.

It doesn't appear that he's consulted with the East Kootenay Chamber of Mines president and the B.C. Placer Miners Association. These, again, are the players that will be most affected. The East Kootenay Chamber of Mines president and the B.C. Placer Miners Association vice-president, wearing two hats…. That's Jason Jacob. The minister, I think, probably knows Jason. They say the proposed fees will be a death knell for grassroots prospectors and placer miners in this province or force them to work illegally. Two thousand dollars will run many placer miners off their claims and out of business or force them underground to go it illegally, and ironically, the ministry has almost no one left on the ground to police that.

[1710]

This is what we're talking about today: a bill that will allow the minister to do that to the industry. What level of consultation did the minister have with the chamber of mines and the Placer Miners Association of British Columbia?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll start with the last part of the question first. My staff have had some intensive discussions, actually, with the East Kootenay Chamber of Mines. I personally have met with Mr. Jacob and a number of other miners, mining folks in the my constituency office in Cranbrook. They requested a meeting. They got one immediately. We spent considerable time talking about this topic. They left, I think, reasonably happy, as near as I can tell, so perhaps the critic is just a little far behind and his materials are dated.

I can also assure the critic that the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. and the Mining Association of B.C. cover all of the regional organizations, many of which — or a few, at least — the critic has mentioned here today. They are all covered under the umbrella of the two provincial organizations.

To some extent, we did rely initially on the two provincial organizations to help get the word out and to elicit feedback from their members, and they've done that. They've done a good job of doing that. But as I said a while ago, any association in the region that really wants to talk directly to us in the ministry can do that. They have done that, and we will continue to talk to those folks.

The other piece of the member's question. Again, the member has suggested that it's premature to pass the legislation before you start to work on the regulations which would set any fees that we decide to charge. The answer to that is obvious. You have to first create the authority to charge fees under the Mines Act before it makes any sense to have a discussion with the industry about what those fees should be.

The fees will be set in regulation, as I've said a number of times here today already, but we first need that authority to set those fees. Again, we don't know which elements of the industry will be charged fees. We don't know how much those fees will be. But it's all moot if we don't have the authority under the Mines Act to actually charge fees.

S. Fraser: Then, the minister wants the authority to charge the new taxes, which I'd say was a misrepresentation, because there weren't supposed to be new taxes. Then there's a kind of a "Trust me. The actual fee schedule will happen through regulation."

Can the minister confirm: if part 5 of Bill 17 passes, he then has the authority to make the regulation to set the fees however he sees fit? Can he confirm that?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm not sure that it's parliamentary to suggest that there's been a misrepresentation, and I
[ Page 3184 ]
wonder if the member would like to withdraw that comment.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: We will not set fees in regulation without considerable discussion with both the exploration side of the industry and with the established operating-mines side of the industry. I've said that. I'll say it again and be happy to say it some more. We will only set fees in consultation with the industry.

I can't speak for the two provincial associations. I had breakfast last week with the two executive directors. My impression is that they are game to work with us. They want to work with us. We will continue to work with them and also the regional organizations.

We will pass this legislation, hopefully, which will give us the authority to charge fees. Then and only then will we decide which elements of the industry will be charged fees and how much those fees will be, and we'll do that in consultation with the industry.

[1715]

S. Fraser: All right. I know everyone wants to move on. I must say this has been perplexing for me. The fee schedule that was proposed, according to the people most affected, will create havoc in the industry. I haven't heard otherwise. I have certainly received written submissions directed to the minister that were cc'd to me from placer miners in his own constituency actually echoing what I am saying here today.

This new taxation form that the minister wants to have authority to invoke unilaterally will potentially hurt this section of the industry, which is key to the future of mining in British Columbia. It is being imposed, if we pass this, to cover mismanagement and underfunding of the ministry. According to the minister himself, in 2010 this government starved the ministry of resources. Now they're looking to tax the front end of the industry, which could put them out of business.

I can't support part 5. I will be calling division on this. I'll take my seat.

Section 52 approved on division.

[1720]

The Chair: Members. Members, please take your seats.

Section 53 approved on the following division:

[1725]

On section 54.

M. Farnworth: I understand that what this section is, is actually following through on a commitment that was made a couple of years ago. But given the interest that's often expressed on the Island, particularly by my colleague to my left, who may have more to say on this particular issue in a few days…. I know it's of great interest to him.

I just want the minister to confirm the rationale behind the elimination that's proposed in this section and what it will accomplish.

Hon. M. de Jong: Not wanting to pre-empt what I am certain will be remarkable commentary from the member's colleague a few days hence.…

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member astutely points out a scenario that I hadn't even contemplated.

The specific provision and the rationale for the repeal of the provision relates to the fact that no tax has been collected under it since 1969. We could have a broader conversation about what it was. But in point of fact, no taxes have been collected under the provision since 1969, and it's no longer required.

Section 54 approved.
[ Page 3185 ]

On section 55.

M. Farnworth: If the minister could just explain briefly — and clipped, short tones are fine too — in terms of what this section is going to accomplish.

Hon. M. de Jong: Later on we'll be talking, in other amendments, about the creation of something called a "representative owner" in circumstances where there are multiple titleholders on a piece of property. This is the Manufactured Home Act amendment that breathes life into the notion of a representative owner.

Sections 55 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

M. Farnworth: This particular section is quite extensive and deals with "Phase disclosure statements" in terms of a strata plan under the Strata Property Act.

[1730]

Can the minister just outline what changes this section will bring in place, what issues and problems it is intended to deal with and how it will make things simpler and clearer?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: In this particular section the amendments to the Real Estate Development Marketing Act are designed to create the statutory authority for a developer to provide two documents that are not presently contemplated by the law.

One is a phase disclosure statement for developments that take place in phases. I think the member is familiar with the circumstances in which that would be appropriate.

The other — equally and perhaps even more important — is the notion of a consolidated disclosure statement to address this challenge where a developer has filed initial disclosure statements and there are then a series of amendments to that original disclosure statement, so by the time a purchaser is deciding whether or not to sign a contract for purchase and sale, they are confronted by perhaps a need to look at an original disclosure statement and then a series of amendments.

The consensus of opinion seemed to be that by allowing a consolidation of the original with the amendment and creating the legal mechanism for creating that consolidated statement to a purchaser, that, firstly, served the interests of the purchaser themselves and, secondly, would serve the interests of the developer, who has the legal obligation to provide that documentation to the purchaser.

M. Farnworth: I just want to make sure I go through this so I have a good idea of how this will work. When the minister is talking about a phased development, I can think of one by my place where you've got phase 1 that has now sold out, you've got phase 2 under construction, and phase 3 is going to be down the road in another year or so.

So when someone comes and buys in phase 1, they can look and they'll see their unit and they'll make a decision to purchase that unit, but there may be changes that the developer decides to do after purchase or before purchase. Is that where the amendment would come in?

Or is it that I purchased in phase 1, but there are changes to phases 2 and 3 down the road that I need to be notified about, and so the way this will work then is that I will get one single agreement with all the changes in it in one document as opposed to a series of different documents? If I'm on the right track there and that's the way it will work, let me know.

[1735]

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think, roughly, the member is describing in practical terms the kind of development that can be captured by this. My only hesitation was I wanted to be sure and check with officials.

The crystallizing moment which attracts legal significance of consequence here is the transaction between the developer and the purchaser and the obligation to provide an accurate disclosure — in this case, a phased or a consolidated disclosure statement at the point of that transaction. That might not always coincide with what the signs on the road say about phase 1 and phase 2.

It's the transaction between the developer and that purchaser and the obligation on the part of the developer to ensure that that purchaser has an accurate disclosure statement — either a consolidated statement, a phased statement or a statement and the amendments upon which they can make an informed purchase decision.

M. Farnworth: If I'm the purchaser, then, I purchase from the developer, and at that point in time the developer has to provide me with a statement that is not only on what I am purchasing but also any changes that have been made or will be made to the particular project? How would it differ from what takes place right now, then?

Hon. M. de Jong: The added dimension to this that I had not mentioned relates to the fact — I think the member knows this as well — that we're dealing with….

[1740]

In many cases, transactions are described as presales. So the purchaser is in a position where they are really obliged to rely on the material set out in the disclosure statements.

In some cases, if we're talking about a phase 1, everyone is kind of in the same situation. The development project has just begun. But if we're into a situation where
[ Page 3186 ]
phase 1 is underway or nearing completion and phase 2 has begun, the objective is to ensure that purchasers have a clean, consolidated document that contains all of the information that they require to make an informed choice and also any changes that are materially relevant to the purchase decision they are making or have made.

M. Farnworth: I think that's the key. When someone is buying a place or they make that decision…. I mean, yes, there's phase 1 which you can be into and then phase 2.

But in the presale thing, if all of a sudden I'm buying a place, and I'm told that there are 50 units. Now we've decided: "Well, hang on a sec. We're going to reduce the number of units" — or increase the number of units or change some of the configurations on the number of rooms and size of rooms or whatever. Then you should be made aware of that, and you should have that in one set of documents as opposed to: "Oh, this week you've got this amendment, and now we've got another."

That is how this will work, if I'm correct. I see the minister nodding his head.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is the objective here.

Section 59 approved.

On section 60.

M. Farnworth: Section 60 seems pretty straightforward. It provides for the "release of the deposit when the purchaser fails to pay the balance of the purchase price when that balance is due." Just how does that differentiate from what happens currently?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, the clarification here relates to a subsequent deposit, and it wasn't clear in the original. It wasn't clear enough, I'm advised, in the original provisions that a subsequent deposit was covered by the same provisions.

M. Farnworth: That would be in a situation, then, Minister, where I had, let's say, made a deposit of X number of dollars and then was due to make another increase on that deposit by a certain date. If it didn't come through, then it allows for that to be rescinded. Is that the way that it currently works or is supposed to work?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that's correct.

Section 60 approved.

On section 61.

M. Farnworth: Just further on this, could the minister give an example? This, again, relates to receiving an amendment to a disclosure statement.

The amendment "restricts the right to rescind of a purchaser who receives or is entitled to receive an amendment to a disclosure statement to circumstances in which the amendment would disclose facts material at the time of rescission or closing and reasonably relevant to the purchaser, and the purchaser has not owned the development unit for more than one year." Then it also gives the courts "the power to order a purchaser to pay market rent when the purchaser occupies a unit and then rescinds."

I guess I'll deal with the first part first. If I understand this right…. How does it restrict the right of the purchaser, and what kind of amendments would be anticipated that would disclose facts that are material? How would that work? What is the problem that they're trying to solve here with this particular change?

[1745]

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe what I'll do for both section 61 and, I think in part, section 62…. I think the member's question was: what's the rationale? What's the problem here?

The issue is this. There is recognition and ongoing support — certainly, I and the government support the proposition — that in circumstances where a purchaser does not receive the material to which they are entitled or receives inaccurate material that can be reasonably construed as being material to the interests of that purchaser, the right to rescind a contract of purchase and sale should exist.

What happened that gave rise to an examination of this section was some jurisprudence that saw — I suppose, in a market where the purchasers might have had other interests in rescinding a presale agreement — relying on very, very technical breaches — so an error in a disclosure statement that really could in no way be construed as material affecting that purchaser. The court said, "Well, we don't have a choice. Unless there has been a technical breach here, that is, under the act, grounds for rescission — and the purchaser."

What we were trying to do and work with the parties to find was the right balance that said, you know, this is a consumer protection measure. We want to preserve that, but preserve it in circumstances that it was intended to address. We believe the language here will accomplish that.

Sections 61 to 63 inclusive approved.

On section 64.

M. Farnworth: This deals with the taxation rural area and sets out a number of issues. I think one of them is one we talked about before with the minister, about "multi-owned parcel" and "representative owner." If we could go through the definition and what is meant by the multi-owner, why it's being added and what it's intended to ac-
[ Page 3187 ]
complish, I think we can get through the bulk of these sections very quickly — because I have questions on 73 and notification.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to take a cue from the member's earlier question, maybe, on an earlier section and try to describe what the problem is that we're trying to address here.

[1750]

It would seem that the surveyor of taxes is unable to send taxation notices to more than 63 owners of a piece of property. I cannot advise the member what the magic is around 63 owners of a single title, but apparently the software and systems cut off at 63. There are a number of properties — I had 35 properties — scattered about British Columbia that have these multiple owners, RV resorts. There is, as well, a legal obligation to provide each of those owners with a taxation notice. That makes sense.

The proposed means of addressing that is to create, as the member has seen, this notion of a representative owner that can be established in circumstances where the obligation to provide notice of taxation is complied with and the limitations that have precluded sending out notices to more than 63 owners on a particular piece of property can be addressed as well.

That's the rationale. We can talk about the mechanics of it, but that's what's trying to be accomplished here.

M. Farnworth: Not that I expect the minister to answer today, but I would be fascinated to know how on earth this arose — not 61, not 62, not 64, but no more than 63 notices can go out.

The question, before the minister said there was only 35 parcels, that I was going to ask: then would that apply to an apartment building, for example, that has 250 units in it, each one an owner? Each one has a separate title. So this could be a parcel — for example, let's say, a recreational parcel that through three or four generations suddenly comes down to 65 kids. Lots of grandkids all have an interest in this particular parcel.

In terms of resolving this and creating this issue or concept of a representative owner, now will that mean that one individual will receive the tax notice and that individual, or whoever has the authority to receive that, that representative owner, is responsible for all 61 owners receiving a tax notice or ensuring that they have to pay their portion of the taxes? Or will each individual owner continue to get a tax bill?

Hon. M. de Jong: The objective would be to rely upon the representative owner, but any individual owner on title would be entitled to request and receive a tax notice. The intention would not to be to send one pre-emptively to every one of the owners. That's the problem that's being addressed. It would be to send it to the representative owner. But any individual owner could request and receive the tax notice.

M. Farnworth: The 35 properties: are they all family-owned? Do we know the breakdown? Are any of them corporately owned? Or would that make a difference, whether it's family-owned or corporately owned or individuals?

[1755]

Hon. M. de Jong: I just wanted to check. I'm happy to share as much information…. I didn't want to violate any privacy stuff. The 35 properties — Parksville, Mission, Christina Lake, Hedly, Vernon, Okanagan Lake, Shuswap, Enderby — tend to be RV-type developments. And 24 of the properties have taxes below $2,000. Four of the properties have taxes in the $2,000-to-$50,000 range, and seven of the properties have taxes in excess of $50,000. That's kind of the breakdown.

M. Farnworth: This seems to me to be a good solution to a small but unique problem. I don't have a problem with that. I just wanted to make sure, in terms of people being notified, that they are entitled to receive a notice if they ask for the notice.

Who determines who will be the designated individual? Is it that the collective individual owners have to decide who will be designated as the…? The term has escaped me.

The Chair: The representative owner.

M. Farnworth: The representative owner. Thank you, hon. Chair. You see? That's why you get the big dollars.

Who will determine who will be the representative owner?

Hon. M. de Jong: The owners themselves. I'm told that in a number of cases there is, for example, a management company or an owners association that would logically fill that void.

Sections 64 to 80 inclusive approved.

The Chair: We'll take a short recess to arrange for additional staff.

The committee recessed from 5:57 p.m. to 5:59 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

On section 81.

J. Darcy: I wonder if I could ask the minister first about the purpose of section 81.

Hon. T. Lake: This section is one of a series of sections
[ Page 3188 ]
that expands the scope of practice for nurse practitioners. In this case the provision allows a nurse practitioner to certify the death of a person in a licensed hospital.

[1800]

J. Darcy: I certainly appreciate that, Minister. Certainly, any changes that expand the scope of nurse practitioners are very welcome.

I wonder if I could just clarify, before continuing my comments, if I am right in understanding what the suite of amendments are that you will be dealing with in this bill.

We're dealing with section 81 here, which, as you've said, deals with certifying a person who is dead so they can be removed from a hospital. I understand it involves section 109, Vital Statistics Act, requiring a nurse practitioner to complete a medical certificate in specific circumstances and to make it available to a funeral director and so on. That's section 109.

Section 121, also the Vital Statistics Act, authorizes the registrar general to issue a copy or an electronic extract of a registration of a death or a stillbirth to a nurse practitioner. Those three deal with certification of death in various ways.

In addition, section 137, the Family Law Act, "authorizes a nurse practitioner to provide a written statement indicating that it is not appropriate that parenting time or contact with an ill child be exercised."

Section 144 adds nurse practitioners to the list of those who are qualified practitioners for the purposes of the Workers Compensation Act.

Then finally, the Youth Justice Act allows a nurse practitioner "to certify a young person's health so that the person in charge of a youth custody centre may accept the young person into custody."

Am I right in assuming that those are the suite of amendments that will be addressed?

The Chair: I think, Member, if we could go section by section and deal with the sections as they are ordered, it would make it easier for the committee. Do you have any further questions on section 81?

J. Darcy: Well, my question is about 81, but it's also about a number of the others. When the minister issued a press release announcing the changes that would be contained in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, part 7, specifically dealing with health amendments, he spoke of a significant number of changes that were being made that would expand the scope of activity for nurse practitioners in a variety of different areas, and that, indeed, is welcome news.

I was asking about the purpose of this one but also to review the extent of those. It did not appear to me on the face of it…. I hope that the minister can enlighten me that there may be others that I'm missing.

There are a number of other areas, certainly, and a number of different statutes that the Nurse Practitioner Association, amongst others, has advocated be changed, so it is important, I think, to clarify what is in the minister's release that spoke to this amendment, as well as the others — whether that is the entirety of the changes that are being proposed by the government.

The Chair: While I understand what the member is saying, the committee will deal with the sections as they are printed. Therefore, we're dealing currently with section 81. As we go through the bill, we can deal with the other amendments as we come to them.

Sections 81 and 82 approved.

The Chair: Shall section 83 pass?

I'm sorry that perhaps I've caused some difficulties for the member for New Westminster. Would you prefer me to slow down, or are you caught back up again? Can we deal with section 83? Do you have any questions?

J. Darcy: I'm good.

[1805]

Sections 83 to 108 inclusive approved.

On section 109.

The Chair: I believe that the member for New Westminster has a question on 109.

J. Darcy: I wonder if the minister could please explain the purpose of that section.

Hon. T. Lake: This, again, is part of the suite of changes that increase the scope of practice for nurse practitioners. This section allows nurse practitioners to complete a medical certificate.

Sections 109 to 114 inclusive approved.

On section 115.

V. Huntington: I'd just like to, firstly, say to the minister that I'm certainly glad to see this section finally on the books, and yet it does not affect the upcoming B.C. Services Card policy change. Could the minister confirm that? If that's the case, could he please tell me when that policy can be expected? It's been about six or seven months now that I've been told it's coming out, every month, so if he could explain that situation a bit further, I'd like that.

Hon. T. Lake: The B.C. Services Card policy will be changed to be consistent once this legislation is passed.
[ Page 3189 ]

V. Huntington: Could I just ask if the minister could give me some sense of timing on this — whether the policy change is ready to go, or do we have to wait?

Hon. T. Lake: My understanding is that we are ready to go as soon as we get through this bill, so if we do that in the next 20 minutes, that would be really great.

L. Throness: I rise to speak to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I have a couple of questions for the minister, and I have a preamble that will articulate my concerns before those two questions. I want the House to know that I've given these questions and my speech to the minister in advance.

I want to say, first of all, that I support the act in general. It has many good housekeeping amendments, whether confirming an appointment, redesignating titles for the accounting profession, helping nurse practitioners, disclosure requirements, land use contracts, and so on.

Just one of the 158 sections troubles me, and that's the one we're at now, No. 115. I will be voting against this section in committee, but I also want the House to know that I will be voting for the bill as a whole, because I think the bill contains much good. It's just this one section that concerns me, and that's the section which amends the Vital Statistics Act to allow gender reassignment by way of declaration.

First — and I'm going to stick close to my notes here, because this is a delicate topic — I want to thank my colleagues in the B.C. Liberal Party for allowing me to speak on this topic. I'm pleased to belong to a coalition in which a diversity of views is allowed to be expressed. While I respectfully disagree with this clause, I remain firmly in support of our government and our Premier and the Minister of Health, who has treated me with genuine respect and kindness on this issue.

[1810]

My disagreement is respectful, Mr. Chair. Respectful disagreement lies at the heart of a free and democratic society. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes this great truth — that it is in disagreement that liberty manifests itself in all of its beauty.

Our freedom is not tested when we all read from the same page, as they must in far too many places in the world. It is precisely at the point of disagreement that we experience liberty — that we savour, that we demonstrate our freedom. My respectful disagreement with this part of the bill today is an expression of a truly free and democratic society, for which I am very grateful.

I do sincerely respect and appreciate all British Columbians, no matter their lifestyle or belief system. I don't condemn anyone. I don't wish to be condemned. It's my desire to elevate human dignity and affirm the intrinsic worth of every person. Although it would be perfectly appropriate to do so in the right context, my remarks today are not based on morality or religion. I will be making a biological argument.

This topic is important. Gender lies at the root of human identity, of personal interaction, of familial and societal organization, and of human economy. If I were to describe who I am to someone from another world, I think I would first say that I'm a human being and, second, that I am male. Our biological sex, our gender, is a foundational personal identifier. It would be hard to imagine, therefore, a more profound change that could be made in law than what we have before us today, and that is why I am standing in my place.

I realize that the word "gender" is hard to define. Happily, the bill before us gives us clear direction, because the clause itself refers to gender in the traditional sense, as confined to the male or female sex. It describes the CEO of the Vital Statistics Agency changing one's birth certificate from male to female or vice versa. So I will use gender in the same way.

As the law on gender change currently stands, there is a high bar to changing one's gender identity — that of gender reassignment surgery. I salute the courage of those who have undergone this surgery, and I don't think the existing law should be changed, since people have ordered their lives around it.

Gender reassignment surgery must be very difficult indeed. Not only does it involve tremendous internal conflict as one attempts to alter one's own body in the most intimate of ways; it must involve much bodily suffering. I think the fact that people want to move away from it is a positive thing. This law will avoid it entirely, replacing it with a simple written declaration of gender change.

However, our gender identity goes deeper than a surgeon can reach. In biological terms, our internal and external organs help to define our gender. Our chromosomes also help to define us. Scientists have even found recently that male and female brains are wired differently, and there may be other ways in which men and women differ at the deepest levels.

But I want to point out the obvious. I'm sure we'll all agree that even after undergoing gender reassignment surgery and hormonal treatment, no one has ever changed the way their brain is wired. No one has changed their chromosomes. No person has changed their male reproductive organs into female ones or vice versa. The changes that people make to their bodies involving outward appearance or hormonal treatment or even surgery must, therefore, be more cosmetic in nature.

This view is actually affirmed by the bill before us, a bill fully supported by the transgender community, which states that gender reassignment surgery is not necessary in order to alter one's gender. It must come as a bitter pill for all those who have paid a great emotional and physical price to undergo this surgery to find that their own community and their government have now decided that it was all unnecessary.

In fact, gender transition has never before occurred in
[ Page 3190 ]
a biological sense, and this is implied in the term "transgender." A transgendered person is one who is in a state of permanent transition toward the opposite gender, a transition that cannot be completed. Gender transition is, therefore, more of an aspiration, an ideal and an ideological construct.

From time to time throughout history there have been social movements in which people believed that they were entering a new age, a fundamental shift in human reality, and so it is with this movement. But in each case, time reveals who we really are, just ordinary people living in a real world of real constraints. After all is said and done, there can only be partial movement from one gender toward another. There is no third gender. We are all simply men or simply women.

A law that claims that one has changed their sex is therefore inaccurate. A legislature does not have the capacity to change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. This is the domain of nature, not of law. It is my belief that the law ought to accord with biological reality rather than purporting to offer something that is physically impossible to accomplish.

My first question for the minister is this. Why would the government seek to entrench in law a sex designation that does not accord with biological reality?

[1815]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the hon. member for his respectful way that he presented his questions and which allows me to have the opportunity to respond.

The question is about a biological change. I want to say that this isn't about biology. This is about a social construct. In fact, on a notice of birth the sex of the child is recorded, and that will never be amended. That is a permanent record. We're talking about a birth certificate in which the gender can be amended to agree with the social construct or the way in which the person who owns that information would like to be identified.

Essentially, we're not talking about the sex of a person; we're talking about the gender of a person, the way in which they see themselves and the way in which they present themselves to the world, based on an application with supporting documentation from a physician or a psychologist.

L. Throness: It may help to understand that social construct — those who do not identify clearly with one gender or the other — by referring to the terms "masculinity" and "femininity," which are to some extent social constructs. We all occupy a unique place on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity, and this spectrum is not necessarily related to our biology.

For example, there are women who are more masculine and men who are more feminine, but this does not change their biology, I would say their gender. It is masculinity and femininity, which are more fluid states, rather than gender. So while Facebook, for instance, has 56 new gender identity options, I would submit that there are not enough, because there is actually an infinity of possibilities here.

We all enjoy a unique expression of masculinity or femininity along that spectrum, and we should all be comfortable with how we express ourselves in that way. For example, if a man wishes to live as a woman, he is now and should be perfectly free to do that as long as his freedoms do not unreasonably infringe on another's privacy or other rights.

But after a lot of thought, I'm convinced that this part of the bill is only superficially about reassigning gender. On a deeper level it is about self-acceptance. Allow me to explain. Popular culture is profoundly critical of our physical bodies. We are too big or too small. We're not good-looking enough. We don't have the right shape or size. Body types impossible for the ordinary person to reach are held out as ideals, and everyone falls short of them in some way.

As a result of this, too many of our young people are depressed and anxious. They have serious eating disorders. They're dieting and asking for cosmetic surgery. Some resort to steroid use and drug addiction. Today I'm concerned that this bill marks an extension of this trend.

Our own sincere and well-intentioned government is introducing a new frontier of self-criticism, yet one more way for our children to reject their own bodies, and this in a manner far more potent than those I have mentioned, because it strikes at the core of who we are, at our gender. So while this bill proposes to target a handful of people every year who find it difficult to accept their own male or female identity, in actuality it will apply to every person in B.C. and particularly to impressionable people and youth.

Allow me to explain how I believe it will impact them. What the law allows, it legitimates. This proposed law asserts that it really is possible to change one's gender, one's sex, and it thereby legitimates that act. This gives permission. It opens a door and creates a path leading toward a declaration of gender change for any British Columbian, particularly for teens already in the throes of development.

Moreover, this law encourages people to question their own gender by assigning equal value to gender stasis and gender change. Young people are very conscious of gender issues, and they will quickly become aware of this law.

So a teenage girl might say: "The government says that Mother Nature gets it wrong sometimes and that I may be in a wrong body with the wrong gender. If I can choose to be a man, maybe I ought to choose to be a man. I like to build things, and I'm a bit of a tomboy. I'm a woman in my body, but maybe deep inside I'm really a man. Who and what am I? How do I know?"

Perhaps most won't be bothered by this law, but a sig-
[ Page 3191 ]
nificant minority, I predict, will experience unnecessary stress and anxiety, even crisis, as this concept pits their minds against their own bodies, encouraging them to reject the deepest part of who they are and to experience the deep conflict and frustration that will result from the fact that although they may reject their own sexual identity and accomplish a partial transition, it is impossible for them to change their biology.

[1820]

That's why I feel that this bill will work psychological harm in the lives of many impressionable people and could require a battery of psychologists to reassure people that they ought to be secure in their own identity even though the law will always say the opposite — that their sexual identity is always in question throughout their whole lives.

I would add that this law is relentless. It will continue to encourage questioning and change. Even after a change has been made, a person will never know when they have it right. But I'm forced to point out yet another disturbing aspect to this bill. The clause states that a person doesn't necessarily need to be an adult to make this life-altering decision. The minister can waive that requirement in specific cases. If, for example, a 14-year-old wishes to make this change, they can do so if they're judged to be grown-up enough.

To my mind, this abolishes the distinction between children and adults, as a child will now be tasked with making a truly adult decision: that of consenting to gender change and even to gender reassignment surgery if they're deemed to be mature minors.

A young teen may be sophisticated and well-spoken, but he or she lacks the one quality indispensable to maturity: that of experience. Nothing can replace the wisdom that years add to one's life. This is the reason for distinguishing between children and adults, and we do so in order to protect minors. By removing the requirement of adult experience to make such an important decision, we are in reality removing the protection that the law has historically afforded to children, who will now be rendered even more vulnerable to the searing bodily critique of our media-driven culture.

Parents should carefully consider what they want for their own children. Would they want their own teen to be plunged into turmoil, aided and encouraged, perhaps, by the law and supported by the government's bureaucracy — in some cases contrary, perhaps, to parental wishes? All this to attempt to change that which cannot be changed: one's gender.

I think that this bill will also promote bullying. We all know that kids can be cruel, and a big effort of our government — and one I applaud — is to eliminate bullying. But what will the taunt be, once this legislation passes, if a boy exhibits personal characteristics that are more feminine than the average boy? The mockery in the school yard will be: "You're not a boy. You are really a girl."

I can only imagine, as a man named Laurie, how I would have been treated if this law were in place when I was a teen. Jeers like this would have brought to me profound humiliation, depression and self-doubt with lasting, harmful results.

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by my words. In fact, I want to have a heart of compassion for transgendered people, but everyone has feelings, including the young and impressionable people who, I believe, will be negatively affected by this bill. Thus, we must weigh feelings using the concept of net benefit. In all public policy we approve a policy only if it offers the public a net benefit. While this law might cause a few people to feel better, I assert that over time it will cause a great many to feel worse. Therefore, this proposed law represents a net loss to society rather than a net benefit.

Instead of this law, the government could positively affirm youth with the following message: "Whoever you are, you are just right in your bodily size and shape, in your appearance, your race and ethnicity, your abilities and disabilities — and, yes, your gender. You are already wonderful, so embrace, celebrate and rejoice in who you are."

In all aspects of life, to encourage the acceptance of the things we cannot change is the path to psychological health. Our government could exert a very positive societal influence by affirming the intrinsic value, nobility and acceptability of every person's natural self, including their biological sexual identity.

Is there a more positive law that could replace what we have before us, Mr. Chair? I think there is. Since law should reflect biological reality, I would indeed like there to be an exception in the Vital Statistics Act: an opportunity for gender reassignment.

There are, in rare cases, people born with what are increasingly known as intersex characteristics, in which their sexual traits are biologically ambiguous. In these cases, loving parents have made a choice of gender, on their children's behalf, early in life.

When these children come of age, if they feel more comfortable with the opposite-sex designation, I think they should be allowed to redesignate. But it should be based on the opinion of a medical doctor rather than a psychologist, one who is aware of that person's biological history. These cases should be treated with the greatest of care, flexibility and sensitivity.

To summarize, I've highlighted three reasons to reject this section of the bill before us. First, it will embed in law and in government policy a concept of gender change that is incorrect because it purports to offer what is biologically impossible. Second, it will entrench in law and thereby extend an existing societal trend of self-rejection — and this at the very deepest level of human identification. Third, the law fails the test of net benefit, because while it might make a few people feel better, it will make many — particularly, impressionable people and youth — feel worse.
[ Page 3192 ]

As a net loss to society rather than a net benefit, this law should not pass. But I want to close in a very positive way by once more affirming the identity of every person in this province. Each of us is a complete and whole person just the way we are.

[1825]

I would encourage British Columbians to believe this about themselves, to accept their ethnicity, their race, their size and body shape and looks and abilities and disabilities, to accept their own unique expression of masculinity and femininity and to embrace their gender, to celebrate and rejoice in their own bodies and to accept their fellow British Columbians for who they are as well. To be convinced of this reality is the path to psychological health and wholeness, and this is the path I would choose for every citizen of this great province.

My second and last question to the minister is this. Has the government considered that there may be unintended harmful consequences to this law, and will the minister take some time to consider them?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member, certainly I have deep respect for the sentiments he expressed in terms of ensuring that young people feel comfortable with who they are and that they should be protected from bullying.

I believe that this is in fact what we are accomplishing with this particular bill. The member said that on Facebook there are dozens of different sorts of genders that you could relate to. I would submit that young people would look to Facebook more than they would to the statutes of British Columbia to form their thinking and to inform the way they treat each other.

In fact, I think this does have a net benefit, because under the provisions that we have had in the past or up until this point that have been in place since 1974, proof of surgery had to be provided in order to have gender reassignment. This change allows people to live the life that they believe they should without pushing them to have surgery, so in fact, I think that there is definitely a net benefit.

So yes, the answer is I have considered the possibility, the unintended consequences, but on the evidence before us and with a lot of discussion on this bill, I believe there is a net benefit and that in fact this will bring the legislation to the modern era, reduce stigma and reduce the type of concern in terms of bullying that the member has elucidated.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I will move adjournment and recommend that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 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 resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

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

S. Fraser: To the minister — a new minister — congratulations on your role. I'm glad to see you there. I know you'll do a good job. And thanks to your staff for making themselves available. It's been difficult because your ministry, of course, has many tentacles to it, and it's hard to keep track of sometimes. Some of the questions I have asked previous ministers — the Minister of Environment, for instance, and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — who I thought would have been able to answer questions, were deferred to here.

I'm hoping, as we have about an hour to deal with all fish- and fisheries-related issues…. I know that won't be enough time, so I'm going to just not address some of the overview issues of your ministry in regards to some of your budget issues and contingency fund issues — standard questions that sort of apply to all ministries. I may be forwarding those in written form afterwards, just so we can get sort of to the meat of some of the fish issues.

I guess my first question is if the minister could just give a quick overview so I and others who may be watching this can get clarification as to the specific role that your ministry has in addressing fish, fisheries and aquaculture issues?
[ Page 3193 ]

[1500]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you for the question, my first question in estimates. Today has been an interesting day: a first scrum, really, first QP and now first question in estimates. You're right. There are a lot of tentacles at play. Of course, we're the right ministry to talk about tentacles, because we have 300 commodities and about 100 or so are fish commodities. It's good that you came here for that question.

I'd like to introduce the staff, if I may, to begin with — the people who actually make things hum on a daily basis. We have Deputy Minister Derek Sturko here on my right. Grant Parnell, assistant deputy minister, business development division, is here behind me. James Mack, assistant deputy minister, agriculture science and policy division, is on my left. Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister, corporate services, is off camera over there somewhere. We also have, behind me, David Coney, manager of policy, and Barron Carswell, manager of intergovernmental relations.

Thank you to everyone that's here to answer questions for the hon. members and to help me do so as well.

Specifically to your question, the primary purpose of this part of the ministry is to maximize economic values. We of course are trying to achieve $14 billion in sales by 2017. We're about $11.7 billion right now. A big part of that is our aquaculture portion of the ministry. If I understand correctly from a year and a half ago, when I was the minister at the time, about 100 commodities were aquaculture and about 200 were agriculture. I'm sure I'll be corrected in a minute if that's wrong, and I'll get back to you, but that's what I remember.

That's our number one goal. We do fish inspection of provincially regulated plants.

I see you're taking notes, so I'll talk slowly, because I know I'm a slow writer.

We work on international marketing efforts to make sure that our producers are selling all over the world. We help to negotiate international treaties that would allow for the maximization of specific species' economic values.

We work, of course, with Aboriginal Affairs, a big role with them; the Ministry of Environment as well; and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. If I may, I'm just going to go to a bit of a global perspective. As the minister is probably aware, in my constituency…. It's not unique to my constituency, but in the Salish Sea, near the Deep Bay–Bowser area, there has been significant mortality in some of these products that we are exporting. Certainly, it's part of that mosaic that he's talking about.

I know Island Scallops lost pretty much their entire — over 90 percent — scallop production due, it appears, to ocean acidification. That has also, I've learned, been happening throughout the region dealing with other shellfish, like oysters.

[1505]

I'm just wondering if the ministry has any role to play. I know the ministry addresses the permitting issues directly with aquaculture tenures. That's the primary role that the ministry plays, I guess, since the Morton decision, which moved the majority of responsibility on aquaculture over to the feds.

These are significant issues for provincial players here — the aquaculture producers, the shellfish aquaculture producers. Is there a role that the minister or the ministry has in maybe helping some of these significant players in the industry address some pretty dire situations due to acidification of the ocean?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question. Very sad, of course, to acknowledge the 90 percent loss in scallops. I understand that FLNRO issues the tenures, not the Ministry of Agriculture, on the tenure side.

I would like to inform the member that the Institute of Ocean Sciences is currently trying to measure the pH in the area. It has become a priority for them. They're going to continue to work on that, because obviously, it impacted Island Scallops this time, and it might do so again.

They made that a priority, and our staff are in regular contact with them — who, of course is DFO, right? That continues to be a priority of that particular arm.

So while research is not within our particular mandate, ministry professional staff are working in an advisory capacity with DFO on this matter.

S. Fraser: Thanks. I don't mean to jump a bit here, but for clarification, if the tenuring is happening through Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, what role does your ministry play in adjudicating applications — for instance, for whether it's shellfish or finfish aquaculture or foreshore leases for seaweed harvest?

[1510]

My understanding is that you still play a role as the ministry in this. I'm a little unclear as to what that looks like.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for his question. You will find that a good part of estimates is the minister learning all kinds of things. I appreciate your patience. Actually, I appreciate the patience of all British Columbians with me as I continue to learn more and more.

The best that I can say is that the harvesting seaweed, in particular beach-cast seaweed, does come within our ministry. As far as working with FLNRO goes, it's at a higher level in setting the policy. I'm sure there's going to be another question coming out of that, because I can see the hon. member's face.
[ Page 3194 ]

[1515]

S. Fraser: I am confused. I mean it with no disrespect; I just probably didn't get that.

So if there is an application for an aquaculture tenure, say an oyster farm in Clayoquot Sound, does not the Ministry of Agriculture address…? Are you a referral agency? What's the role of the ministry? My understanding is that you still play a role, but I could be wrong on that. I've been confused before.

Hon. N. Letnick: I think we got it. Oyster farming in Clayoquot Sound, for example — it was a good example, by the way. Thank you very much for putting the meat on the bones, so to speak. It helps for us to do that specifically.

That would be a Crown land management decision for which they would not consult with the Minister of Agriculture. However, we would get involved in high-level policy creation with FLNRO, but not on a specific application basis.

S. Fraser: I need to talk to the Minister of Environment, because she steered me towards you on some of these questions. I will have a chat with her on that.

So is that the same with finfish aquaculture? Does that follow the same way? I see Barron is shaking his head yes, so that's probably a yes.

Hon. N. Letnick: It's a freebie.

S. Fraser: A freebie, yeah.

Does the ministry play any role interacting with, say, your federal counterparts when it comes to fish in the province or aquaculture in the province?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for another good question.

[1520]

We are actively engaged with the department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the quick answer, but I thought I'd get more to the answer for you and give you some examples.

For example, in the policy area, money for herring spawning assessment, we would be consulting with DFO. On the international treaty side of things — like treaties for tuna, hake, salmon or halibut — we would also work with DFO there. We play a coordinating role with the other provincial ministries, like MARR and FLNRO and Environment, at the table.

S. Fraser: Since there is a role with wild fish, I see, with the ministry…. It is about a year and a half now since the Cohen Inquiry recommendations came out. Justice Cohen had 76 recommendations, many of them — not all of them — dealing specifically with British Columbia and the scenario with the sockeye river salmon and its future survival.

Now, it's supposed to be a pretty bumper year in the province for sockeye returns. They're anticipating that. Nevertheless, the recommendations that came forward — is there any monitoring of those? There were some very specific recommendations from Cohen relating to British Columbia and relating to our salmon. I mean, I know they're Canadian salmon, but they're in British Columbia. They affect British Columbians first and foremost.

Does the minister or the ministry have a role in oversight in those recommendations?

Hon. N. Letnick: There is one I do know the answer to, at least the first part of it. We'll see if there's a subsequent question to it.

I had the privilege of being the minister at the time that the Cohen Commission came out. We did our due diligence. We looked at the recommendations. I think it was within two or three months, something like that, that I actually went up to Discovery Islands and had a look for myself. Then we basically, as a government, adopted all the recommendations of the Cohen Commission that were directed at the B.C. government, including the recommendation not to issue any more tenures in the Discovery Islands area for the time being. That was all done.

I'll wait for a subsequent question from you, if there is one on the matter.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. You've gone part of the way into answering my questions that I'm coming up with.

One of the key issues recommended was:

"The department of Fisheries and Oceans should immediately create a new position in the Pacific region at the associate regional director general level, with responsibility for developing and implementing the wild salmon policy implementation plan recommended under recommendation 5" — of Cohen — "and supervising the expenditure of funds provided under recommendation 6 for implementation of the public policy."

I've been trying to find some information on this, and I didn't get anything from the Minister of Environment, either. How are we doing on that? I haven't been able to find…. Who is the appointee, and how is that going?

[1525]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for another good question. I'll put on my reading glasses. It's small print. We're trying to save paper in British Columbia, I guess. It's environmentally sensitive. Of course, the Minister of Forests might have objections to us trying to save paper. As long as we recycle the paper, I guess it's okay. Reduce first.

"Implement Cohen Commission recommendations pertaining to B.C." That's part of the former minister's mandate letter. I assume that in my role I've assumed his
[ Page 3195 ]
mandate letter. It is part of our ministry to do that. We also take the lead in the coordination throughout the province of the recommendations that apply to B.C — the seven or eight recommendations. It's our job to lead it through, through all the different ministries.

Regarding the new position specifically for DFO, recommendation 5, the Cohen Commission applies to the country, and I have no knowledge of what the plan is from the federal perspective.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I was actually quite specific on the question. Has DFO immediately created a new position in the Pacific region, British Columbia, at the associate regional director general level with the responsibilities I mentioned before — in dealing with the Fraser River wild sockeye salmon policy?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you for the question. We have no knowledge of whether or not the department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada have done that recommendation. I'd be happy to inquire for you and get that information for you if you like.

S. Fraser: I would accept that, although wouldn't the minister agree that…? Maybe there's another ministry on this, but I believe it is this ministry that has the responsibility for Cohen, as you read. If there's no action on Cohen….

One was quite specific. It was to immediately create this position. If that failed, it arguably fails British Columbians and our cherished sockeye salmon resource.

Wouldn't the minister see his role possibly coming up as more than an inquiry one but as an advocate for British Columbians, coastally and in the Interior where sockeye are very important to all things — the economy and the life cycle? If there's a key part of Cohen that hasn't happened, like this appointment of an individual, shouldn't the minister be pushing the feds to live up to what it cost $26 million for the taxpayers of Canada to do — to come up with these recommendations? If they're not doing the recommendations, wouldn't the minister have a role to try to give them a push on that?

[1530]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite, who brings up a good point. We've been focused since the Cohen Commission came out on, number one, determining whether or not we could comply with the recommendations in the report that had to do with British Columbia. As I have stated before, we did. We came out publicly and strongly that we would attempt to meet all the conditions of the Cohen Commission that applied directly to British Columbia.

We showed that through our decision on the Discovery Islands, as an example, and the work that has been going on for the last year and a half on those other recommendations.

I do have a trip to Ottawa planned in the beginning of June with PNWER, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. I asked staff last week to try to set up meetings with both the Minister of Agriculture and the minister of aquaculture.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Should I be successful in having a meeting with the minister of aquaculture, I will bring up the topic as to the Cohen Commission and what their plans are with the other recommendations, the seven years, that deal with the federal government on behalf of all British Columbians.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate that effort. I think that British Columbians would appreciate that effort.

If the federal counterparts are not doing their job on behalf of British Columbians, we need to push them on that, I think. People expect nothing less. I don't think that's a political statement. We have spent a lot of money, and thousands of people put a lot of time into informing that process. So I'm hoping that those recommendations will actually be lived up to at some point in time.

With that, I'm going to change, just at the moment. An earlier process that happened in 2005-2006, before the minister was here…. I was appointed to a bipartisan committee, a special committee on aquaculture. We went all over the province.

The Chair, from Skeena, has a question. The recommendations that came out of that committee…. Actually, many of them paralleled what came out of Cohen. I'm hopeful that you'll be able to find some clarification for the member for Skeena on the question, an important question.

R. Austin: As my colleague has mentioned, I do have a couple of questions relating to one specific recommendation that came out of that aquaculture committee.

[1535]

For a sense of context, after the report was made, Alexandra Morton then went to court and challenged the original agreement upon which some of the regulations around aquaculture had been devolved from the federal government, from DFO, to the provincial government. She was successful in court, and as a result, a lot of the policy around aquaculture went back to DFO.

My question is very specific. The only recommendation that the B.C. Liberal government of the day enacted that came out of that report was one that said there should be no new fish farms north of Cape Caution. The committee basically looked at the fish farm issue over several months and determined that there were serious problems with aquaculture. Most of those problems, of
[ Page 3196 ]
course, took place off the coast of southern Vancouver, where there was a proliferation of fish farms.

Those of us who looked to try and protect the Skeena and the Nass and the Stikine rivers didn't want to see that — whatever the problems were — repeated up north, and the government of the day agreed.

The Minister of Agriculture at the time, who was from Prince George, issued an order-in-council, No. 174, stating that "a minister, ministry and agent of the Crown must not do the following: (a) issue a licence under section 14 of the Fisheries Act permitting finfish aquaculture in or on the tidal waters of the province of British Columbia that are north of 52 degrees, 50 minutes latitude, and (b) dispose of land for the purpose of finfish aquaculture in or on the tidal waters of the province of British Columbia that are north of 52 degrees, 50 minutes latitude."

My question to the minister is this. Acknowledging that DFO now has a large role to play in aquaculture, is this order-in-council still standing firm? Are we assured that there are going to be no finfish aquaculture sites on the coast of north and central B.C.?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Hon. Chair, it's a pleasure to see you, as always.

The question, I believe, was: is the province OIC still in play that there be no new fish farms in northern B.C., I think specifically in the Aristazabal Island area? About halfway up the island is where the line is. The answer — long time consulting, but short time — is yes, the OIC is still in play.

[1540]

R. Austin: I just have a quick follow-up. I understand that FLNRO, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Ministry, actually handles tenure applications but that the Ministry of Agriculture handles the policy side of this. You've already alluded to the fact that you're going to be making a visit to Ottawa in June and sitting down, I take it, with Mrs. Raine, who is responsible at the federal level for aquaculture.

Hon. N. Letnick: If I can get an appointment.

R. Austin: Well, hopefully you can get an appointment. If a minister asks for an appointment…. Hopefully, even the Harper cabinet is allowed to actually meet with ministers, I would hope. Although you'd better get it in quickly, because I understand it's pretty tight to get comments with….

Anyway, my question is this. When you meet with Mrs. Raine, will you be at least acknowledging that this OIC still exists and that the federal government can't unilaterally then overrule this and try to make out that there's leeway on this issue? Can I get a confirmation from the minister on that?

Hon. N. Letnick: I don't know the process of estimates. Am I allowed to ask questions back to the person asking the question?

N. Simons: It's just like question period.

Hon. N. Letnick: Is that it? Okay, well, in that case….

No, no, I'll answer you question, but my question is why? What specifically are you trying to avoid? Did you hear something going on up there that you are concerned about?

R. Austin: Certainly, I'm happy to have a dialogue with the minister on this.

Obviously, a lot of groups came together. There was lots of consultation on this issue. People in the north, on the north coast, are just nervous. There having been a constitutional change with some of the regulations going back to DFO, people are simply nervous that with that change back, after the court ruling, this regulation will not be honoured by the provincial government or the federal government won't recognize it. That's the reason why I'm asking this question.

We want to simply have a confirmation. You've confirmed that as far as you're concerned from the provincial point of view, this OIC is standing. I just want to make sure that when you visit your federal counterpart, you will make sure that she and her government are also aware of the fact that the British Columbia government has stated that there are to be no new aquaculture sites on the north coast of B.C. That's the reason why I'm asking that question.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you for the response to my question. I appreciate that. It's very important to have an open dialogue here.

We're talking about finfish, first of all, right? Not just fish, but finfish north of that line on the island. What I would propose to do is this. I've already extended an invitation to the critic of Agriculture to meet with me as the past critic of Agriculture did when I first got this job. We sat down for about an hour in my office and talked about priorities — what his priorities were for agriculture as we move together, hopefully for a long time, to make sure that we build our province, both in agriculture and aquaculture.

I've now discovered that I have two critics, one for agriculture and one for aquaculture. So I now extend that same invitation to both critics to meet separately or together with me. If that turns out to be one of their priorities for me to take to Ottawa and discuss, then I'll happily do that.

[1545]

I just want to be careful that I don't make the shopping list so long with the federal minister and their time that I don't get what you, as the critics, want me to discuss with the minister — and, of course, what we need to discuss with her, in the case of aquaculture, as well.

So if you would bear me that indulgence, I will say a qualified yes, if you can convince your critic to put it on the list of his priorities when he's talking to me.

R. Austin: I just want to thank the minister for that. Certainly, I'll be speaking to my fisheries critic and take that forward. So thanks very much.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That was a useful interchange.

Just touching on Cohen again. I'm going to run out of time here. I don't have enough time for this.

This is the ministry that is addressing the Cohen inquiry recommendations but not the ministry that's involved with siting — that's Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — for the province. One of the key recommendations in Cohen addressed siting and making sure that new science would inform siting criteria so as to minimize interaction, I guess, between outbound-migrating young sockeye salmon and fish farms that might be within that migration route — for a range of a reasons, whether it's sea lice or potential disease contraction or just the predation that could happen on those salmon.

I'm not aware of anything being done in that regard from DFO as part of the recommendations from Cohen. I know the minister isn't directly related with siting, but you interact with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations when it comes to siting.

If you are aware that the Cohen recommendations specific to protecting outward-bound migration routes…. If those recommendations have not been met, if there has been no action from the feds, how will the siting issues be addressed if the feds haven't done their job according to the recommendations put forward by Cohen addressing siting issues in sockeye salmon? If they're not being met and if the feds haven't done anything on that….

I understand we have at least seven applications — some older applications, two new applications — in for fish farm licences now, arguably all of them on the sockeye salmon migration route. Will the minister or his staff be playing a role in determining whether those sites are okayed or not, in light of the fact that the federal government has not done their job? They haven't lived up to the recommendations of new science to protect outward-bound sockeye salmon on the migration routes.

Sorry, I'm going in a circle here, but I hope the minister gets what I'm asking.

[1550]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question. As far as time goes, I offer to the member that if he has any questions after we finish with the allotted time, by all means, we'll endeavour to get you the answers as soon as possible in written form, of course — or in verbal form when we meet to discuss your priorities, whichever makes you happier.

As you know, it's DFO's responsibility to take care of those issues. The Cohen commission…. Even though there were seven or eight recommendations specifically at the province, the rest were federal. From what I understand, DFO has been working on a regional ecosystem, science-based approach. Regardless of the federal government coming forward with their decision on the Cohen commission report, DFO has already been doing it. They're actually piloting a regional ecosystem, science-based approach in the Broughton Archipelago.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'll take him up…. Actually, if I can get beyond Cohen, because I will run out of time here momentarily, if the minister or his staff would be able to provide the status, maybe, of those seven or eight recommendations.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Not today. I realize that. But then I could get just around that, and we can move on through Cohen.

Hon. N. Letnick: Just to be clear, did you want that in written form — the status? Or would you like me to take all the time here and read it out to you?

S. Fraser: No, written form. I'm running out of time, so no. I'm trying to squeak out a little bit more time here. If that were…. I'm getting a nod, so I'll just move on from there.

I'm going to go quickly. I've got another member that needs to ask a question, so I will just….

There's another issue, and it's the beach-wrack harvesting in Deep Bay–Bowser. This is the purview of this ministry, as I understand it. I've spoken with your counterpart on this, and so has the regional district director, Bill Veenhof, for that region and the regional district of Nanaimo.

There's a harvest that's happening on the beach that was introduced just a couple of years ago. They're extracting a red algae. It's Mazzaella japonica. One harvest licence was issued back in 2013, and there has been no public input allowed in this. People essentially woke up, looked out on their beach or their foreshore in the morning, which they have a great amount of care and stewardship for, and found track vehicles out and harvesting this stuff.

What I've asked for and what the community has been asking for is some sort of a public process so that they can have their concerns addressed. There are — I'll repeat this; I've said this before — more retired DFO biologists
[ Page 3198 ]
and experts that live in the Deep Bay–Bowser area than probably anywhere else in the world.

[1555]

When a new fishery is opened up and these people know that none of the science — none of the baseline science — was done before, essentially the experimental fishery is the science. So the licence is being issued without the proper science being done ahead of time, without the control studies being done to see how and if this can be done safely.

I want to let the minister know that it's pitting the community there — who are concerned, rightly so, about their environment — against some of the workers for the companies that have had the licence legitimately issued by the ministry. Because it's been done in a vacuum, it's pitting party against party.

The regional district director and I have been facing a lot on this. I've met with the ministry staff. We're hoping that we can avert that for the next season.

The public process — having that available to the public so that their concerns can be addressed and so that the science that's been done by local scientists and some of those concerns can be addressed — I'm asking if the minister would consider allowing that to happen.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the hon. member for another very good question. The three parts to the answer….

The first part is that there's always an opportunity for citizens that are interested to provide letters to me at the ministry, AGR.minister@gov.bc.ca.

[1600]

Over the last three years, I understand, letters that have been received by the ministry have resulted in changes in practice for licences. For example, the shorter season is because of those letters that have been received. Circumscribing the area in which the harvest can happen was also, in part, because of the letters that have been received.

The second part the member has asked for in the past: the licence process to be posted on line. I can affirm that staff have told me that should happen within the next month or two. You can feel free to tell your constituents that their ask is coming.

The last one is a public meeting. Because of the heavy involvement of DFO, at such a meeting they should be there to answer questions. Staff have been trying to get a commitment from DFO to be there, and so far we still have work to do. Until we can get a commitment on that matter, it would probably be a little premature for a public meeting. I still encourage the letters to come in. They have an impact, and the process will be on line fairly soon.

G. Holman: To the minister: congratulations and condolences on your new appointment.

I have a question about geoduck. You may or may not be aware that DFO has just put out an information process to identify geoduck aquaculture potential within the southern Gulf Islands and Saanich Inlet, Saanich Peninsula. Virtually all, if not all, of the proposal covers my constituency of Saanich North and the Islands. The consultation period for this was six weeks, ending April 19.

I guess I'm wondering: is the minister aware? Is your ministry involved in the process? Just to let you know, I've copied your colleague because, again, I think the tenuring is FLNRO and the licensing is DFO. Just so that you're aware, I've objected to the timing of this, the lack of consultation.

I honestly don't think the kind of use that's being proposed for our area…. As you know, there's a proposal for marine conservation area, and there's the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. It's an Islands Trust area, which has special legislation in the province. I actually don't think that intensive aquaculture is appropriate for the area. That's my personal view, just so that you're aware of that.

When you're talking to ministers in Ottawa, could you ask them about the process? It would be really great if there could be some kind of public meeting within the constituency.

I guess the other question for you is: is the provincial government going to respect the zoning authority of local governments — including Islands Trust, including the three municipalities on the Saanich Peninsula? They do have some zoning authority over the intertidal area. Will that authority be respected?

Again, it should be a question for the other minister. But when FLNRO is considering tenures, can you please assure us and also assure First Nations that their constitutional rights are going to be respected before anything like this intensive aquaculture moves ahead in my constituency?

[1605]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question. Here comes the answer.

The first question, if I got the two questions right, is the process issues with the federal government. We've already discussed that amongst the ministries involved in the provincial government. As the lead minister for that, we have sent a letter to the federal government regarding the process. I'd be happy to share the letter with the member so that he can see what our position is. You'll find our position is very sympathetic to the member's comments.

The second point: is the provincial government going to respect local zoning authority? As the member knows, it is really a FLNRO issue, and I'm afraid that FLNRO has already had their estimates, so you won't have an opportunity to canvass the minister on that piece. It's obviously very complicated and needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. If you would like, I could talk to the FLNRO
[ Page 3199 ]
minister and advise him that you had a concern on this and see if I can get an answer for you. Is that okay?

Somebody on staff is making a note of my commitment so I don't forget what I just said. Of course, it's in Hansard too, right?

S. Fraser: I'll inform the minister and his staff. Thank you. My hour is over, and I haven't gotten anywhere near, so I will be forwarding some questions in writing. Hopefully, that will work out. I have to go speak on another bill.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you very much to the hon. member for some excellent questions in an opportunity for my first estimates. I will remember you for the rest of my life. I'm certainly glad it was you and not somebody else who's about to come up.

I was just joking, hon. Member.

I will extend, of course, that invitation to you to come and speak with me, either independently or together, whatever you two decide to happen. I'll have my staff contact you and try to organize a time. Since there are two of you, we'll probably need more time, and therefore, it might take even longer to get together, but within the next couple of weeks I'm sure we'll find an opportunity to meet and discuss issues.

Good luck in the House.

[1610]

L. Popham: The minister mentioned that he had two critics, but I'd like to remind the minister that he has three critics, actually.

The topic that I'm going to canvass is the Farm Industry Review Board. I don't know if you need anybody to join you.

My first question is specifically around the position of the FIRB chair. How long is the term for FIRB chair at this time?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to my third critic. Take a number. I guess there'll be a whole bunch of critics.

Anyway, I'd like to welcome Jim Collins, executive director of the Farm Industry Review Board, who has joined the august support staff with me today.

We have the answer to your question. It's a three-year appointment, which is standard practice. His appointment ends November 2016.

L. Popham: The current chair was appointed when? And who is the chair of FIRB?

Hon. N. Letnick: John Les is the chair, and it's a three-year term, so 2013 is the answer to when he was appointed.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what month he was appointed?

Hon. N. Letnick: November.

L. Popham: Who was the previous chair?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question. Ron Kilmury. June 2010 to November 2013 was his appointment, at which time, November '13, Mr. Les took over until November 2016.

L. Popham: Why was the former chair not reappointed?

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer is it was an OIC appointment. You want to know how he was appointed? It was an OIC appointment.

L. Popham: Does that mean that there was not a specific job posting that went out?

[1615]

Hon. N. Letnick: The board resourcing and development office are the ones that went through the process. As far as the specific question — was there a public posting? — we don't know, but we'll endeavour to find out and get that answer to you as soon as possible.

L. Popham: Thank you very much. I'd appreciate that information.

My next question was…. I actually did an FOI, and my question is around screening for a conflict of interest. I have an FOI from the board resourcing and development office, which was filled out by the current chair, and in the section that shows the conflict-of-interest disclosure statement, "n/a" was filled out for every question that was asked.

I know that there's a two-part process when somebody is hired to be the chair. There's the board resourcing and development process, but then there's also an internal process in FIRB, and a similar conflict-of-interest form may be filled out by the applicant. Was that done?

Hon. N. Letnick: The easy answer is yes.

L. Popham: Would the minister mind tabling that?

Hon. N. Letnick: The document might be confidential. We're going to check, and if we are able to, we will.

L. Popham: Is there ever a case when a conflict-of-interest form is filled out incorrectly and conflicts are not disclosed? If that's the case, what happens at that point — if it's discovered that conflicts were not disclosed?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the critic for the ques-
[ Page 3200 ]
tion. The board has a conflict-of-interest policy, and it uses that policy. If a conflict of interest comes to light, it's disclosed.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of a conflict of interest that wouldn't allow hiring of a chair to proceed — specifically around FIRB?

[1620]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to technology, both reading technology and electronic. I'll read it straight from the B.C. FIRB site. It says: "Candidates for appointment as B.C. FIRB members must have proven leadership skills" — and strong written, analytical, communication and conflict resolution skills. "Candidates should not have interests which conflict with the performance of their statutory duties and must show balanced judgment and possess the ability to make fair, consistent and timely decisions."

In the end, a member should not have interests that would prevent them from doing their duties. In practice, I understand it happens frequently where someone would have a conflict with a case that's coming up, and at that point they would recuse themselves from the discussion on that particular item.

N. Simons: It's my turn to welcome the minister to his new position and congratulate him. I thought I'd sent him a note saying "Congratudolences," but I'm not sure if I did. He has obviously found himself in a ministry that certainly has active files. Obviously, my priority is to ensure that I make sure that the actions, the decisions and the policies made by his ministry are in the public interest.

If I may ask questions about the Agriculture Land Commission and the core review, I'll start with that. If he has to do a shift change, I'll get the question on the record.

Did the minister have any input into the findings of the core review as it relates to the Agriculture Land Commission?

[1625]

Hon. N. Letnick: At this point I'd like to introduce Brian Underhill, who is here from the Agricultural Land Commission to help answer these wonderful questions.

If I remember correctly, the question was: did I have any input into the core review process as related to the Agricultural Land Commission? Other than as a member of caucus, I had no specific input into the process.

N. Simons: As a member of caucus, was your input sought after? Was there an opportunity for caucus members to have input into the core review?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the critic for a second good question of the day from him. That's really good.

The answer is that as a private member, I was not in any of the cabinet committees or in cabinet dealing with the core review. I did not sit on the core review committee. I was pretty much focused on health care and looking at the future sustainability of our health care system, so the short answer is no.

N. Simons: Would the minister say that he has any influence over the conclusions of the core review as it impacts the Agricultural Land Commission, in his new role?

Hon. N. Letnick: Just to clarify if the member wants to ask me questions about legislation, or is he talking about the estimates? I know I'm just a first-timer at this, but I thought we were talking about my budget. Just to find out exactly what this has to do with my particular budget.

N. Simons: Absolutely. As everyone knows, the core review may result in impacts on the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, as it will likely result in changes, whether they're legislative or not. It hasn't been decided.

My question specifically is: if the core review is complete for the Ministry of Agriculture, is there any opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture to have any impact on what those conclusions are of the core review into the Ministry of Agriculture?

[1630]

Hon. N. Letnick: Up to now, as we've already discussed, I haven't had a direct role in what's happened in the core review as it pertains to the Ministry of Agriculture. Going forward, as the minister for agriculture, the answer is yes, I do have a role to play. I do have some influence there.

N. Simons: I'm very pleased to hear that. I think the minister knows that I'm talking about what's broadly being discussed in general — the potential for agricultural land protection, the system we have in place, to be a subject of that core review. We know that the subject of that core review, the consequence of the review, resulted in some ideas that support the need to change the legislation around it.

But I won't talk about that. I'll ask about what input the minister has had from the public…. What input will the minister have in the finalization of those recommendations from the core review into the future of the Agricultural Land Commission?

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. N. Letnick: Welcome, hon. Chair. Nice to see you in that role.

The Chair: Thank you.
[ Page 3201 ]

N. Simons: Great. Now I have to say the same thing.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, you do have to say the same thing. That's right.

It's nice to see a farmer sitting in the chair here, someone who's very active in agriculture, just like the critic is. He's feeling really good in the chair, I think.

The Chair: Moving on.

Hon. N. Letnick: Okay.

The answer is that the work of the core review, as it pertains to the ALC and the ALR, is complete. The review was announced in the news release and backgrounder, which resulted in a bill that's now in front of the House. There is your answer.

N. Simons: Does the public have any input into the results of the core review?

[1635]

Hon. N. Letnick: As I stated before, the core review is complete. The result of that is a bill that's now before the House. I'm sure we'll be debating that bill in the Legislature at the appropriate time.

N. Simons: I'm sorry to hear that. The minister has said that the core review resulted in legislation and that the public would have no input into the core review findings. As a consequence, I would say…. One plus one equals two. We've got no opportunity for the public to have any say into the results of the core review, yet at the same time, a consultation process is going to be taking place over what essentially are the results of the core review. How does the minister square that circle?

Hon. N. Letnick: I'm going to answer the question I think the member is looking for, but feel free to rule me out of order if I stray from estimates.

The core review is complete. It resulted in Bill 24. I've already stated in the House today, on questions from the hon. member, that the consultation process I've been involved with, after I got appointed as minister, started almost immediately. I've been working with the B.C. Ag Council. I've been working with the ALC. I've been working with other people around British Columbia, reading hundreds of letters that I have received on Bill 24.

I invite more people, if they haven't contacted me, to do so directly. I really appreciate hearing from them. That consultation process will continue until I'm able to look at all the principles that I think are extremely important in making sure that we continue to expand agriculture in British Columbia and income for farmers in British Columbia — finding that balance, always maintaining respect for the ALC's independence and the good farmland, of course, throughout B.C.

Again, if I'm straying too much into the legislation, let me know and I'd be happy to stop.

At the end of the day, what I expect will happen is I will continue this phase of consultation on Bill 24. I will then put together an update to my caucus colleagues on what I have heard. Then we'll see where it goes at that point.

N. Simons: Just to recap, the minister said that the only result of the core review process was legislation and that the public has input into the core review. I'm confused, and I think the rest of the province is a little bit confused. Most people are worried that any consultation that may occur around the principles of the findings of the core review will be dismissed, because it's been said by the Minister Responsible for Core Review that no changes to his results, his conclusions, will be essentially contemplated. No significant result.

[1640]

I think that's confusing. Is the minister going to offer an opportunity for the public to have a say into what the government has concluded from the core review? In other words, will the public not just have an opportunity to say what they want to say, but will they have any assurances that any of their input is contemplated, from supporting the results of the core review to rejecting completely the results of the core review? Is everything on the table with respect to the results of the core review as far as the public is concerned?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I know that the member is talking about core review as potentially a way to bring it to the estimates table, but I'll talk about Bill 24 because that's the result of the core review. Bill 24 — which will be debated in the House at some point in the next few weeks, I'm sure — is something that I'm consulting on with British Columbians all throughout British Columbia. I've been receiving letters from the north, from the south, from the east, from the west — all to do with the results of the core review as reflected in the bill.

You have my assurance, hon. Member, as an hon. member as well, that I am reading all of what's coming in. I will then put together my thoughts — based on what I've read from the public, as well as my conversations with leadership in the B.C. Ag Council, as well as conversations with the leadership in the Agricultural Land Commission — and then will provide some form of update to my caucus colleagues. We'll probably have some other announcement to make at that point that comes from that update.

Again, please tell me if I'm straying too far away from estimates, Mr. Chair.

N. Simons: Through to the hon. minister, he shouldn't ask too many times to please stop him, because you will start to think that he wants you to. We don't want that impression left with the public — that the minister doesn't
[ Page 3202 ]
want to talk about the core review. But we do recognize that the core review is all we can talk about because we're not allowed to talk about legislation. So I'm talking about the core review. I'm happy to talk about the core review.

The B.C. Agriculture Council has obviously expressed concerns about the results of the core review — significant concerns about the results of the core review. I'm not sure they even had an opportunity to provide input into the core review. Who was a participant in the core review process for the Ministry of Agriculture and specifically the Agriculture Land Commission?

[1645]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for another good question. I've canvassed with staff because I wasn't there, and you know that. The answer to the question is that there was a six-hour session with the senior leadership of the Agriculture Land Commission. This was in August of last year. That was followed up by three updates — one in December, 2013, in February, 2014, and in March, 2014 — to different groups: the UBCM, the ALC and another one.

As far as public consultation goes, this was a cabinet process which was conducted throughout other ministries. To the best of our knowledge, there was no per se large public process. It was handled as a cabinet process.

N. Simons: Previous assertions by the Minister Responsible for Core Review that there were opportunities for the public to have input through the Finance Committee — or whatever the Minister for Core Review made up at that time…. Was that just words, or has the minister received input from the public, perhaps through the Finance Committee? And has that been considered when considering the core review impact on the Agriculture Land Commission? Did the public provide input during the core review process, and was that input taken into consideration when concluding the plans for the Agriculture Land Commission?

[1650]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, Chair, and to the Clerk's office for supporting you as well as they do.

In 2010 we had the chair of the ALC, Mr. Bullock, put together a report. I actually remember Mr. Bullock going around and consulting heavily when he was putting together that report. I probably met with him at least twice with other people, and we had good discussions about the ALC.

Also, in the same year the Auditor General issued a report on the ALC. The Auditor General didn't asked me for my opinion at the time, unlike the chair of the ALC, but they produced a good report as well.

In 2013 we had the former minister go around British Columbia for four months discussing matters important to agriculture, including ALC matters, ALR matters.

Throughout this whole process the public have put in their comments directly to the ministry office on ALC matters. That probably has been a process that started about 40 years ago, when the ALR was created. I'm sure at that point letters started coming in, providing comment on that.

To repeat what I said before, we also had the senior leadership at the ALC meeting with the minister for six hours in August of last year and several updates to different groups in B.C. over the last year. But essentially, this was a cabinet process and handled for Agriculture similarly as it was handled for other ministries.

N. Simons: I'd be interested in knowing how that four months of consultation by the previous minister took place without the B.C. Agriculture Council being involved. It's stealthy, if nothing else.

I'm curious if the minister can tell us how many letters he has received, or e-mails or correspondence, on the subject of the future of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. N. Letnick: They're still coming in. That's the first answer. My BlackBerry has probably gone off — hang on, yep — over 20 times in the last day with more letters that are coming in, so more for me to read tonight, and that's good. Roughly, I would guess somewhere around 5,000 or 6,000 letters.

I'm told by staff, who have piled them in different sections for me, that the vast majority of those letters are kind of petition letters, which is: "I'm opposed"; "I'm in favour." That's important, and it doesn't take me a long time to read those.

The ones that really get to the nub of the matter for me are the ones that talk about why the bill is good for them, and I got quite a bit of those. Also, why the bill is not good, and we got a lot of those, as well, right?

That's where, really, I get the education, the consultation piece from the public, when I can sit down and go through the personal stories that people offer to me as to what should happen to the ALR and the ALC going forward, as per the findings of the core review, as you like to put it. I'd say Bill 24.

N. Simons: I like to stay on the good side of the Chair. He's bigger than me. Over 50 percent of farm operators have other jobs. You mentioned that earlier. I think we have evidence of that here.

How is the minister going to be soliciting input from the public on how he addresses the future of the Agricultural Land Commission?

[1655]

Hon. N. Letnick: Having been in this role now for two weeks, the letters are the most important things for me. They really provide context to what people's con-
[ Page 3203 ]
cerns are. I find that as I'm reading the letters, some of the things that people are saying, either positive or negative, are not contained in the bill. They are using this as an opportunity to convey their concern or their support or whatever, and that's valuable as well. A lot of the letters are about different sections and what people perceive to be the challenges.

What I'm doing is trying to synthesize key messages from those letters — what the key topic areas are, positive, and the key topic areas of concern as well — and do my due diligence that way.

I, of course, invited the B.C. Agriculture Council executive to meet with me the day, I think it was — it seems like a long time ago already — or the day after I was sworn in as the minister. We had a good discussion for an hour and 20 minutes. I concluded by inviting them for an all-day session in Abbotsford the week after.

We spent six hours, from 8:30 in the morning until 3:30 in the afternoon, going through presentations by staff as to what the components of the core review findings were as represented in the bill and then looking at each section one by one to identify those areas that they thought were supportable by agriculture in British Columbia and those areas that they thought were of some concern and what those concerns were. We worked through those, and as you know, they have issued a press release, I think in the last day or so, with their sentiments on the core review outcomes or the bill.

My plan is to continue doing the consultation, to continue to invite British Columbians to write to me specifically. I'm really looking for letters a little longer than "I support" or "I'm opposed." I'd really like to see the reasons behind the support or the opposition to the bill.

What I also plan on doing at some point is to give people an opportunity through some form of technology…. As I said last week, there are several options. I've asked staff to look at those options to find something that's relatively quick, given the timeline that we have, but also something we can afford to do. There's always a cost-benefit relationship there.

Anyway, to summarize, I would continue to encourage people to write me their notes on why they think the results of the core review as pertaining to agriculture as reflected in Bill 24 are either supportable or not.

N. Simons: This government has engaged in consultation processes in the past. Some have been subject to criticism, and some have been decried in public. In this particular case, I think most reasonable people would say this is an important thing for people to have input on. What's the rush if the conclusions of the core review do in fact entertain the issues raised by the public? Why is there such a short window? Why would you not at least have the same kind of consultation we've had around whether or not there needs to be a fence around a beer garden at a festival? There's been more consultation about where you can drink a beer than there has been on how we protect the 5 percent and less land in this province.

I think the general public would understand, with the new minister prepared to break the deadlock. My suggestion is: "Then, what's the rush?" Why does the Ministry of Agriculture have to be the first in line to have the results of the core review impact them? If the sentiment to consult is sincere, then the opportunity for that consultation shouldn't be limited to: "Well, that's all the time we have left."

I'd like to know if the minister agrees that, in fact, better consultation could be derived from offering people the opportunity to provide input where they may not be on Twitter and Facebook and the rest of it. They might have town hall meetings where issues are heard and listened to in farming communities and urban areas. This is an issue that's a provincewide issue.

[1700]

I think that without asking for specific input, without a campaign of solicitation of input, it's simply going to be a process that is kind of ad hoc. I think legislation or a core review of this nature requires more than an ad hoc approach. Does the minister agree with that?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair, and nice to see your support has changed. Welcome to the senior Clerk here of the House.

To answer the question. As we discussed already, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission went out and consulted, prior to 2010 and in 2010, on the land commission and the land reserve and produced a report in 2010. Another report was produced by the Auditor General's office in 2010. Those two reports, of course, generated some feedback from the public. They had an opportunity to provide feedback to the ministry's office as they saw the results of that in the public domain.

The minister, former Minister Pimm — who, of course, we all wish the best of health and to get healthy again and come back to represent his constituents here in the Legislature — went out and spent four months talking with people and listening to people about the core review, as the member would like to put it, about the land commission and other factors to do with agriculture. For four months he did go out.

Since the legislation has been introduced, as a result of the core review, this ministry has received thousands of letters from engaged British Columbians who have an opinion on whether or not the legislation has hit the right mark. In some cases people believe it has; in others, people don't. That's understandable. With any piece of legislation, you're going to get different opinions, just like we do in the House. That's healthy, I believe, and that consultation will continue.

I invited my caucus colleagues — I can't remember
[ Page 3204 ]
if I invited your caucus colleagues, but I know I invited mine — over the Easter break to go out, back to their ridings, and consult, talk to people about what's happening in the bill and the results of the core review. I will, when I present my findings as an update to my colleagues in the near future, also be getting their feedback back to me as to what they heard and what they're hearing from their constituents. I would welcome, if the member has something to offer from the opposite side when we meet for our little session in the next week or so, talking about that as well — as to what you've heard.

Then, of course, in addition to that series of letters that I've been getting and reading, these thousands of letters…. I encourage more people to write letters if they haven't already — or if somebody has and they have something new to say, by all means, send me another letter.

[1705]

When this bill is eventually passed, prior to the end of the legislative session this summer, then we are proceeding with a consultation on the regulations as to what the regulations should contain. Should we decide to expand that to a broader public than what was anticipated, that's something that I'll have to review with staff and with my colleagues.

The Chair: I think I might have to mention here that we're referring a little bit too much to legislation. It is not the proper subject, as I think everybody is aware, of Committee of Supply.

N. Simons: Absolutely. I've been doing my best to avoid the subject. I have no interest in talking about legislation at all. In fact, I wish that legislation that we're not talking about didn't exist, and if it didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about the core review.

But we're talking about the core review, and I think I heard the minister say that the results of the core review are set. The results of the core review, as has been determined by cabinet, will become part of how the Agricultural Land Commission operates. The core review's results are set. However they're set will be up to government, but they're set, and they're set in a way that reduces the independence and politicizes the commission. That's my understanding.

The minister said that they were set, and when they go into effect — the minister said "when," not "if" — then the fine-tuning can happen. The fine-tuning — the minister referred to some regulations. Well, those regulations must come from the results of the core review. It's certainly not part of a major core review process.

The regulations are like the fine-tuners, and I don't think the public would be pleased to know that, in fact, they can write as many letters as they want, but they will not influence the decision of government. That is the clear bottom line here. It is absolutely unquestionable that from what we've heard today from the minister, who was appointed in order to fill the space that has been vacated, I hope temporarily, by our friend the member for Peace River North, there is nothing changing. "We're going straight down the road. Send us your letters. We're glad to read them. Have a nice day." That's going to be it. There's no….

The people can write. They can say in vast majority, if they're watching, the eight people now…. Eight more people know that the minister is asking for letters. Oh, I didn't count the gallery — 13. So 13 can write letters to the minister to add to the thousands that he's received.

You know, this is not a minor issue. The ferries — they hired people to go consult with everyone in our communities. They flew to our communities, or they took the ferries to our communities. They asked everybody more than once. People started rolling their eyes and wondering, you know….

They asked about liquor. I keep mentioning that they asked everything. How big can the growler be, you know?

Here we have fundamental findings from the core review that could significantly impact the future. Here's a quote, hon. Chair, with your indulgence. "Nothing that the core review process could potentially do would reduce the protection for farmland in British Columbia — bottom line." I could do a quiz and say: "Guess who said that?" But it was the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

Does the minister today believe that the results of the core review could have an impact and could, in fact, reduce the protections for farmland in British Columbia?

[1710]

Hon. N. Letnick: Just to make sure that the record is clear, since being appointed the Minister of Agriculture slightly over two weeks ago, it was my intent and continues to be my intent to continue to listen to British Columbians, to value their input, to encourage their input, which I have done at every opportunity, and to take into account that input prior to providing my caucus with an update in the near future.

That input is very valuable to me. It's a hallmark of my life, of my political life and my private life, as to how I function. I would not be asking people to provide me with their input if I didn't plan on looking very seriously at what they were sending me and to consider that prior to making any update to my colleagues in caucus.

So just to make sure that the hon. member understands that that's exactly what I am doing and what I will continue to do until I make that final determination as to what my recommendation will be on the results of the core review, as we like to call it here — Bill 24, essentially.

On the specific question as to the core review and the ALC and the ALR. You were asking a question, and the answer is: the core review was there to help grow B.C.'s diverse agriculture sector, continue to protect farmland
[ Page 3205 ]
and, at the same time, better support farm families and responsible growth of B.C.'s diverse agricultural sector.

The core review also determined, through the process, that it had to continue, of course, to make sure that the independent nature of the land commission and that the process would not impact on the commission's budget. The budget of which…. I'm proud to say that when I was the former Minister of Agriculture, we were able to convince the Minister of Finance, with the help of the opposition critic and others in my caucus, to get another $4 million for the operations of the ALC, which they are putting to good use by doing a number of things, including their review of the different regions throughout the province.

N. Simons: Just to warn the minister that when he quotes from that press release…. We've heard almost the exact same words from lots of ministers. It sounds like it's not being read, but it's…. "Looking at how the ALC can continue to protect farmland and, at the same time, better support farm families…." You recognize that. I know that.

[1715]

If the Agricultural Land Commission was doing such a good job and if the minister at that time was able to convince his colleagues that in fact the recommendations of the chair were appropriate and in the best interests of British Columbia, what the heck happened in the last two years when you were doing something else? What happened in the cabinet that suddenly changed their minds with respect to the direction of the Agricultural Land Commission? How could such a fundamental change occur so quickly?

Does the minister support the changes? Would the minister support any reduction in the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission? Would he support any reduction in the provincial approach to protecting agricultural land? Fundamentally, does the minister believe that there should be two zones for how we administer agricultural land, as I understand the core review may have concluded? Are the regional panels being mandated as part of the core review's purpose? Would the minister say now whether he believes that would have been acceptable to the Agricultural Land Commission when he was the minister before?

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. N. Letnick: Apparently, we have a vote.

The Chair: The committee is recessed until after the division.

The committee recessed from 5:16 p.m. to 5:29 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. N. Letnick: Hon. Chair, good to see you in the chair. You'll pardon this 56-year-old brain. I didn't make any notes prior to leaving, so I don't have the question or questions. If the hon. member would repeat what the question was, I'd be happy to answer it.

[1730]

N. Simons: I'll do my best. Perhaps I could make up a new question.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, sure.

N. Simons: All right. Thank you very much. I'm here all week.

A Voice: You don't remember your own question?

N. Simons: No, I have no idea what I asked. We'll look at Hansard later. Maybe I'll get an answer in writing. That would be a good way of addressing that issue.

There is one question from the member for Delta South. So for my last question, let me ask about the Arctic apple. The UBCM passed a resolution asking that the government engage in a complete review of the economic, social and health impacts of allowing the Arctic apple in the market. What's the status of that review? If it hasn't been completed, could the minister tell us when it would be?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for, I believe, his last question in these, my first estimates. I appreciate…. It has been an interesting day: my first scrum in five years; my first QP, really, in five years; and now my first estimates. It is a privilege serving all of the people of British Columbia. In particular, I look forward to working very closely with the hon. member, the critic, and his colleagues across the House in making sure that agriculture continues to grow throughout British Columbia.

Specifically about the Arctic apple, the federal government exercises authority nationally, as the member knows, over label and marketing and importing and exporting and interprovincial trade of agricultural products, including genetically engineered products. The province recognizes the federal government role to ensure transparent, science-based, effective environmental and socioeconomic review of genetically engineered products.

As far as I know, four federally approved GE crop species are currently grown in British Columbia: canola, corn, soy and sugar beets. The Arctic apple is a GE apple. It is currently awaiting federal approval for unrestricted access. Ministry staff are continuing to monitor the issue. More information can be found with Health Canada on their website.

When I was previously in this role, I did forward to Minister Ritz, who was and currently is still the minis-
[ Page 3206 ]
ter responsible federally, the concerns of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association and others about the Arctic apple coming to British Columbia. I did relay those concerns in writing and verbally when I met with Minister Ritz at an FPT, federal-provincial-territorial, Ag ministers conference.

Again, thank you.

[1735]

V. Huntington: I would like to first start by saying how pleased I am with the minister's reappointment to the position of Minister of Agriculture. I think the whole province is expecting and hoping and praying for a great deal from him. I think he's the right man for the job, so I really am pleased at the appointment.

Hon. N. Letnick: I'm going to quote you on that.

V. Huntington: Yeah, please do. I can also say, eventually: "Well, I guess I wasn't right." I'm just hoping I am.

I'd like to explore with the minister some questions about how he and his ministry have valued agricultural land, given the discussions recently and various communications about new zonal regional boundaries throughout the province, and especially on the issue of cash receipts and jobs in the different regions and the information that it appears the zones or regions have been based on comes from the 2011 Stats Canada data.

What I'm finding is that it doesn't appear that the ministry adjusted that data to match the new proposed boundaries. So you'll have the percentage of cash receipts from the northern regions being 15 percent when in fact, if you look at a readjustment of the actual boundaries, it changes somewhat, not significantly but a fair amount in terms of how the ministry might be looking at values — and more significantly so, I think, if they looked at the types of jobs available in the different regions and how much those jobs are worth in the different regions.

I think the ministry needs to do some hard looking at that data. For instance, the Thompson-Nicola regional district is included within the Okanagan in the census review of agriculture from which the numbers were taken, as is the Squamish-Lillooet regional district around Lillooet, which is home to one of the largest ranches in B.C. So you're plunking some of the areas into different zones when they don't belong there, and it's skewing the numbers. The eastern parts of Columbia-Shuswap regional district — same thing.

To accurately reflect, for instance, the farm cash receipts within the ALC regional boundaries, the areas need to be taken out of the south coast and Okanagan panel regions and factored into the Kootenay and Interior regions.

If you correct for those changes, that different method of factoring, you do find those percentages that are being used to defend some of the recent decisions do change.

I wonder if the minister can tell us how his ministry arrived at the farm cash receipt numbers and the job numbers, and if it did adjust — even though I don't think it did — for the census data to account for the different regional panel boundaries.

[1740]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for such a nice compliment. I'm sure I will remember those words for many, many years to come. I appreciate that. I serve at the pleasure of the Premier, and it's a pleasure to serve — just like it is, I'm sure, for you to serve your constituents.

The answer to the question as to how the ministry arrived at the farm cash and job numbers is that it was based on the 2011 federal census. The ministry tried to align the federal census data with the six panels that we have in the ALR, but it's very difficult to get an exact match. If you have any issues or you come up with any errors, by all means let us know about it.

What I'm hearing from staff is that even if they would spend many, many hours diving into the details, as opposed to just using what they did, it would hardly make any difference, at the end of the day, as far as the numbers go there. It would be infinitesimal as far as any difference using a different process than what they did.

V. Huntington: Granted, the numbers aren't huge, but they are varying as much as 5, 6 or 7 percent. When we're dealing with such a significant public policy issue, I think it would be better to have accuracy out there right now, if at all possible.

I recognize it would take quite a bit of work, but with these types of changes, I think that work is really important for people to understand. Well, with the farm cash receipts, in one instance, but the types of jobs and the value of the different jobs from a rate aspect — I think it's valuable information both for the ministry and for the public at this stage.

If the minister could undertake to provide some of that specific detail, I think it would be quite helpful out there.

The Chair: Minister, do you have a response?

Hon. N. Letnick: As far as I understand, the member asked if staff can go back and look at the numbers. I think that's a fair request. Staff will go back and see if it would make a significant difference crunching the numbers in a different way, and then we'll have to decide on, you know, the cost benefit at that point. But we'll endeavour to have a second look at that.

With that, thank you, hon. Chair.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $64,217,000 — approved.

[1745]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to those who voted in
[ Page 3207 ]
favour of Vote 14.

Vote 15: Agricultural Land Commission, $3,516,000 — approved.

The Chair: That concludes the Ministry of Agriculture estimates. This committee stands recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:45 p.m. to 5:49 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $5,350,361,000.

[1750]

The Chair: Minister, do you have a statement?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes. I'm delighted to be here, my second round of estimates. With that said, I think we should get right into it.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister and, particularly, the senior staff being in the corridors this afternoon waiting until the signal that we could get going, and for their time, undoubtedly, and their expertise over the next few days as we canvass a wide variety of issues in the second-biggest ministry of government.

It's a very critical time that we're asking some of the questions that we intend to get into. I think the most serious one, which the minister is well aware of because he attended, as did I, the B.C. School Trustees Association annual general meeting last week, is the funding shortfall that the province's 60 school districts are experiencing right now, in real time, with meetings going on with parents and other stakeholders to discuss what that means on the ground, in our schools and for our kids.

There's a risk of a loss of programs. There are something like 350 jobs so far that a variety of districts have identified as being lost next year. This will happen at a time when enrolment is set to increase for the first time in several years. We're going to see enrolment grow modestly, but we're going to see direct teaching employment decrease.

The ministry in its service plan talks about a fundamental transformative shift in how education is delivered in British Columbia. There are a number of goals attached to that. There is a series of projects underway, including an expansive K-to-9 curriculum review with a focus on 21st-century learning and individual education. All of these are wonderful initiatives that have a pretty strong consensus among stakeholders, but they don't align in any way with the budget that is before us.

That's my opening statement of sorts. I appreciate the minister forwent his opportunity to have one, but I'm sure that in his answers to questions he'll improvise one of sorts in a moment.

I want to deal with the $56 million in budget funding shortfalls that have been identified so far by school districts. I don't think that is by any means the ceiling on the funds that districts are facing. Most of these relate to unfunded cost pressures. I'd like to go into some detail about each cost pressure that he's heard about from school district leaders.

In 2013 the B.C. association of school board officials identified, by the way, cost pressures facing school boards to be approximately $134 million, so there is a discrepancy here. But there is a considerable gap, and that is what is leading to program cuts that I don't think the minister or anybody in his party can deny are actually happening — layoffs that are real and imminent in different districts.

That is a fact. That is something that is unfortunate, and it's leading to less stability in the education sector. Even though the much-vaunted slogan of the government is to provide long-term stability, we have near-term instability which elected officials at the local level are facing.

Maybe I could begin just by asking the minister about his own school district in Surrey, which is a growing district — the fastest-growing district in the province. The funding shortfall there is projected to be $3 million to $4 million. The way the board is proposing to address the shortfall that they feel they face from the province is to actually use money from reserves and put that towards the deficit that they face.

They may increase student-teacher ratios. They may reduce learning resource funding, and there is a proposal to reduce support teachers by five FTEs, including English-language learning-assistance positions and special needs assistants. I don't have to tell him about the diversity and the ESL challenges in his own district, because he knows them so well. But this is what Surrey school board leaders are telling us — a $3 million to $4 million shortfall in a growing district.

[1755]

What has the minister done to address the concerns that he has received in writing from the Surrey school district on this specific item?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I did neglect, when I had the opportunity for my opening comments, to introduce our deputy minister, Rob Wood. I also have the superintendent of achievement, Rick Davis, here; and the ADM for resource management, Deborah Fayad; who are supporting me.

I think the member is well aware of the fact that our overall funding for education throughout the province has remained stable at $4.725 billion, and it will go directly to school districts and operating grants. I also am sure that he's aware that a community like Surrey, with
[ Page 3208 ]
a growing enrolment, will see an increase as their enrolment increases.

That said, I've met with the Surrey school district on a couple of occasions, and we've had discussions about their accumulated surpluses and the priorities that they've established for them. We have a very complex school district, with about 161 languages and dialects spoken. Surrey school district is very aware of those and is continuing to work hard to find creative and innovative ways within a stable budget, increasing as the enrolment increases, to be able to meet those needs.

R. Fleming: I heard the minister in his response say that funding remains stable at $4.725 billion over the next three years. That is the figure that I'm using from the ministry numbers, as well, that were provided in…. I'm forgetting the name of the document. It's somewhere in this pile of paper.

The point here is that there are a couple of pressures that play out differently in different school boards. One is that while the funding remains stable at the same amount, enrolment is set to increase. I would ask the minister: would he agree, and would he detail by how much funding per pupil is set to decline over the service plan of this budget?

Also, what I want to ask him about is whether he will acknowledge that regardless of whether funding remains stable, the point, really, that school districts are facing here is that there are a number of funding cost pressures that are happening. So costs are rising while government's grant to districts is flatlined. Now, for the first time in several years, as I mentioned, we're seeing enrolment increases.

[1800]

Maybe I'll to try to make this one question, because we have some time to pursue it later. Enrolment is going up for the first time. What he describes as stable or flat funding continues over the next three years of this service plan. Does he agree, and by how much is funding per pupil slated to go down?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As my colleague opposite is aware, we are anticipating some enrolment increases, particularly in communities like Surrey. Our estimate for this coming fiscal is that we are still looking at decreases across the board, but these are all preliminary estimates.

One of the things that is important is that the holdbacks as a result of that…. As enrolment increases in a city like Surrey, they will see that the basic allocation for students will stay the same.

We're working with Surrey and every other school district in the province to find other ways to find efficiencies within the system, with an aim to ensure that every single dollar that can be invested in the classroom has been. Surrey is probably one of the leading districts in the province in terms of their ability to be more nimble, because of their size and because of the growing enrolment.

I've been impressed with their willingness to work with our ministry staff to find some of those innovative programs that will ensure that within a stable funding environment, notwithstanding any increases, they're able to provide the services that the students need.

R. Fleming: Maybe if we could just pick up on the enrolment numbers. I think I just heard the minister say it's still set to decline. I don't know if he meant provincewide. I'm looking at the B.C. numbers in the budget, which are provided by B.C. Stats, and then I checked again in the forecast updates.

I appreciate that the holdback funding is based on whether those projections become reality. That's one of the funding mechanisms we have. But I'm very distinctly seeing that in this budget year — and then, of course, in the September school year that will be starting in 2014 — enrolment numbers increased. It's a 0.005 percent increase, but it's an increase nonetheless.

[1805]

What's puzzling to me is that I have an information bulletin from the ministry that says school operating grant funding maintained despite declining enrolment. But the budget document says enrolment is increasing and will do so over the next three years, while the grant funding has flatlined. Which one is right: the information bulletin or the assumptions from B.C. Stats that are in the budget document?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The B.C. Stats numbers that were used by Finance and Treasury Board indicate a slight increase, yet the ministry's projections, which have consistently over the years been correct, or much closer to the actual numbers, were showing a slight decrease in the coming year, not an increase.

All of our numbers within the ministry are based on our estimates that we received from superintendents and secretary-treasurers in every school district. The actual number that we're projecting in 2014-15, as an estimate, is 540,013, which is a decline of 0.8 percent.

R. Fleming: I'm a bit confused, though, because the budget and fiscal plan of government uses the figure that I cited: 544,000. I believe that's repeated in the service plan of the ministry. Now the minister is telling me there's an internal estimated number that the ministry uses that differs from the overall budget assumptions that are made by government. Am I interpreting his answer correctly?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member may or may not be aware, when the budget is prepared, the Ministry of Finance uses figures that are available at that time. Subsequent to that, we receive the stats from the secretary-treasurers and from each of the school districts,
[ Page 3209 ]
which allows us to more finitely project the numbers that we anticipate. As I've said — and this is a constant thing every budget cycle — our numbers tend to be much more accurate because we're getting it from each of the individual school districts, as opposed to B.C. Stats work that is done.

That being said, that's why we have the holdback, as well — so that we have the ability, should other numbers come in that we haven't anticipated, to respond accordingly.

[1810]

R. Fleming: I think the superintendents will be delighted to know that their numbers are used for the province's budget-making and would probably, in fact, like to have more influence in that regard.

I want to go to the Select Standing Committee on Finance report of earlier this year. That, of course, is chaired by a Liberal majority. They spent a lot of time travelling the province and hearing from constituents and stakeholders and business and service providers and those involved in education. In fact, education was one of the priority issues that committee members heard about from people right around British Columbia, wherever they travelled.

To their credit, the committee spent a considerable amount of time in their recommendations to government focusing on improvements to K-to-12 education. I just want to quote one of the findings of the committee. "Sufficient evidence was presented to the committee indicating that the K-to-12 system is experiencing cost pressures as a result of inflation and aging school facilities. The committee therefore recommends that enough funding be provided to schools to meet rising costs and capital needs while ensuring strong educational outcomes for B.C. students."

They have a sublist of recommendations that flow from that statement and an analysis of what they heard, which they deliberated upon. I want to ask the minister specifically about that.

With flat funding, school districts are saying that it does nothing for them because they face rising cost pressures. That is on a number of fronts. One of them is around pension contributions for teachers. Those costs go up, but the contribution from government to cover negotiated pension contributions — negotiated provincially, by the way — is being downloaded onto school boards, and there's an increase for CUPE pensions that is scheduled for next year.

Could I ask the minister if he can quantify what the increase in pension contributions for teachers that is unfunded amounts to for school districts and what the increase for CUPE pensions is scheduled to be next year in those same districts?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is probably aware that the pension benefits are not negotiated. They're done between a joint board of the unions and the employer. The CUPE and the municipal pension plans are a separate board, as well as the Teachers Pension Board. I don't have the exact figure here today, but we could provide it to the member — what the anticipated increase is.

I again want to reinforce something that we recognize clearly. There are increasing cost pressures on school districts, as there are in the health care sector and every other sector of our economy.

[1815]

One of the reasons that we're working and going to be working closely with the BCSTA on shared services in looking for efficiencies is to help mitigate some of those cost pressures but, more importantly, to free up dollars to be invested in the classroom on learning outcomes for students. That is really where we want to see the efforts put, because it's absolutely critical that we find every savings we can. Our shared-services approach is going to help us get there.

The other thing is that one of the reasons the government is working so hard on building our economy is the fact that we do want to be able to invest in critical services — education, health care and other public services. One of the things that our government is committed to is to continue to look for ways to invest more.

That said, the select standing committee that went out — their job is to hear from people throughout the province and report back to government what they heard. I was neither surprised nor shocked by the recommendations that suggested we should be investing more in education. I can assure the member that if we had the dollars in the provincial budget to invest, we would be doing that.

I think it is important to note that education and health are two of the critical elements where funding was not reduced. We kept it stable. As a matter of fact, this year we're investing an additional $15 million in the learning improvement fund, which was put into place specifically to ensure, where there are pressures in things like class composition and some of those special needs, that we have dollars. We have increased in this year's budget, in that particular case, another $15 million.

Again, that is a statement that we recognize that education is absolutely critical. We took the recommendations of the select standing committee into account, but we are at a stage where until we see the economy turn around, there are no more dollars to invest. I appreciate the work of the committee and the recommendations that they brought back.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Member, perhaps this could be your last question for this session.

R. Fleming: I will make this my last question, and we'll come back to estimates tomorrow and revisit it.

What the minister just said — I think it's interesting
[ Page 3210 ]
to lump health and education. The health care budget actually did increase, and the education budget has not at all.

But the topic at hand is the unfunded cost pressures. We just sort of concluded on some of the pressures around the pension fund contributions. Wherever they are negotiated, they have not been funded by the ministry to school districts, and those costs are increasing.

I want to ask, as a last question for today, about the wage settlement which was recently concluded — a two-year deal, although most of it was retroactive, so those bargaining units and government will be right back at it pretty soon. I think this summer.

It was staggered in terms of the wage increases — a total package of a 3½ percent wage increase. Some of those increases come into effect in just a couple of days from now, and three months ago there was a 2 percent wage increase that will go up another half percent three days from now.

There is a big cost for this. Government demanded that districts provide a savings plan that showed how they would cover 100 percent of the increased cost of the teaching support staff, the education support staff that are members of those unions. Districts, to their credit, did that, but what they're extremely worried about is not the last year when the agreement was signed; it's the carry-forward. It's the cumulative effect of that wage increase, which will now be fully expressed as of May 1.

The estimate for what this could cost districts is $27½ million. I'm just wondering if the minister has aggregated the savings plans, listened to districts during their budget-making process, and if he has a figure that he could put on the record for just this one cost driver that's happening for districts in a flat budget-funding scenario from the ministry.

[1820]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, we are not in a position because we don't have the next provincial mandate, so I'm not going to speak to future negotiations. That's the subject of future negotiations.

The exact figure that you're asking for, we don't have available, but we can provide it to you tomorrow morning.

I think what is important here is to reinforce the fact that even with declining enrolments over the last decade, we have increased funding to education by $1 billion dollars. We've had a decline of 70,000 students.

Government has been faced with pressures, as all sectors of our economy have, many of the things outside of our own control. We have asked school districts, as our co-governance partners in education, to make some of the tough choices that we've had to make as government.

No one wants to be in that position, and we don't want to force school districts into tougher choices. But the reality is we've done everything we can to work with them to find ways to do that. We continue to do that. That's one of the reasons, with Shared Services and our discussions moving forward, that we can do everything we can to mitigate cost pressures and increases so that every district can provide the quality of education that they have already.

One of the things I'd like to add before I close is the fact that when we look at the results that we've seen, I want to personally, on behalf of our government, thank every school district and every teacher in every school district, for working as hard as they have — and the CUPE members as well — to keep the system moving forward in a positive way.

I know that we are going to see ourselves come out of some of these challenging times, and when we do, our government's commitment is to invest in those things that we know are absolutely inherent to the future of our province and our young people.

With that answer, hon. Chair, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report the resolution of the Ministry of Agriculture, progress of the Ministry of Education and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 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