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)

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 2

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

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: Here in the main chamber of the assembly I call continued second reading on Bill 2, intituled Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

K. Corrigan: I had made some remarks prior to the lunch break on Bill 2, and I'm pleased to stand and continue on with remarks on that bill.

[1335]

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Bill 2 is the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. What this bill essentially does is directs or statutorily requires the Electoral Boundaries Commission to make recommendations that do not increase the number of MLAs from the current 85. That's the first, main content of the bill. But also — and this is the part that I have real concerns about — the bill directs that the Boundaries Commission not decrease representation in some of the more sparsely populated areas of the province. They are defined as in Cariboo-Thompson, in Columbia-Kootenay and in the north region.

The impact of that is that if the bill passes, the commission will be required to make recommendations that protect some 17 seats, including two in Kamloops and in Prince George, even if they have populations that are too small to justify the level of representation.

Of course, at the same time, what that will mean is that meanwhile constituencies in the Lower Mainland in cities — particularly like Surrey, which is growing quickly, but also in my community of Burnaby — that already have a relatively large number of voters per MLA would be allowed to grow further without representation.

When I was speaking about this before lunch, I talked about the fact that voting is a fundamental right and part of our democracy and that we really have to treat it as a sacred trust. If we are going to make any changes to how we vote and to representation for voting in this province, then I submitted that those changes must be seen to be impeccably non-partisan, impeccably transparent and impeccably defensible. It is not just whether this legislation is impeccable in terms of being non-partisan but also whether or not it is seen to be non-partisan.

When you consider that of the 17 seats that are being protected, 11 of those seats are Liberal seats, in some ways it is not…. I was going to say it doesn't matter. It does matter whether it is intentional or not, but we also have to remember what I said a few moments ago: something must be seen not to be political just as much as whether or not it's political. When you find that 11 of the 17 seats are Liberal seats, then it raises some questions.

There is also lack of information, lack of criteria, about why it was that the particular areas are protected, particularly in areas around Prince George and Kamloops, which do not appear to me to be particularly rural areas — why some of those areas are being protected when others are not. I have real concerns. It's a fundamental tenet of fairness and of the fact that we want to be seen to be transparent and defendable and non-partisan in this House.

The other reason that I'm concerned is not just that 11 of the 17 seats are Liberal seats but also that this could appear — and to many does appear — to be an attempt to fix what was a political problem that the Liberals had when they had a fiasco and pushback the last time we had an Electoral Boundaries Commission. There's a suggestion by many that this is an attempt to avoid that political problem that they had the last time.

On two fronts we have the appearance of a political motivation for the legislation. That concerns me, because above all else I think, as I said, we want this to be transparent, particularly when we're talking about the fundamental right to vote.

In addition, one of the other things that we have to protect is the integrity of the body that is making the recommendations. Really, when you prescribe what the outcome is going to be, what the result is going to be, by saying that 17 seats have to be protected and there will only be 85….

[1340]

That sets off all sorts of other relationships in terms of how many seats and where those seats are going to be. When that happens, then the integrity of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is challenged.

I think, fundamentally, that is probably my greatest concern with this piece of legislation — that this is being taken away from what is supposed to be an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission, which makes its decisions on the basis of the Charter, of the Constitution of Canada, and makes its decisions on the basis of principles that have long been established in our courts across this country, for over 100 years. We're talking about courts as high as the Supreme Court of Canada, which made it clear that individual seats should be based on the fundamental principle that we all know: one person, one vote.
[ Page 3532 ]

On that basis, that should be the fundamental principle. We should all be, as far as possible, equally represented across this country — in our municipalities; in this case, in our province; and federally as well.

There is a deviation in this piece of legislation. The government has brought in legislation that makes it inevitable that there's going to be significant deviation. Now, the Supreme Court of Canada and other judicial decisions have said that there can be some deviation. It's understandable that there can be a deviation up to about 25 percent, recognizing that there are real challenges, particularly in some rural areas. In this province it's absolutely recognized and acknowledged that there are some challenges in terms of serving constituencies.

There are reasons that we do have a higher percentage deviation in some municipalities in some areas, but it is getting worse. Of course, we're going to have an underrepresentation in fast-growing urban areas like Surrey.

That's difficult to explain, particularly when one considers that another principle that has been part of the jurisprudence and the practice in this country for over 100 years is the recognition that we need to protect not only geographically and make sure that there's geographically effective representation…. That's really the test — whether we have effective representation but also whether or not, as part of that effective representation, for example, minorities are represented. In my community….

Surrey is another area that is fast growing and will have a higher number of voters per constituency under this legislation, or could well have. Minority representation is, therefore, diluted.

That is another challenge, just like geography is a challenge and a fully acknowledged challenge in some parts of this province. Effective representation is a challenge for those of us, including me, that have a very high minority representation in our community. That is also recognized in the Supreme Court of Canada and other judicial decisions in this country. I do have a concern in that regard as well.

My concern, as well, is that what we could have is a legal challenge. We could have a challenge as to whether or not this is consistent with our constitution. What we have is that essentially 17 of the province's 85 seats are going to be deemed to be extraordinary — extraordinary in terms of being allowed to have more than the 25 percent deviation.

That is only supposed to happen in extraordinary circumstances, and I would suggest that there is something skewed with the legislation and with the scheme if we are, in fact, going to end up with 17 of our 85 seats being deemed to be extraordinary. That just seems like a disproportionate number of seats.

[1345]

As a result of that and the fact that, as I've said, there are going to be real concerns about representation in some urban areas and underrepresentation in urban areas, I think it's very likely that there will be a legal challenge to this legislation. To me, that is a problem as well. We know that we have a government on the other side that has been repeatedly challenged and has lost — lost in many cases. To me, that brings government and the respect for government in disrepute. People don't have confidence that when laws are passed by this government, they are, in fact, the law of the province, the law of the land.

That concerns me as well. We could have the disruption, the lack of certainty that is associated with yet another piece of Liberal legislation that ends up, potentially, in court — not just the Supreme Court here but the Court of Appeal and, again, the Supreme Court of Canada. I don't believe that it's a legacy that a government should be proud of when their laws have been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and have been successfully challenged repeatedly. I fear that that's what is going to happen.

When the subject of that challenge is something as fundamental as our right to vote, that is a real concern — that legislation that this government is bringing in is something that could be challenged, and successfully challenged. And when it is the right to vote, that is very, very concerning to me.

When asked about whether the government has a legal opinion on whether this bill is likely to support a court challenge, the Justice Minister said that the process has been good. "I'm not going to talk about legal opinions," the minister said. "The legislation, I think, stands on its own."

I find that a very troubling response. Surely, when we are talking about something as fundamental as this, the government must be able to stand up and say clearly that they have legal opinions, strong legal opinions, and those legal opinions should be shared. Why would they not be shared? Why should the minister instead say: "I'm not going to talk about legal opinions"? We're talking about the law, and we are talking about our system of democracy, so I find it very troubling that that was the response.

If there have been further comments on that and if the minister has changed her mind and is, in fact, providing legal opinions now, I would welcome that. But I really don't understand. It's perfectly reasonable to request information about whether or not the work has been done to demonstrate that this is, in fact, a law that will stand up in court. Of course, think about the millions of dollars that have been wasted in legal challenges over the years, and once again, we could have exactly the same thing.

I see that I'm near the end of my time. Again, this kind of legislation, which goes to the root of democracy, must be impeccable, it must be defensible, and it must be fair. I don't believe that this legislation is fair. I'm concerned about the motivation of it.

I think it's a fundamental problem when we have a dangerous precedent being set of interfering with the
[ Page 3533 ]
work of the Boundaries Commission. That's probably the most important part of this. It constrains the commission by prescribing a number of outcomes in advance and asking them to do their work based on those prescribed outcomes, as opposed to principles.

For that reason, I certainly cannot support this bill, and I would go back to the fundamental principle of our democracy — which is one person, one vote — and the principle that all citizens, regardless of where they reside in a state, are entitled to equal legislative representation.

Unfortunately, this bill does not respect that principle. It does not respect the integrity of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It prescribes a scheme that is going to ensure — not possibly cause, but ensure — that we are going to have people in this province who are underrepresented and who will, therefore, have some concern and perhaps less faith in the government that represents them. They are going to perhaps feel that their vote doesn't matter as much.

For that reason, I will be voting against this bill.

[1350]

S. Fraser: I'm taking my place in the debate on Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. As my colleague has just spoken so eloquently, I am going to be opposing this bill. These proposed amendments would change the guidelines of the Electoral Boundaries Commission that they must operate under when recommending new riding boundaries to the Legislative Assembly.

I have a great respect for the independence and the integrity of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Their job is a daunting one, but they have done a very good job of ensuring that there are no politics involved in the makeup of our boundaries. The issues of gerrymandering and such that we've heard in various parts of the world, including this part of the world in the past…. It just takes away the honour of democracy when politics gets involved in the very creation of the boundaries to arguably benefit one party over another.

I think that government — whoever is sitting as government, whichever party is sitting as government — has a responsibility to the people of this province to make sure that the integrity and the independence of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and their mandate is independent and aboveboard and also has every appearance, perception-wise, to the public that there is no advantage being given to one party over another in the electoral process.

We're talking about a Boundaries Commission proposal in legislation that would essentially constrain that commission in such a way that 20 percent, one-fifth, of the ridings in this province…. That's 17 out of 85 seats. The area they represent would somehow be protected as a special area, if you will. It certainly makes one question whether or not to start using the word "gerrymander" again, because 11 of those seats are Liberal seats.

One could argue that the government is bringing in Bill 2 to give themselves a distinct advantage in upcoming elections, the next election being 2017, under the fixed elections dates that we have so far on the books.

The bill itself before the House is actually quite brief. It's a small piece of legislation. Some of these, as we know, are hundreds of pages long. This one is not. For the benefit of those watching at home, we're talking about 2½ pages. What the proposal puts….

It amends section 9 by adding the following subsections setting up three districts: the Cariboo-Thompson region, which includes Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Fraser-Nicola, Kamloops–North Thompson, Kamloops–South Thompson; the Columbia-Kootenay region, including Columbia River–Revelstoke, Kootenay East, Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston; and the north region, including Nechako Lakes, North Coast, Peace River North, Peace River South, Prince George–Mackenzie, Prince George–Valemount, Skeena and Stikine.

Now, I have the honour of representing a largely rural constituency here on Vancouver Island. Alberni–Pacific Rim is a beautiful riding, and I am very lucky to have the city of Port Alberni, in the centre of the riding; Bowser, Deep Bay, Coombs and Errington on the east side of my riding; and on the west side all of the Clayoquot Sound, Barkley Sound, all the Nuu-chah-nulth territories of the Clayoquot Sound and Barkley Sound areas, the communities of Hesquiaht and Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht and Toquaht and Ucluelet; as well as Huu-ay-aht to the south, and further.

[1355]

I have a very challenging riding in my own right — geographically challenging — and I welcome that challenge. It has a population of 43,430, in the last census. That's well below the average province of British Columbia. The average population per MLA is 52,319.

I would note that my constituency, Alberni–Pacific Rim, was not part of the list. Alberni–Pacific Rim helped build the economy of this province, this great province of British Columbia. It seems like we're creating two tiers of constituencies through this bill. It seems to be totally arbitrary, because I represent a constituency which is largely rural, certainly has geographical challenges and has a population base well under the provincial average.

The question is: why are some ridings picked by this government, not by recommendations from the independent commission but by this government, setting out a mandate for the commission to essentially protect some urban or rural ridings and not protect other rural ridings?

Two tiers of constituencies is akin to two tiers of agricultural land in the agricultural land reserve. This government seems to be making an art form out of creating two tiers, whether it's for boundaries under the Boundaries Commission or whether it's under Bill 24 and
[ Page 3534 ]
the Agricultural Land Commission. That's of concern. There's a consistency here. There's a consistent message which certainly raises concerns to me.

Now, what should be happening is that this government should be allowing the commission to exercise discretion in supporting effective representation in rural and remote ridings. Arguably, I have such a riding also. So this is important to all of us, even when that means varying the proportional representation.

We don't believe that discretion should be overridden before the fact by the government, and that's essentially what Bill 2 is doing. We urge this government instead to give the commission the tools to make the recommendations independently, recommendations that are both fair and as flexible as they need to be to ensure effective representation for all British Columbians, not just some British Columbians.

This bill would severely constrain the work of the next Electoral Boundaries Commission by freezing 17 seats while capping the total number of MLAs. That is a significant constraint on the commission's role. The commission has done….

As I have mentioned before, their job has been to manage the boundaries of individual constituencies. We had changes before the 2009 election, if I recall. Certainly, their role…. It recommended an increase of seats at the time, and we went, in this House, from 79 seats to 85 seats. That's the wiggly configuration of the front row, and actually, it has worked quite well. I was surprised by that, but it has actually worked quite well.

The point is that the commission made the recommendations. They made them independent of government constraints. Adding those constraints to the commission would be counterproductive, and it would be contrary to the very premises of the independence of the commission — to make sure that no party, no one single political entity was trying to gain an advantage in future elections. That's about as important as you get when it comes to democracy in this province. This also has the effect, in essence, of watering down urban votes.

[1400]

If enacted, these proposals will mean that the average population of the proposed protected ridings — that is, the 17 ridings that I referred to, the majority of which are Liberal — will be 35,609, whereas the average population for unprotected ridings will be 55,804. Consequently, a vote in the proposed protected regions within Bill 2 will be one and a half times more powerful than one in the unprotected regions.

Now, this has been said before, but it merits being said again. This is questionable legally, constitutionally questionable, because the basic premise of democracy in this country, in the world is one person, one vote. This weights a vote. It changes that very essential premise of democracy.

I just can't see why this would be happening. It's like déjà vu all over again. In 2007, before the last work of the Boundaries Commission when they reconfigured a number of constituencies and raised us from 79 to 85, this government under then Premier Gordon Campbell tried to do something similar. They tried to influence this through their role as government, their authority of government, and they did get in trouble for that.

I remember standing in this House, and at the time I thought I would definitely be sanctioned by the Speaker of the day because I referred to that move as Gordymandering, as opposed to gerrymandering. I was waiting to be, probably rightly, chastised by the Speaker. However, there was some giggling on both sides of the House, and it was let go. But I will refrain from using the first name of the Premier currently. It actually would roll together pretty good too.

It's not just my perception; it's the perception of many groups. B.C. Civil Liberties opposed the retention of lower-population seats during the last redistribution process, and the vast, vast majority of the 63 public submissions received by this government were opposed to the contents of this bill for the reasons of which I speak. There are many more, of course.

We have such an important role to play as MLAs. There is a lot of apathy amongst the electorate. About half of the population that are eligible to vote do not. And when people see another attempt by a government in power trying to use that power to affect the results of the electoral process in future elections, it will breed more cynicism. It will disenfranchise even more voters believing that the fix is in.

We've had too much of this in the press lately around the country, around the world, where it appears that governments hungry to retain power will do anything — any means justifies the end. That certainly is not helpful to the democratic process.

I'm fearful that if Bill 2 passes, we're going to see less than 50 percent of people turn out for elections in the future in British Columbia. Those people that are disenfranchised…. I think that would be the fault of this government should Bill 2 pass.

Mine is not the only constituency that was just omitted from this process. My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast — similar situation.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: I notice the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation seems to want to take part in this debate. I think it would be wise — I'm sure he would say the same thing — that democracy is something not to be gerrymandered with. But I do see that he does want to get up and speak.

[1405]

I know we don't have a lot of time, and hopefully, it's not just the heckle he's looking for. The heckle is a valu-
[ Page 3535 ]
able tool, and I do appreciate a good heckle as much as anyone, but to heckle instead of debate is ducking the issue.

And you know what? I think that's shameful for a minister of the Crown to engage in the heckle as opposed to the debate. I will enjoy the heckle if it has any substance to it or has any sign of humour to it, but this heckle is just an echo, an extra, busy noise in my part of the debate, and I find it somewhat disrespectful.

The premise that other rural or remote or geographically challenging ridings with a lower population than the average…. The premise that some of them are worthy of protection and others are not is, I think, a slap in the face to those constituencies that were not part of the chosen 17.

My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast is utterly ferry- or floatplane-dependent. There's no nice road all the way through his constituency. And certainly, there are others — North Island; my colleague from North Island, a very similar situation — somehow excluded from the chosen 17 protected ridings.

I don't believe there's been any explanation, again, from the minister or from the government side as to how or why there were 17 ridings picked that do not reflect the realities of the province where other constituencies are just as vital and important and rural, with smaller populations, as the chosen 17. Without an explanation, without a justification for that, Bill 2 looks even worse.

When it comes to the inevitable court challenge, the challenge of the constitutionality of Bill 2, there hasn't been much from the government's explanation to say that this will pass muster in the courts. I believe it is an affront to not just democracy but to the constitution of this country. I do not believe….

We've seen gerrymandering before. I remember looking it up in Wikipedia in our last debate in 2007. It was very, very specific. It was from a riding in the United States where the boundaries were arguably changed, altered, to benefit a particular political party, a political entity, and it became famous for that. The term is still used today. I wish I could recall…. I believe "Gerry" was part of a name at the time too.

But we should have grown in the world and learned from history that this is simply unacceptable to the people of not just British Columbia but the people of the world — that we shouldn't be allowed to do that. It has happened in British Columbia. The term "Gracie's finger," another term that is still remembered today, came from…. It was a Social Credit move at the time. It was recognized as an attempt to seek an advantage politically by changing the boundaries to benefit a particular person in regaining their seat and a particular party in gaining government.

I believe I've covered the general issues that I wished to. I would urge all members of the House…. We do swear an oath of office, and I'm sure we all on both sides of the House — the government members and the opposition members and the independents — take that oath very seriously.

[1410]

So to vote yes for Bill 2, to vote yes to take away the basic premise of one person, one vote, to take away and constrain the independence of the Boundaries Commission would be, arguably, contrary to the spirit and intent and the words of that oath.

With that in mind, I would urge all members of this House, both sides, to vote this bill down in the interest of democracy and fairness in the electoral process.

N. Simons: Thank you to my colleagues who have spoken on this bill before me — Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. Many have stood in this House to valiantly defend ridings that have not been included in the 17 sacrosanct, protected ridings.

One of those happens to be Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and I would like to say on behalf of the residents there that we have a moat around us, so the protection you're affording us is in writing only. We're well protected. We have a naval fleet operated by B.C. Ferries, which manages to keep our enemies away and our friends close. It does that on a regular basis.

In terms of this act, unfortunately, the Legislature or the government of the day, our current government, has decided on a formula that redistributes our ridings in a way that, obviously, leaves us to question the motivations, shall we say, for protecting certain areas from possible redistribution, quite contrary, I think, to our principles of democracy.

I wonder why we're even wading into this, because really, this is something that we should allow our independent commissions and tribunals and such to deal with. When we weigh in, we tend to muddy the waters and we tend to make it more difficult to ascertain what exactly is taking place. In this particular case, what we have before us is a bill that fundamentally overpoliticizes a decision that should really be one that's made by an independent commission — in this case, the Boundaries Commission.

So 17 ridings in this province will be allowed to be protected from any sort of impingement on their boundaries, and their population, their representation, will stay the same. Unfortunately, it does have an impact on other ridings, whose representation will subsequently and because of that be somewhat reduced.

My concern has to do with the process by which this is taking place. I know that some ridings that were included in this particular protected area were included for reasons unknown to the members of this Legislature. I think, fundamentally, that we should know the criteria that government used to identify these so-called protected ridings.

The fact that the majority of them are in Liberal-held
[ Page 3536 ]
seats and the minority in New Democratic Party seats — I don't know whether I would belabour that point. My colleagues have all expressed their concerns and expressed them very eloquently on this matter.

Some have referred to it as gerrymandering or potential gerrymandering. I think in this particular case that sometimes the perception is as important as the facts. Even if no ulterior motive was present, I think the fact that that possibility is there could lead to some questioning of the validity or the neutrality of our electoral system, and fundamentally, that's a problem.

Other ridings that are not protected include the North Island. I think perhaps it was oversight. Perhaps the criteria were such that ridings such as North Island were not included.

Interjection.

N. Simons: I really do appreciate comments, as a debate should be more than a soliloquy. And as much as mine may remind the members opposite of soliloquies they've heard in theatre, the member's comments are not helpful at this moment because I'm unable to focus my full attention on his probably very reasoned heckles.

[1415]

Because it's my turn to speak, I can't speak and listen at the same time, unfortunately. It would be a skill well used in this House if that were the case. So I will judge by his facial expressions, Mr. Speaker, and know that he's encouraging me to continue in the manner in which I have already begun.

The problem with this bill is that it constrains the work of the commission by freezing 17 seats, as I have said, and 11 of these, as I mentioned, are held by B.C. Liberals. I'm making that point, although I'm not going to put too big of an exclamation point on it. Others may deduce from that what I may be implying.

I think that this is probably going to result in some concern from the public, if they understand the issue that we are debating here in the House. And judging by the number of people who have responded to the commission's white paper, perhaps it's not something that most people talk about on a regular basis. But as I like to say, that's why they elect people to represent their interests in this House. And I think the interests in this House are such that they're necessary. It's our responsibility, in fact, to ensure that the government knows that there are many sides to various arguments.

In this particular case, I think that maybe the government has gone a little bit too far. We haven't had great success in nudging them towards common sense; however, we will not stop trying.

My comments are brief. I simply wanted to say that no sleight is intended, I'm sure, on the part of government, but rational explanation based in common sense could perhaps assuage any fears that we have in Powell River–Sunshine Coast that we've been neglected from consideration when it comes to ensuring that we have proper representation.

I'd like to also point out that the effectiveness of representation in this House is not always by the number of members. I believe that the work ethic of the MLAs and the commitment to their constituencies and to fairly and accurately reflect their concerns is probably of much greater importance.

I think that draws me close enough to the end of my comments, so I will leave an opportunity for other members of the House to weigh in on this subject. Thank you for the opportunity.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise in my place and speak against Bill 2 at second reading. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act was tabled — gee, it was the start of the session — back in February, and we've just brought it back today.

I understand that the Attorney General tabled the bill. She had a few moments of discussion about its content. I would think that if one is diverting from past precedent and tradition, the minister responsible would have had more to say in response to why the bill was before us — what legal opinions had been proffered to the Attorney General to give her the confidence that what is clearly going to be a bill that will be challenged in the courts had some meat behind it, some strength behind it and some legal opinions that were put forward by the Ministry of Attorney General.

I want to talk broadly, if I could, about the notion of independence and commissions when it comes to the B.C. Liberal government, because it's been my observation, from now nine years in this place, that independence is something that the B.C. Liberal cabinet doesn't have a lot of confidence in. I don't know. I can't speak for the new members of the Legislature from the back bench, but I can certainly speak from experience observing the cabinet and the executive council. When it comes to independent assessment of their activities, they bristle.

What comes to mind? Well, the Auditor General. Whenever an Auditor General's report comes forward, there's always a vociferous push-back from the cabinet. Despite the fact that the Auditor General is independent and appointed by this place, as this commission will be, there's still a push-back.

The Utilities Commission — classic in my area as former Energy critic. Whenever there was an issue that was going to be put before the B.C. Utilities Commission for independent assessment to protect the public interest, the B.C. Liberals shut it down. They went so far as to go to exempting $12 billion worth of projects from oversight by the commission back in 2010.

[1420]

What we have in this case, with respect to Bill 2…. I just want to read to you the Electoral Boundaries
[ Page 3537 ]
Commission Act, the act that we're going to amend today.

Right up front, Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, part 2, says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must, as required by this Act, appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission" consisting of a judge or a retired judge; a person who is not a Member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government and who is nominated by the Speaker, the leader of the government and the Leader of the Official Opposition; and the Chief Electoral Officer — again, an appointment by this place, independent of us but appointed by this place. So three prominent persons, three independent individuals that are to protect the very essence of our democracy.

Why would the B.C. Liberals break with tradition and try and constrain those three individuals — a judge or a retired judge, a prominent person agreed to by both sides of the House and the Speaker, and the Chief Electoral Officer?

It strikes me, hon. Attorney, that those three individuals should have the scope and the ability to review the map as it currently exists, the population growth as it has happened, whether it be densely populated in the Lower Mainland or — sadly, I would argue, because of Liberal policies over the past 12 years — the depopulation of some of our rural areas that are identified here.

I know my friend from Nechako Lakes may have something to say about the depopulation of his community, but again, those are issues that you can't address in an electoral boundaries commission. What you need to address with respect to boundaries is to protect at all times the principle of representation by population.

What this bill does is it dilutes the votes of people who live in Richmond. It dilutes the votes of people who live in Vancouver, the people who live in any other part of the province not identified as a distinct and separate area of the 17 seats and the three districts identified in the amendment to this bill.

It strikes me that if we're going to appoint three prominent people, ask them to give their time to our democracy and to the people of British Columbia, we should not fetter them with constraints that are arbitrary, not backed up by any debate in this place by the members on the other side, certainly not in the introduction of the bill by the Attorney General. A five-minute speech saying that this is why we're doing it is not sufficient, in my opinion, to change my view over many, many years of observing these processes unfold.

I heard my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim mention Gracie's finger. It takes us a good distance back. I know there are older people in this place than I, and they will probably remember that gerrymander when it happened. But we need to guard against that. That's our obligation as legislators. That's the requirement I believe we have when we're scrutinizing pieces of legislation that are brought forward, in my opinion, without any foundation in law and that will most assuredly be challenged by the courts.

There is a principle, and it has been undertaken in other jurisdictions when boundaries are changed. I studied in Australia. It has a different electoral system than we do have here, of course. They have a preferential voting system. If you live in outer Wagga Wagga or you live in Sydney, your vote should account for the same. It's my view that if we don't focus exclusively on protecting that fundamental principle, then we're abdicating not just responsibility here but in other jurisdictions as well.

If we have other jurisdictions looking at the debate that's taking place today, if they look at the outcome of this piece of legislation, the inevitable challenges, that will provoke other districts and other communities to change their way of approaching these things. Again, I believe that if you've got three prominent people that are agreed to by the government, agreed to by the opposition, it seems to me that's the most appropriate way to proceed.

The principles, though, that the government was trying to catch onto here I also support. That's a challenge for them. I know the legislative drafters would have been grappling with these issues. We are a vast province, a diverse province with disparate populations.

I know my friend from Skeena — I visited his community. I travelled. He can't go around his community in a day, and he has a small, small population. You have to make accommodations for that in a place as large and expansive as British Columbia. But to make that case for 20 percent of the communities seems to me to be too constraining on the three individuals that we're going to appoint to review this matter.

I also have to question…. I know it's simple populism to say: "Well, more politicians isn't the answer." But if we're protecting that principle of everyone having access to their elected representative, I believe it's something that we should consider.

[1425]

When I look at other jurisdictions, Alberta, for example, has 87 members of the Legislative Assembly there with a population of 3.6 million people. Quebec has a population of 7.9 million, 125 representatives. Ontario has a significantly larger population and 107 members in their Legislative Assembly.

British Columbia has a larger population than Alberta. We have fewer representatives in our Legislature. It seems to me that rather than pandering to the populism, as the government wants to do, saying, "Politicians aren't the solution," what they're doing is taking away the power of the people in their communities, the power of their votes, and that's just plain wrong. That's why we're going to vote against this bill.

Rather than focus on independent advice, which is what we should be doing when it comes to a whole host of issues, particularly when it comes to setting the boundaries for which we will operate in our next election, the government has decided in their wisdom to determine
[ Page 3538 ]
what areas of the province should be protected and what areas should be left to unbridled growth and situations where we may find some members of this Legislature representing far less than that 25 percent deviation that's prescribed by Supreme Court rulings and other communities that are having many, many, many more times that — the mean population.

Certainly, my colleagues south of the Fraser on both sides of this Legislature recognize the tremendous population growth that's happening there. This bill will ensure that the member for Fleetwood, for example, is representing many, many, many times more citizens than the member for Nechako Lakes.

It's not a partisan question. It's a question of fairness, and it's a question of adhering to that principle that every person in this province has equal access to have their say on election day and equal access after the fact to the member that they elect to send to this place.

So constitutionality — clearly an issue. Fairness — clearly an issue. Again, the notion that we appoint these three people, and we say: "This is what we want you to do. Go away and do your best."

As the bill is currently constructed and as previous Electoral Boundaries Commissions have proceeded, if there is an egregious error in the report when it comes back to this Legislature, there is another opportunity for us as legislators to weigh in. It strikes me that to be pre-emptive in that regard is too constraining on the people that we're going to select to do this work.

I've talked about my friend from Alberni–Pacific Rim. I also heard just today from my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, which has been described as a ferry-dependent community. There are floatplanes, and they have, I think, four flights a day from the airport in Powell River.

Now, Prince George and Kamloops I would characterize as urban centres — vibrant populations, diverse communities, airports that have planes going to various parts of not just British Columbia but the whole west coast of North America. They are protected. Powell River–Sunshine Coast, not so much.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

North Island. My colleague from North Island has made, I believe, a passionate overture in this House that her constituency is as diverse and vast as any others that are identified as protected under this piece of legislation.

It's our obligation, I believe…. And I'm appealing primarily to backbenchers on the other side. This is your first opportunity, Members who are not in executive council, to flex your muscles a little bit. Let the boss know you've got something going on. That is, you respect the notion of independence. You respect the principle of representation by population.

I think there's nothing quite like…. Hon. Speaker, you would agree with me on this, I'm certain — now that I look to see who is sitting there. I'm certain you'll agree with me.

You've got power as backbenchers. You were elected. You were sent here to represent the people in your community. If your community is five times the size of the person's sitting beside you, that's an imbalance that you should be talking about, if not in your caucus, certainly here in the Legislature.

I would argue the members from Surrey on the other side of the House certainly have an obligation to say today why they believe that the people they represent are worth less than the people that are represented by people in these three defined areas and the 17 constituencies that will be protected for all time once this amendment is passed. Because what happens, once this amendment is passed, we put it in these binders. We throw it up on the wall. It probably goes up on the Internet, but I'm still a bit iffy on the Legislative Assembly website.

I hope that LAMC is working on that right now. One of my big bugaboos after nine years here in this place: we should put the Windows 95 away and bring something into the 21st century. I'm certain I'll get support from the member from Kamloops on that. But the issue is once they're entrenched and enshrined, they are going to constrain future parliaments as well.

[1430]

The challenge for us today as we prepare to vote at second reading is: do we want to represent people fairly in this province? Or do we want to do it arbitrarily based on the whims of the executive council because they think it's best for us?

"Eat your porridge." That's what we're saying today: "It's good for you." Well, I can guarantee you, hon. Speaker, that if this bill passes, the Supreme Court will be hearing about it from a range of groups, and we'll be right back to square one.

We have three years till the next election. We have an issue of urgency to appoint the commission, but I would argue today — and I'm encouraging the Attorney General to hear my words: do not let this bill pass. Allow the independent committee to do its work.

If they come back with an egregious report, we will all assemble here again. I think we have a fixed calendar — although, it's just arbitrary as well — but I'm hopeful that it won't be another 200 days before we come back to this place and we can fix the problem. That's why we have elections. That's why we have a Legislature. For goodness' sake, hon. Speaker and everyone in this place, let's defeat this bill and do it right for a change.

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to thank the members on both sides of the House for their remarks during second reading, and I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to a few of the things that were said.

Let me first deal with the most unfortunate issue that
[ Page 3539 ]
was raised. On a few occasions the members opposite made a variety of accusations against government, but what they didn't do was offer anything in support of those accusations.

I will point out, since I think I need to, that in the last provincial election, the proportion of seats won by government in the three regions addressed in this bill is almost exactly the proportion of seats that government won in the province generally. In fact, in the 2009 election the two main political parties split those regions. So I think there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support some of the suggestions that have been made by the members opposite.

Let me turn to the overarching rationale of the bill. Opposition members, in criticizing the bill and the added instructions it gives the Boundaries Commission, have extolled the virtues of the arm's-length experts who serve on those commissions. Indeed.

It is precisely those people on the last Boundaries Commission, the Cohen commission, who urged this Legislature to take action to amend the act to address the issue of rural representation. That is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.

I want to turn to the Cohen commission and what they said in the final report to the Speaker on the 14th of February, 2008. After setting out their formal conclusions, the Cohen commission stated:

"With respect to protecting rural representation in the Legislative Assembly…."

It was something that concerned the Cohen commission. It does not concern the members opposite, but it concerned the Cohen commission, and it concerns government.

"With respect to protecting rural representation in the Legislative Assembly, it is our view, formulated after a careful consideration of this challenging issue for more than two years, that limited" — limited — "options exist to address it.

"To put our comments into context, we go back to our predecessor commission's June 3, 1999, report, which sounded a caution."

This is what they said in 1999:

"However, we feel constrained to note that in the absence of some statutory solution similar to that in place in Saskatchewan, by which the electoral representation of rural British Columbia can be guaranteed at its present level, the next commission may well find it impossible, under the current legislative framework, to avoid recommending a reduction in the number of electoral districts in the rural areas of the province."

Later the commission continued:

"Unfortunately, we concluded, as set out in our preliminary report, that increasing the number of electoral districts from 79 to the maximum of 85 would only marginally ameliorate the negative deviations in the north. Based on the current 79 electoral districts, all eight districts in the north have deviations in excess of minus 25 percent. Adding six electoral districts in other regions would bring only one of those eight within the minus 25 percent statutory limit."

The commission then set out some options with a variety of numbers of MLAs in this House.

They then concluded:

"These suggestions are outside our mandate. Having said that, British Columbia's relentless move toward even greater urbanization has convinced us that the issue of rural representation will not go away. It will only become more pronounced.

[1435]

"Although our understanding of our statutory and constitutional mandate precluded us from adopting the suggestions urged upon us, we support the need to have the Legislative Assembly examine this issue before the appointment of the next commission."

Well, well, well. That is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. We are doing as the commission recommended. We are preserving the districts in the north, and I'll go on and talk more about that in a moment. Members opposite obviously have no interest in that. Members on this side of the House do, as did previous electoral boundaries commissions.

The words I quoted were the words of the independent Cohen commission. I believe that what we are doing is precisely what that commission urged us to do. We are taking an informed and pragmatic approach to addressing a critical issue of representation in this Legislative Assembly, and we are doing it by acting specifically in regard to the three regions that the Cohen commission identified as most at risk of losing representation.

Reference was made during second reading debate to other rural areas of the province that are not within the three regions identified in the bill, and questions were raised as to why those parts of the province are not included. The answer is simply that it's clear from the work of the most recent electoral boundary commission that electoral districts in those other rural areas are not in danger of being eliminated. If that were not the case, then indeed….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on. Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm going to wait till I have the floor, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Carry on, Minister.

Hon. S. Anton: The electoral districts in those other rural areas are not in danger of being eliminated. If that were not the case, then indeed this bill might look different, as we would've made efforts to preserve effective representation from those areas as well.

The facts are clear from the Cohen commission that it is the north, the Cariboo and the Kootenay regions which will lose representation if we follow the recommendations of the members opposite. That is what they are wishing upon this Legislative Assembly. That is what they are wishing upon the citizens of British Columbia.

Those on the other side of the House also refer to the electoral districts that include Prince George and Kamloops as urban districts and raise the question why they were included in the legislation. Let me help them
[ Page 3540 ]
out. As other members pointed out….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Anton: Let me help them out with the logic, because although it has been explained a number of times to members opposite, clearly, they choose not to accept the logic. Those electoral districts include large rural areas and other small communities. For instance, Kamloops–North Thompson electoral district is over 20,000 square kilometres and includes Barriere, Clearwater and Blue River. Blue River is over two hours' drive from Kamloops.

Likewise, both the electoral districts that include parts of Prince George are more than 20,000….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Order, please.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Anton: Truth hurts, apparently. Truth hurts.

Likewise, both the electoral districts that include parts of Prince George are more than 20,000 square kilometres in size and include other small communities as well.

I think when the members opposite looked at the electoral map they forgot to look at the size of those districts. More specifically, if members look at a map, they will see that if we were to protect rural representation by actually freezing the boundaries of the specific rural districts that surround Prince George and Kamloops, then byextension, we would be freezing the Prince George and Kamloops districts as well, because they share common boundaries.

A Boundaries Commission would then be unable to propose changes that would better distribute the overall population in these three regions. That is not our approach. Our approach is to protect northern and rural representation in those areas that clearly are in need of it. By adopting the regional approach that we have, the Boundaries Commission can exercise its discretion to best apportion the districts in those regions.

[1440]

In other words, we are building in the flexibility that the Boundaries Commission needs. The suggestion was made that preserving 20 percent of the total number of electoral districts in the province is somehow unfair. However, it is not the case that all 17 districts that make up these three regions will necessarily exceed a minus 25 percent population deviation.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, both sides, please. The minister has the floor, Members.

Carry on, Minister.

Hon. S. Anton: Coming out of the last Boundaries Commission process, there were, in fact, ten districts that were more than 25 percent below the average — again.

Here's the important thing: our approach is to provide the Electoral Boundaries Commission with as much flexibility as possible while preserving rural representation. Our expectation is that the Boundaries Commission will propose electoral boundaries that balance the populations in these regions to the best effect possible.

Some of the members opposite suggested that the courts have said that a 25 percent population deviation is the maximum deviation allowable. That is obviously not true. We have had exceptions to the 25 percent deviation rule in British Columbia for years, as have other provinces.

I would encourage members who are questioning this to read the white paper the Justice Ministry, my ministry, put out last fall. On page 9 they will see a table that clearly lays out the different rules used by provinces to instruct their boundaries commissions. In all, seven jurisdictions, including the House of Commons, permit exceptions beyond a deviation of 25 percent of the average population.

The member for Surrey-Whalley suggested that what is being proposed in this bill is unprecedented in Canada. He gave a brief description of how some other provinces have attempted to deal with the issue of rural or remote representation. But in doing so, he glossed over some important details.

In reference to Newfoundland, he said: "There's specific constitutional protection for Labrador." Well, in fact, what Newfoundland has done in its legislation is exactly the approach we're taking here. So thank you to the member opposite for suggesting that, because that's what we're doing. Very good suggestion.

The act that governs the Newfoundland Boundaries Commission says explicitly that there must be four districts in the region that is Labrador. It also includes instructions to maintain the existing boundaries in Labrador as much as possible. In fact, that limits the Boundaries Commission there more than we are limiting the Boundaries Commission here. It is a more specific and limiting statutory instruction than what Bill 2 does.

When it comes to Ontario, the member for Surrey-Whalley did not note that Ontario has, in fact, frozen — completely frozen — 11 northern districts. Ontario has said that they're simply off limits to redistribution.

Well, that's perhaps not such a great example. We could have done that here with a number of the rural and northern districts in British Columbia. But again, that would have been more restrictive of the next Boundaries Commission than the approach we are taking in this bill, which, as I have noted, does not freeze the boundaries of any individual district in the province. That is the important point here.

I've heard, also, the suggestion that we should just appoint a commission and see what happens. "Let's just ap-
[ Page 3541 ]
point them. Then if we don't like what they do, we'll start all over again." We heard that a few minutes ago. Grand suggestions.

There seems to be a sense that the Electoral Boundaries Commission can simply draw up any kinds of boundaries they wish. But the commission is not free to do so and has not done so for some time. The commission is required by law to apply legislative criteria, and it is those criteria as they exist today that are causing the difficulties, given the demographic realities of the province. It is the state of the act as it exists today without these proposed amendments that prompted the past two boundaries commissions to urge the Legislature to take action to clarify their mandate.

Those on the other side of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, seem to suggest, on the one hand, that there is no issue that needs to be addressed by the Legislature, that everything is fine the way it is.

[1445]

On the other hand, their rural and northern members talk about the obvious challenges they face in representing their constituents. But they don't want to take any practical steps to actually protect that representation. In other words, they're quite prepared to throw their districts to the wolves. They don't seem to realize that when it comes to drawing electoral boundaries, the difficulties we face in British Columbia are greater than any province in Canada.

We on this side of the House do recognize the problem. It's a problem clearly identified by previous boundaries commissions, and I am confident that this bill properly addresses that problem.

Finally, the amendment that I will be moving during committee is intended to address what I recognize was a particular point of contention during debate so far. We on this side of the House are obviously determined to preserve northern and rural representation. We are also committed to fiscal restraint and to not growing the size of government and, by extension, this Legislative Assembly, and I would say that both of those propositions are unique to this side of the House.

But we have also listened to and accepted the arguments made by some in urban areas that are experiencing population growth, and that is why we intend to permit the next commission to recommend up to 87 districts, a potential — potential — increase of two districts.

As my colleague the Government House Leader said during his comments on this amendment, there is no magic number of districts that will make everyone happy. But we do believe that an extra two seats, if required, strike the best balance between urban and rural representation while still maintaining fiscal restraint. Again, there is no requirement for the commission to add any seats, but if it does, this amendment will give the commission the latitude to do so.

I'm confident that this bill gives the commission all the tools it needs to propose an electoral map that will provide for effective representation for all British Columbians, rural and urban.

I look forward to continuing this discussion at committee.

I move second reading of Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014.

[1450]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Members, the question is second reading on Bill 2, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014.

[1455]

Second reading of Bill 2 approved on the following division:

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 2, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment
[ Page 3542 ]
Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 24.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Cadieux: Joining us in the gallery are a number of elementary school, grade 5, students from Surrey-Cloverdale, from Surrey Centre Elementary, with their parents and teachers. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. N. Letnick: I move that Bill 24 now be read a second time.

This bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act to change certain aspects of the administration of the agricultural land reserve and the operations of the Agricultural Land Commission.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

These proposed changes will (1) modernize the commission, increasing its transparency and accountability to a level consistent with other similar agencies, boards and commissions; (2) formally establish panel regions and provide for the adequate resourcing of panels in each region — the panel regions to be established in the act are the same ones currently used by the commission, so there should be minimal disruption to the current panel configuration; and (3) change the administration of the agricultural land reserve to reflect the regional differences that exist in British Columbia by establishing two zones within the province.

By creating two ALC-administered zones, we are allowing for responsible opportunities on farmland in zone 2 while maintaining the status quo in zone 1.

The purpose of our bill is to ensure that the ALR is working for British Columbians and successfully balancing our desire to protect valuable farmland and to further support farming families and the farming sector. By broadening the decision-making criteria used by the ALC in adjudicating applications in zone 2, the ALC will be able to achieve its common goals of protecting farmland, addressing the interests of farm families and allowing for responsible economic development opportunities when the ALC believes it is appropriate.

Since my appointment as Minister of Agriculture, I have had several conversations and meetings with the B.C. Agriculture Council and met with the Agricultural Land Commission to gain their input into Bill 24. I have asked for and received many letters from British Columbians who have taken the time to provide me with written feedback, and I would like to thank them for doing so.

[1500]

As you can imagine, the comments expressed are as diverse as this province itself and have been useful in my deliberations in recent weeks. The most substantive issue I heard from many letters I received was a concern that the province needs to ensure the security and availability of food in British Columbia, not only for today but for the future. We agree with this belief, and Bill 24 is intended to help respond to that concern by providing the ALC with the ability to enable farmers to increase their family income and their ability to continue farming and, in some cases, to encourage active agriculture on lands that are currently unproductive.

As a result of my consultation with the B.C. Agriculture Council and the Agricultural Land Commission and a careful review of the letters sent to me by the general public, I believe there's an opportunity to improve upon the original bill. I will be proposing some amendments to Bill 24 as part of the committee debate.

These amendments will include the ability of the chair or a regional panel to raise significant applications to the executive committee of the commission. The executive committee consists of the chair and six vice-chairs, one from each region. These would be applications that could potentially affect more than one panel region or where the application deals with a new matter that has not been considered before, where an application is of provincial significance, or where a local panel determines that it is best heard by the provincial committee.

For example, in the future the executive committee could examine significant projects, as they did in the past with the South Fraser Perimeter Road, or innovative projects like anaerobic digestion, which is the process of turning animal waste into energy, and compressed hay, which is a method of compressing hay so it can be exported. Both are examples of new matters that would be considered by the executive of the commission the first time they came up as applications.

Bill 24 will also be amended to clearly outline in priority order the criteria the commission must consider in all land use decisions in zone 2. This list of considerations will give priority to the purposes of the commission as set out in the act — namely, the primary principle of preserving agricultural land, encouraging farming and enabling farm use on agricultural land. All other factors would follow in descending order of priority. This change is intended to confirm that the ALC's highest priority re-
[ Page 3543 ]
mains preserving land and ensures that panels make decisions in the best interest of agriculture.

As we said from the outset, British Columbia is a large and diverse province with different agricultural practices, different populations and different pressures. It's a province with different social and cultural realities in our different regions. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulating the use of farmland does not reflect this reality.

The development and population pressure in zone 1 is significantly greater than that in zone 2. That's why it makes sense to keep zone 1 status quo.

In the course of public discussion and debate, it's important to underline that even with the changes to legislation, the ALC continues to decide how land is to be used, independent of anyone else, including me. To that fact, after consultations with the B.C. Agriculture Council and reading the letters received, we are reinforcing the independence of the ALC.

Throughout my consultations I did hear recommendations to consider changes to zone 1, including some who wanted the same flexibility as now intended for zone 2. I respect those opinions and understand that they were always made with the best intention for B.C. agriculture. Our view is that keeping zone 1 status quo protects agricultural farmland in areas facing pressures related to urban growth.

While it's very difficult to reach complete consensus, I believe the changes mentioned today further support farmers and the growth of the agricultural sector, as was always intended. I want to take the opportunity to thank British Columbians for sharing with me their vision for a strong agricultural centre in British Columbia. I share that vision. We share that vision.

I can tell you that the consultation doesn't end here. As we committed to when we introduced the bill, we will be sitting down with the agricultural sector, the Agricultural Land Commission and local government to get their input into potential updates to existing regulations.

[1505]

Bill 24 was introduced because we want to help farmers grow their business and earn a better living. We introduced it because we want to support farming families in continuing to produce food on their land and because we wanted the commission to have the modern tools it needs as it goes about its business in supporting agriculture in British Columbia for another 40 years.

British Columbians want the commission to continue making independent decisions, with preservation of farmland as its number one priority. These amendments to Bill 24 ensure that those views are clearly written in law. I look forward to hearing from the hon. members during debate of this bill.

N. Simons: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to speak strongly against Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, and in accordance with Standing Order 45A, I inform you that I'm the designated speaker.

I hope that my words and the words of my colleagues, all of whom will speak, are heard by the members and ministers across the aisle and that they are thoughtfully considered. I'll make the case that Bill 24 should never have been conceived, Bill 24 should never have been drafted, Bill 24 should never have been tabled, and Bill 24 should not be passed.

Sometimes I rise in the House and say what a pleasure it is to stand and take my place in debate. I sometimes say it's a pleasure to represent not only the residents and constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast but all of British Columbia. While it is sometimes a pleasure and it's always an honour, today it's my duty.

It's my honour and it's my duty to rise in this House, and I do so with a profound sense of sorrow and a dose of bitterness, not just with the subject matter of this legislation before us but with the manner in which this legislation has found its way to the floor of this House.

That bitterness is fuelled by memories of the first core review I ever heard about, the one conducted in 2002, led by Kevin Falcon, who made it his mission to use talking points and vague assurances of red-tape-cutting to justify his cuts to core services and core programs that supported families. In particular, the bitterness I feel is from the fact that this government either didn't care or failed to learn lessons from that core review.

If people of this province remember — I'm sure they do, and we may have failed to remind them more recently — this was the government that changed the rules of how children were placed in care with relatives. When the first case ever came about and the child was killed, the government hired me to investigate. I found that government undertook changes without due consideration of the impact of those changes and without adequate consultation with the people who knew the issue the best.

Unfortunate parallels can be drawn here. I realized then that there's a direct connection between the ministers of this chamber and the lives of little children, including Sherry Charlie. Today's core review kept its hands off the system that we have to protect children and found its way to try to change the policies that have protected our most valued and our most cherished and our most coveted lands — the land that we use to help support agriculture and to support the growth of food.

Without consultation and without care for the concerns raised by every sector from every corner of this province, the government is bashing its way forward, contrary to good reason, contrary to common sense and contrary to every credible piece of evidence that says we need to protect land for the future. Their misleading characterizations of the changes adds to that bitterness. But let me be clear. It's obvious the government will do whatever it wants.

The government, if so moved, can pass any piece of legislation it desires. If they want Bill 24 to pass without
[ Page 3544 ]
amendments, that will be their choice. If they want Bill 24 to remain intact with some minor amendments, that will be their choice. If they want to amend the bill to satisfy the overwhelming opposition they have heard and seen from all sectors and from throughout the province, that too will be their choice. If they decide that they don't really have the mandate to pass this legislation prior to consultation, and if they decide to refer the matter to a committee for study, that too would be their choice. It's the position I strongly recommend.

[1510]

My job here is to point out that the legislation will be bad, not only for farmers and producers of today but for the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the future, who are often referenced in this House. We protected the land suitable for agriculture 40 years ago. Not for us then and not for us now, but for the generations that are yet to come. It is to the utmost detriment of future British Columbians and Canadians that our current government is proposing to pass this ill-advised legislation.

I'm going to begin by pointing out how important it is that we protect land suitable for agriculture. I will refer to the challenges that we face as a society long after all of us in this House will have left this earth. I will then talk about the protections we have had in place for 40 years. The politicians faced stiff opposition when the Agricultural Land Commission was first created and the agricultural land reserve established. They were later seen as visionary, incredibly visionary, in their outlook, far ahead of the curve.

I'll then talk about the process by which this bill has come to this House, the stealth with which Bill 24 was planned, and what the legislation is going to do. I'll talk about the 12 sections of the bill that were written by unknown authors at the behest of unnamed lobbyists in the soundproof, secret back rooms of this government's offices and how their actions could impact our agricultural land protection system, our food security and the well-being of future generations.

I'm glad the Minister of Health thinks it's funny.

Then I'll talk about the opposition that exists within the province from all sectors and the desire and willingness of the vast majority of those opposing this legislation to participate in a process that could strengthen our agricultural land protection, strengthen our support for farmers and make agriculture a growing sector for the benefit of B.C. and the future food needs of the world.

I will conclude with how this legislation could be changed to strengthen it and to ensure it always reflects the principles and purposes for which the Agricultural Land Commission was created.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out how important it is that we protect land suitable for agriculture. I'll refer to the challenges that we face as a society, that we'll face in the future, that our children and our grandchildren will face. I find it sad, actually, almost ridiculous, that a legislator in 2014 has to stand in any parliament or any Legislature to remind a government that agricultural land is important and worth preserving.

I find it sad….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

N. Simons: Have I struck a nerve?

Deputy Speaker: Members, please come to order.

Member, continue.

N. Simons: I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I'm quite sure that the members opposite will have their opportunity. If they want to shout it across the aisle, that's fine. It's a two-way aisle.

There is some obvious concern about this bill throughout the province, and clearly, there is some sensitivity on the part of the cabinet that is bringing it forward. That's well deserved. They should be concerned, because this is probably the worst piece of legislation I've seen in this House, and I've seen a lot of bad legislation.

Let me reiterate that I find it sad and really ridiculous that in 2014 a legislator anywhere in a developed country has to stand and talk about the need to protect agricultural land. Why? How is it possible that we have come to this? That this government, perhaps in its denial of climate change….

[1515]

Interjections.

N. Simons: The previous Minister of Agriculture, the one preceding the current Minister of Agriculture, was on the record saying that he wasn't sure that climate change was going to have any impact or was any responsibility of the people. While the minister wants to suggest that I go back and read about a conversion on the road to Damascus, I think what we should be focusing on is the need for a reversal of this policy. Perhaps they'll find their own road.

The previous Minister of Agriculture in this chamber said on the record in Hansard that he didn't think that there was a relationship between human action and climate change. I'm wondering if the current minister has the same belief, because this legislation before us is so obviously contrary to the best advice of the scientists and academics and what people who would take part in that discussion say about the need to protect land. As my colleagues on this side of the House have to do, we have to stand up for agriculture.

I'm sure that many of the fellow MLAs and private members on the other side are torn up about this law,
[ Page 3545 ]
because like the vast majority of British Columbians — I can say with assuredness — even if they didn't agree with the land reserve when it was established in the '70s, they have probably come to recognize that it was well ahead of its time, that it turned out pretty well.

It may have some flaws, but it has protected land that without any doubt whatsoever would otherwise have been developed on — condominiums and high-rises and warehouses and rodeos and all sorts of other stuff. We would have lost that land forever, and British Columbians would have been less food-secure than we are now.

Academics tell us — and some of these academics are from the Fraser Valley, where the centre of excellence was recently established, and I think maybe that's a…. [Applause.]

Their applause actually highlights their own hypocrisy, because the people who are interested in preserving agricultural land and the opportunities for agriculture in this province work at that university, and they talk about the shortsightedness of this legislation. These ministers, who sit here deeply buried in their homework, should know that. They want to maybe smirk or smile, half smile. It's not an issue that, to me, needs to be dismissed this easily.

According to the Washington-based Center for Global Development, Canada has fallen to last compared with 27 other countries when it comes to climate change remediation. We've had ten Ministers of Agriculture since I came to this House. The last one, picked by the member for Kootenay East, was not even a believer in human-caused climate change. I wonder if the Minister for Core Review, the same member for Kootenay East, has a similar perspective. Nothing could better explain this reckless and ignorant attack on the lands we're going to need for generations to come.

Interjections.

N. Simons: Maybe the Minister of Jobs might want to have her chance. I'm the first speaker. They all have a chance to speak on this.

We don't really know who the Minister of Agriculture is anyway, because he didn't write this bill. Maybe it's the member who wants to talk across the aisle. I don't know. Maybe they could have the courtesy of perhaps listening to the comments of the critic.

Maybe he isn't concerned beyond his lifetime. Maybe the Minister for Core Review isn't concerned about the protection of agricultural land. Maybe he doesn't think that his kids or grandkids are going to need agricultural land in the future because he's got a store to go to. But the problem is that all children of the future are going to suffer if we weaken our protection of agricultural land and if we put it up subject to potential development pressures.

The Minister Responsible for Core Review obviously knows that he's on very thin ice and it doesn't take much for him to fall through. This is something that every sector in the province that has anything to do with agriculture or food security or soil science or climatology is against.

[1520]

The minister might have the opportunity to talk about the so-called tremendous support that this bill has. It has no support in the province, except for perhaps…. The member referred to one farmer in McBride, and that's fine. People have differences of opinion. But this is legislation that fundamentally impacts the entire province, how the province has, as a province, protected agricultural land's future.

If the minister is concerned about his children and his grandchildren, maybe the minister should learn about the drought currently affecting California and Texas and other contiguous states, where over 800,000 acres of land were not planted this year because of the severe drought. In fact, they don't call it a severe drought. They don't call it an extreme drought. It's one step further. It's an extraordinary drought.

It has impacted the food production capabilities of Californians, and it has impacted their exports, and it has impacted their jobs. It has impacted government revenue, and it has impacted farmers' revenue. Quite frankly, if this minister has any ounce of credibility on this issue, he'll refer to the fact that climate change is making our protection of agricultural land more and more important every day.

Let me refer to some of the facts that we're facing, facts that are going to impact us greatly. I think it's our responsibility to do what we're elected to do, and that is to safeguard the future needs of our population, not just our needs today.

I have here in my hand…. I'm not using it as a prop. I'm talking about the fact that in Arizona there are 14 counties under a drought. In Arkansas there are seven. California, 57. In Colorado, 15 counties; 51 counties in Kansas; 32 in New Mexico; 16 in Nevada; eight in Nebraska. Oklahoma has 37 counties — drought. Texas, 149 counties. Utah has 12.

This is not something that we should be in any position to ignore. If the ministers are not aware of it, I consider it important that they become aware of it. The impact on California alone — $3.56 billion in crop losses. Prices to consumers are going up 10 to 15 percent. Lost opportunities, lost jobs — 20,000 lost jobs in the agriculture sector.

It just shocks me, as I said earlier, that in 2014, when every other jurisdiction is doing what it can to protect land, especially land that's suitable for agriculture, this government is, by anyone's estimation, weakening the protections that we've had in place — at once downplaying their importance and, at another time, talking about they're the biggest changes ever.

The California Farm Water Coalition has upgraded its estimate of acres farmers will leave idle this year from 500,000 to 800,000 because of the lack of water. How
[ Page 3546 ]
much fruit and vegetables do we get from California? We have a significant import of fruit and vegetables.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Not to mention almonds. Thank you to the member for North Island.

This is not a good time for us to be weakening the protections we have for farmland, and Bill 24 is, without a doubt, the biggest attack on our agricultural land reserve system that we've seen since its inception 40 years ago.

I sincerely hope that the people of the province might be able to exert the influence of their many voices to consider letting this government know how shortsighted it is — and how based on absolutely no mandate — to make changes of this significance.

Farmers, ranchers, soil agrologists, climatologists, environmentalists, the general public — basically, people who eat — are concerned about this legislation. While the minister has proposed amendments already, they are not going to go anywhere near satisfying the agriculture sector that their thoughts and their considerations were taken into account when the legislation was drafted and when the amendments were contemplated.

[1525]

The problem in California is just the lack of water. The retail prices, for California consumers, are going to challenge affordability of food. Unemployment is going to rise to levels above 40 percent in the communities affected. Now, this isn't going to mean that we're…. This is a cautionary tale. I think it's our responsibility as legislators to take this information and incorporate it into the way we think about how we protect land. Unfortunately, it is gobsmacking, really, to consider that the government elected in 2014 thinks that it's appropriate to reduce the protections we have to preserve agricultural land.

The two-zone idea. I'll get to that when I talk about the serious flaws in the legislation. But their flaws are from section 1 to section 12, and it's only a 12-section act. From the beginning I think this was ill-advised, as I said.

In British Columbia alone there is going to be an anticipated increase in the amount of precipitation falling as snow over the winter, and projections forecast a significant decrease in the amount of snowfall in the spring.

Precipitation impacts. I'm talking about the Peace River regional climate projections, the projections for the climate in the area of this province where the government thinks agriculture is secondary and agriculture is not important. As one member said, agriculture is an industry of decline, and the government is not interested in decline.

Is that the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture pro tem? Is that the position of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister Responsible for Core Review — that the agriculture in the north is unviable because they don't get the same amount of farm cash receipts? That would be shocking, and it's insulting. It was insulting when it was said in this House the first time, and it's insulting again when this government seems to agree with that kind of assertion. I'm talking about the Peace River and the need to protect land everywhere.

Zone 1, zone 2. How can the government talk about the disparate and varied regions in the province and then decide to chop it in half? Are there only two types of land? Are there only two types of terrain in this province, two types of agricultural land? Absolutely ridiculous. Based on absolutely nothing.

Interjections.

N. Simons: Yeah, I have been all over the place, and I do know that there are more than two types of areas in this province.

We've got a little duet going down at the end of the aisle here, maybe a little humour to keep them from focusing on the matters before us.

The impacts of climate change on our province make it even more important now than ever to ensure that we keep our options open for how and where we produce our food. When we start closing down those options…. We may not feel them in our own lifetime. We may not feel them in our children's lifetime, but our grandchildren are going to feel them for sure. Quite honestly, I don't know how this government came along and decided, without any consultation, without any mandate from the people of this province, to incorporate….

I think that's the part where they're kind of pleased with themselves. They snuck this one through without telling the public that they were contemplating it. You know what? They won the election. So they get to do whatever they want. I think they're kind of grinning and giddy about that. This is the opportunity they've been waiting for — a dog with a bone, and this time he's getting too close.

If the minister is interested in opinions that aren't his own or facts that he hasn't constructed, he should listen to the concern of agriculture ministers from 65 countries who got together in Berlin earlier this year to talk about the "immense challenges" facing farmers — resource scarcity, climate change and the loss of soil fertility. They conclude that "food production will have to rise 60 percent between now and 2050 as the world population expands to nine billion."

Maybe it's not this minister's concern. Maybe it's not the Minister Responsible for Core Review's concern — about the population rise. But we do live in a global economy. We live with concern for our neighbours. We also have to look after our own food security.

[1530]

Well, with pressures on other areas because of climactic changes, we need to be more prepared here, even if the changes in climate don't impact us directly. All evidence
[ Page 3547 ]
suggests that it will. We should be prepared to be able to provide food for those who need food. Sacrificing good agricultural land when we only have a small amount is a ridiculous idea.

The ministers concluded in a written statement in January that agriculture must "adapt to new conditions, deal with risks and recover quickly from crises."

Two studies, from the UN Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment, due to be released today, in fact, make it clear that "climate change, including extreme weather and rising temperatures, will affect every part of our food system, including crop yields, prices, storage, processing, distribution and even food quality."

It's not as if it's just academics and scientists that are identifying challenges and problems that are coming our way. We know and farmers know the signs are pretty clear. In the United States federal crop insurance paid out record amounts in 2011 — approximately $10.8 billion. In 2012 it reached $17.4 billion — beat the record due to the drought, due to climate change, due to the changes in the climate that are causing extreme weather events, whether they be droughts, floods, early freezes, frosts or too many hot days.

These two new reports I referenced earlier, the UN Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment, say that it will "alter the stability of food supplies and create new food security challenges for the U.S. and for other countries." It's clear that global agricultural markets are linked. Climate change abroad will affect food security everywhere.

There is no reason to believe that the impacts of these climatic changes won't hurt us as much as or more than they hurt the United States. We're going to see a reduction in production and a concomitant increase in prices. We need to be able to…. There are going to be nine billion people on this planet by 2050. It's not a long time from now. It's not a long way off.

I was looking at a diary that my great-aunt, my grandfather's sister, wrote about her travel to the market, her travel to Mount St. Vincent, I think, just outside Halifax, in a horse-drawn trailer, a carriage. They were bringing berries from the farm for sale. Her story was only 100 years ago. Berries were grown and brought by horse and buggy to the big centre nearby. I'm telling you this because I think it needs to be seen that time goes by; impacts take place. Things change. My grandparents would have wanted me to be ready, just as I would want, if I were to have grandchildren, for them to be ready.

I have no vested interest in this. I'm elected to protect what I think is important for the public. I don't have children. I'm not going to have grandchildren. Despite that, it's important that we consider everything we do here with an eye on the future generations. I think that this legislation takes the eye off the future generations.

It saddens me more than anything, because I believe that we here will adapt, but we're going to make life really, really difficult for future generations if we allow agricultural land to disappear. We only have 5 percent of our land in British Columbia suitable for agriculture; 5 percent is not a lot. We have a vast number of commodities, and we do a lot of good exports. We have a vibrant agricultural sector, but this is a kick in its gut, and I think that the people who are going to be impacted the most are being born now or are soon to be born.

The reports I referenced earlier tell us what's coming, and if it's not our responsibility as legislators to figure out how we're going to deal with things as they come, I don't know whose responsibility it is.

[1535]

To quote from the Natural Resources Defense Council: "Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, disease, insect pests and other climate change–induced stresses."

I would like to just point out that it's not fearmongering when one addresses issues that are likely to occur, because we do have the time to adapt. We do have the time to mitigate their impacts. We do have the time to address the clear and present dangers. We should not be afraid.

We should be taking bold action to do exactly the opposite of what this government is doing — exactly the opposite. Increase the protection of agricultural land. Increase our support for farmers. Increase our ability to become food-sustainable or food-self-reliant or food-sovereign — not what this government does, trying to fill their pockets as fast as possible before they leave this place.

The report continues to warn that the increase in pesticide use because of the increase in pests will in turn, of course, impact our surface and groundwater resources. We can adapt if we want to, and of course, we must. It begins by not going backwards, the way this government wants to, by weakening the protections we put in place.

I have to reiterate that it's absolutely stunning that in this day and age an anachronistic proposal can change the way we've protected farmland for 40 years, with the scorn of almost the entire population of British Columbia. He'll have to withstand that scorn. The Minister for Core Review will have to withstand that scorn, and the minister who's doing his duty by obeying the Minister Responsible for Core Review, by dutifully going along with what he's suggested. He will also have to endure that scorn, and I think it would be well placed.

We did have some hope. Of course, we were led on, obviously. We had hope when the minister said there would be consultation. There wasn't any consultation. The mea culpas are just a joke. It's a little bit of a slap in the face to any right-minded citizen in this province. It's one thing to apologize, and it's one thing to do it over again.

The Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture have some answering to do.
[ Page 3548 ]
Maybe they're going to get off scot-free. Maybe they're going to be able to get by without seeing the impacts of their shortsighted policies, because maybe they won't be here when their grandchildren are here, or great-grandchildren.

It saddens me, because it's just bad policy. I can't put it any other way, although I'll try. Bill 24 is not a good idea for the province of B.C.

I don't know why after 40 years this government decided that they've got some bee in their bonnet that makes them think that they've got the answers, because they certainly don't. They didn't ask the questions. They didn't seek the input, but they've got the answers. They made them up.

They pulled them out of a bag somewhere in the back of their car, I think, with no respect for the agricultural sector — none evidenced — despite the fact that the Agriculture Council has been quite clear that they weren't supportive of the legislation in its original form. They're likely not going to be supportive of this legislation, and it's not just because of their own interest in this sector, I would point out.

I think that they were very clear in their latest statement. The agriculture sector said they understood the need for broad consultation. And broad consultation, just to be fair, does not mean accepting and reading e-mails.

If you want consultation, you have other examples, even on the government side, of consultation. Well, they had the fake consultation on the ferries, but they did have real consultation on liquor. There's more attention paid by this government to whether or not there should be a fence around a beer garden at a folk festival than there is on how we protect agricultural land for future generations.

That to me is humorous, but it's sad. It's ridiculous. If it were the subject of a comedy show on TV, it would probably have the laugh track right there. But this is the truth of the matter. This is the kind of legislation that we have to debate in this House.

[1540]

It boggles the mind. It boggles the mind that one minister's personal vendetta is going to win the day because he's got the votes. Somebody should take him behind a barn and talk loud and maybe spit a bit. Maybe he'd get the message that his ideas are the ideas of yesterday. His ideas are the ideas of the past. It's time for him to move on.

Hon. B. Bennett: Very classy. Very, very classy.

N. Simons: I'm glad the minister, who thinks I was talking about him, says I was classy. However, this is not a personal thing.

It's not a personal thing. I don't own a farm. I currently don't own a farm in British Columbia, yet I do understand the plight of farmers. I understand the concern of farmers. I understand the concern of the sector. I understand the concern of the academics. I understand the concern of the scientists. I understand the people who…. This government, and governments similar to it in Ottawa, have no interest in science and, in fact, would rather science not interfere with their bad ideas.

Food prices are going to go up. Food prices are going to go up anyway, even if we were going to protect our agricultural land. Unfortunately, this government has its head in the sand and, I think, probably is fully aware of the problems that their legislation is going to cause.

Recently the president of the United States visited a drought-stricken region and talked about how important it was to do whatever they could to ensure that their farmers got through difficult times. Our government here in British Columbia says: "Look, you're not making enough money in farming. Let's give up on farming. Let's pretend it doesn't even matter. Let's give you other ways to make money."

Farming is a viable business if we weren't the worst province in the country in their support to farmers. How is that possible? The government is on one hand criticizing the lack of financial capability of farmers in the north, as the member for Chilliwack once said, when in fact, it's the least supported agriculture sector in the country. British Columbia has the opportunity to strengthen its agricultural sector, but it has chosen to go the other way. It has chosen to go the other way, and that's really, really disappointing.

It's not just crops that aren't being planted in the United States. Trees are being cut down because they're taking too much water and they need that water for something else. Herds are being culled. They have the lowest number of livestock in Texas since 1936. This is not stuff we should be ignoring.

I'm bringing it up maybe in a way that offends the members opposite, and I'll try to be nicer. But it strikes me that we need to bring attention to this, because the government, even in their consultation phase, didn't want people to talk about it. It's my responsibility to make sure that people of the province are aware. It's the responsibility of all members of this House to ensure that legislation that's passed here is actually good for the province, and I have not heard one good argument. I've not heard one good argument for this.

Interjection.

N. Simons: I'm told by the Minister Responsible for Core Review that I should sit down and hear one. Well, talk about classy. Talk about classy, really.

I'm looking forward to it, but he's had plenty of opportunity to provide examples of how this legislation is helpful, and he has failed to do so. All he has done is talk about how, if he had to eat a 100-mile diet, all he'd eat is hay. If all he ate were hay, I wonder what animal that
[ Page 3549 ]
would make him.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Or eat Christmas trees. Well, the minister is absolutely dead wrong. The minister is dead wrong, and the people who want to kill Bill 24 are right.

Let me quote from the climate action initiative: "As a land-based industry, agriculture is particularly vulnerable to climate changes." Let me just, in a summary, explain some of the impacts: "Increasing climate variation and more extreme weather events, with an increase in the associated damage costs."

[1545]

These are some of the things that are going to happen: "Shrinking of glaciers, with many expected to disappear within 100 years, resulting in serious impacts on water availability and hydrology." The changes we're seeing now are going to accelerate. We're not just going through this and thinking: "Okay. Well, we can handle this. It was just a little bit stormier this year. Don't worry about it."

These changes that we're going to see are going to increase in their magnitude and in the number of times they occur. I'm just hoping that reconsideration…. Even if they don't like me, they can consider it in their amendments. It's not about that.

Reduction in snow accumulations. Warming by two to seven degrees Celsius by 2080. I mean, if I was thinking back to my grandfather…. That's a long time from now, but it's not that long when you consider where we fit.

The severity of wildfires. The severity of pests, disease and invasive plant outbreaks. We're going to see impacts that include a decline in yield and production. Fluctuation in world market prices. Changes in the geographic distribution of trade regimes, and an increasing number of people at risk for hunger.

"Less than 5 percent of land in B.C. is suitable for agriculture" — and this is from the climate action initiative — "which was one of the primary reasons for the development of the agricultural land reserve…. However, land continues to be removed from the reserve, and 86 percent of the land excluded since 2002 has been in regions with the highest concentration of farmland."

Our heavy reliance on imported food will become more acute and more costly as climate change impacts are felt in other jurisdictions. That's just the simple fact.

"Despite the importance of maintaining a viable agriculture sector, to date the issue of agricultural adaptation to climate change has received very little attention in British Columbia." I think that if this is an example of the attention, any attention, that was made to this real fact, we are in big trouble. We need a comprehensive food strategy.

Looking at the situation in the rest of the world only makes it more important and more critical that we deal with this issue in a rational way, that we accept science, that we respect the opinions of people who are more learned in this area than any of us in this House, even those who travel all over. It's more than travelling all over that's going to give you an insight into whether or not this is good legislation.

We've had protections in place in this province for 40 years. Apparently, 40 years ago there was one of the biggest demonstrations outside by people who thought that the agricultural land reserve was an infringement on their rights, and they expressed themselves. They are now part of the 95 percent of the population that supports the agricultural land reserve.

I'm not saying in any way that there are not opportunities for improving the commission, that there are not opportunities for making….

Interjection.

N. Simons: No, it's just clear. It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. The way this legislation was brought in, though, makes it look like it was all or nothing. To me, that's just a bad way of making public policy.

I've been here since '05, and I've seen ten Ministers of Agriculture come and go. I've seen absolutely no attention paid to improving the support we provide for agriculture.

I know that the current minister is a….

Interjection.

N. Simons: We hope the minister stays longer as well. But the first thing that this minister had to do was, essentially, capitulate to the Big Brother next to him. I think this is the problem with this kind of legislation. It's clear to the public of British Columbia.

It was just interesting that as soon as…. Like, the Minister of Agriculture was appointed two days after the animal health bill was introduced, one day after estimates on Agriculture were done, and then we have a new minister. So my thought was: "This is to break the deadlock that exists between this government and the agriculture sector."

I thought that maybe the Premier had done something really smart and appointed somebody to actually try and bring sides together and try to bring some understanding and maybe even put off the legislation for a point of consultation. I was hoping that the minister would engage in some consultation.

[1550]

What do you know? He came out of a meeting in Abbotsford and said: "Yes, we're going to consult." I think many people in this province were very happy. Many people in this province were sighing a sigh of relief because, ultimately, legislation of this importance should not be snuck in through a core review. Legislation of this importance should have been talked about before an election. Legislation with this potential impact should in-
[ Page 3550 ]
volve the opinions and the considered thoughts of those who are expert in the area.

The minister said there'd be consultation. Lo and behold, that night someone in the press got a phone call from the Minister for Core Review and, verbally patting the Minister of Agriculture on the head, said: "That's kind of cute. I think consultation is really good. It's not going to change a thing. This bill is going to be passed the way it is, maybe without the typos, and everything will go on the way I wanted it to."

The Minister for Core Review. This is his own personal little vendetta. I think the Minister of Agriculture probably was speaking what he hoped — that, in fact, there would be consultation. I think he was speaking what many of his colleagues were hoping — that there'd be consultation. Maybe, in fact, the minister was reflecting the strong desire in the agriculture sector among scientists, among environmentalists and among food security experts that consultation would take place. But there was to be no consultation.

In the '70s we lost about 6,000 acres of land every year. We were losing agricultural land at a rate that was unsustainable. Because of that, all parties, including the Social Credit Party at the time, were considering what to do about this incredible destruction of land that we had left for agriculture.

It just so happened that an NDP government was elected. Their approach to this issue was dramatic, it was visionary, and it became the envy of many other jurisdictions. It was to ensure that the land that was capable of agriculture would be protected in a reserve. This reserve was protected by a commission, independent and impartial, that would adjudicate whether or not applications from farmers to do different things with their land would be approved.

Now, the minister should know this. About 95 percent of applications come from people who have bought the land within a few years. This reserve has been in place for 40 years. To think that what we're doing is helping farmers….

Only 5 percent of applications for any amendments to their zoning come from farmers, so the Minister for Core Review knows that this bill is not about agriculture. It's about development. It's not about agricultural protection or agricultural enhancement. It's about development pressures and succumbing to development pressures for the quickest buck possible, without considering the importance of agriculture as an industry and as a way of producing food for our future.

Hon. B. Bennett: How did that work for you in the last election?

N. Simons: It didn't work very well.

The Minister for Core Review wants to dismiss the fact that my opinion differs from his or that I'm actually making it clear that this legislation was conceived and written by the Minister for Core Review because of his own pet project. He has never liked the Agricultural Land Commission, since coming from Alberta. He has never supported it. He has constantly criticized it. Now he's finally got it where he wants it. He's got it where he wants it, and he's standing over it with his big boot, ready to crush it.

That minister wants to mention the last election. You know what, Minister? We're not very happy, on this side, about that election, but I'm talking about future generations, with 20 elections between now and then, and I'm concerned about them. I likely won't be running, and you probably won't be running, but the issues facing future generations are going to be important.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Well, you do look young.

It's just absolutely clear that what we need to do to ensure food security for the future is preserve the land for today. That's not just the land. It's the land in the climate where food products can be grown.

[1555]

I should just say, for the youngsters who are in the gallery today, that right now I'm debating a bill with the Minister of Agriculture about how we protect agricultural land, and I've talked about young people in this this House. We protect land that's good for agriculture, because you're going to need it in future years. We can't put buildings on it; we can't put rodeos on it. That land has got to be able to grow food, because we're never going to run out of the need for food. You've got to eat to live.

My concern as an opposition member is that the government didn't put adequate thought into how this legislation was created, and my job is to point out the mistakes they made and hope, with my crossed fingers, that they're going to change things. But I'm kind of realistic about that too. I think the government has made up its mind, and they're not really interested in hearing other opinions.

It's not just me that doesn't think this is good legislation. Most farmers and most scientists and most professors don't think this is a good idea either, so I'm kind of talking about their concerns, and I'm reflecting those concerns to the minister, who's leaving. Oh, I'm not allowed to say whether he's leaving or coming. Well, the minister, yeah.

We need to protect land not only in the north and not only in the south but everywhere in this province. How the government has decided that the province of British Columbia is really just two zones boggles my mind. We've got different regions with different needs and different interests, but we had a provincial authority to adjudicate the land use in those places. Quite frankly, the two-zone idea is a simplification of a very complicated
[ Page 3551 ]
issue, for political interests, I would imagine. I can't think of any other interests.

I cannot think that this government actually thinks this is going to be good for future generations. I don't know how they will be able to justify this in terms of how it will impact the needs of future generations.

I do know how they can justify this in terms of immediate economic gain. I know. Obviously, you're probably going to get more out of the land if you drill a big hole and get some natural gas out of it than you will if you dig a bunch of holes and grow grain. But we need grain because we need grain for our livestock, and we need other commodities.

The government likes to say, well, it's less viable land in the north. First of all, that's not true, because you've got an incredible amount of class 1 land in the north. Also, you're going to grow blueberries. You're going to compare the profit you get from an acre of blueberries to an acre of grain? Seriously?

To the members from Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley: you're going to compare the amount of money you get out of the land in your area to the Peace River? Is that a fair comparison? Do we think we're going to be able to feed all our cattle blueberries? I think we have to recognize the fact that there are different zones, and there are different places in this province that grow different commodities for different purposes. That's a simple fact.

Even the cattlemen — I'll talk about them later — made some recommendations about the Agricultural Land Commission. None of them were the ones this minister came up with. Surprise, surprise. A lot of people have talked about how we could improve the Agricultural Land Commission. A lot of people have talked about things that could be done to make it slightly better, more efficient, more modern.

Some of those people suggesting that were the Auditor General; Richard Bullock, the chair of the commission himself; maybe the David Suzuki Foundation — various people who know about this kind of issue. Yet the minister took it upon himself that it was time for a solo. It was time to stand at the front of the stage and in his loudest voice sing an aria.

It's a sad day. I called it a sad day in the history of British Columbia. It is a sad day. I don't think I'm overstating it. It sounds a little dramatic, but I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of the end of the protection we have in place for land. Some people described it as sneaky, because it doesn't open everything wide open immediately, but it unlatches every possible door to development and to the destruction of agricultural land.

[1600]

We were losing 6,000 hectares of farmland a year to urban and industrial and other non-farm uses, and that was clearly disturbing at the time. Let me just say that the vision of the ALR comes from a different mindset that recognizes that there is uncertainty in this world. Things change, circumstances change, and new opportunities also present themselves.

Let me just quote. I'm going to quote from Joan Sawicki, who was here at the time. I believe she was in the cabinet of the government that introduced the Agricultural Land Commission. She put it most eloquently: "The most important criterion for decisions related to agricultural land today is to keep the options open for food production tomorrow." In other words, don't put concrete on your farm, because you might need to grow something when food gets really expensive from somewhere else.

This is the other thing. Governments have come and gone, and each government, including governments represented, NDP governments…. Nobody is without some shadow of responsibility in this. They've tried to put their stamp on this legislation. I think it really needs to be left alone — strengthened, if anything. The primary intent of the program has always remained the preservation of agricultural land, and that is not the case with this legislation.

Obviously, the Agricultural Land Commission understands the realities of competing land use pressures and the sophistication of the decision-making process. Well, I'm going to go into some of the details of the legislation itself and, I think, try to make a case for why or how this legislation came about and why it should be abandoned, in my view — taken off the table or, at the very least, referred to a committee to study it.

When you make a law, you should really have some buy-in from the public. It doesn't make for good public policy to sneak legislation in, in a way that doesn't give ample opportunity for the public or for independent experts or for people who would be directly affected to have an opportunity to say something about it.

The stealth with which Bill 24 was planned and what the legislation will do is part of my next little diatribe. I don't mean it to be a diatribe. My apologies if this is grating people the wrong way, but it's good to be passionate about your issues. I'm not a farmer, and I've got to tell you that when I was appointed Agriculture critic, I was honoured. I do come from a family of farming in the past, but I've never been a farmer. But as a layperson speaking to the broadest cross-section of the public, I've learned a heck of a lot, and I've learned a lot that has made me passionate about this issue. I've learned about the need to put a lot of attention into this.

Water and food are pretty important to the average human. If government wants to make policies that could potentially disrupt our ability to get water and food in the future, and I know about it, and I stand in this House — and I'm elected by the vast majority of voters in Powell River–Sunshine Coast, to the dismay of the Minister Responsible for Core Review — it's my responsibility to speak about it. I don't mean to be grating.

I'm looking forward to listening to the members from
[ Page 3552 ]
the other side talk about why they think the politicization and the reduction of independence of a commission is important.

Let's just talk a little bit about how this legislation came about. I think it's good to go back and make sure that we're quoting accurately from the people who were involved in the creation of the legislation in the first place.

[1605]

Let's see now. The problems the government had were unknown to anybody in this province. Nobody, as far as I know, said there's an urgent need to change the legislation as it affects agricultural land. I never got a letter about it. I never got calls. I don't think my colleagues got any letters saying, "Change this legislation" — anything like that.

The only time that we heard about the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve was when the minister was inappropriately trying to influence the commission. When the minister was travelling around, the Minister for Core Review, he was sort of just criticizing the commission willy-nilly, saying, "Oh, I never liked the commission. They do a lot of things. They're frustrating. They're protecting land that isn't worth protecting" — all sorts of things that somehow this minister thinks this legislation is going to address. I don't know how he thinks it's going to do so, but apparently he thinks it will.

Before the 2013 election not one person in British Columbia heard the government say that they were planning to amend the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Nobody was told. The people of the province weren't told.

I should point out that if they had been told, they might have had something to say then. I think that the government knew. "You better not bring this up now, because the vast majority of the public, according to…." Every poll since '95 has shown that the public is strongly supportive of the agricultural land reserve. They would not have looked approvingly on the actions of the minister.

Nothing was said to the people of the province before the election. After the election, all of a sudden, the Premier wrote a letter to every minister saying to do this and do that and do that. One of the things that the minister responsible for agriculture — who I have said on many occasions I wish was here and I wish the best for and who I would prefer to be debating this bill with….

He was given a mandate letter saying: "Look at the commission. See how things could be done better." He may have done so; I don't know. I did try to find out what consultation took place and did an FOI and everything, and we got three pages back with very little on them.

The minister obviously didn't engage in deep discussions about this in any public forum. We don't know who he might have consulted with, if he consulted with anyone. Maybe the government will tell us, because it's certainly not in the documents we were provided with respect to proposed changes to the Agricultural Land Commission.

I'm not averse to giving the benefit of the doubt, but when history seems to indicate a pattern, it would be foolish and unwise to suggest that pattern would change. The pattern that I'm talking about is a sort of sneaky legislation when it's not popular. The HST comes to mind. That, obviously, involved tax, so everybody was very concerned about it. Nothing was said before the election.

They brought it in after, and the public said: "Bad idea. No way. Rescind it." Many people were against it just because of the way it was brought in. I think people are against Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. I think they're against it not necessarily because of the way it was brought in — in part, certainly — but mostly because of what it entails as legislation.

Nothing before the election, and then after the election the Minister Responsible for Core Review announced out of the blue that it would be part of the core review process. He made the justification: "Of course, we're looking at every Crown corporation and commission and tribunal. We're looking at everybody." Nobody is safe, essentially.

[1610]

It just so happened that the Agricultural Land Commission was the first in line as a target, and that says something, perhaps, about the personal nature of this. The public said: "Wait a second. What about consulting with the people of the province?"

The Minister for Core Review said, "Oh, we'll let people consult through the Finance Committee" — the Finance Committee which was travelling the province to talk about what priorities should be included in the upcoming budget.

The Minister for Core Review, I guess, didn't tell anyone. I think the Chair of the Finance Committee was sort of caught off guard when people started…. Two or three delegations that appeared before them started talking about agricultural land, and they said: "Wait a second. This isn't the place for that. What are you doing, talking to us here about that?"

The funny part — if that wasn't funny, it's funny in my head, maybe — was that the Chair of the Finance Committee was also, I think, called the Parliamentary Secretary for Core Review. I might have the title wrong. This is a person who should know about the core review but also about the proposal that input on the Agricultural Land Commission be put through.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

You'd think they would know, but okay, making it up on the fly, maybe that was just a lack of communication. Probably someone dropped their BlackBerry in a sink or something, and nobody told the member for Penticton that consultation on the Agricultural Land Commission, as part of the core review, would be done through the
[ Page 3553 ]
Finance Committee as they travelled the province.

Well, well, well, isn't that interesting? Okay. The Finance Committee said: "No, no, no. This is not the venue for that." Going back to the Minister for Core Review, they said: "There'll be plenty of time for input, where you can put your input." I think that was the quote: "Where you'll put your input."

The public was kind of waiting for that. That never materialized.

At that point I don't think that the minister had even talked to the Agricultural Land Commission. I don't think so. I don't think they'd even had a meeting with the B.C. Agriculture Council. Consultation was almost like: "You can consult if you can catch me. But if you can't, sorry, you're out of luck." Nobody really got an opportunity to consult — nobody.

As I said earlier, good legislation and good public policy are best informed by experts and by knowledgable people and people who have an interest in the area, not by people who have, I would say, an unhealthy and unwarranted critical view of the Agricultural Land Commission. I think that's fundamentally the problem. Yeah, it's referred to in many, many different ways.

The lack of consultation was one problem. We also got a leaked document back in November. I guess somebody let it fall out of their briefcase. It was a document from cabinet, a cabinet decision paper that made these other outrageous proposals for the Agricultural Land Commission. It must have been like idea No. 2 or something. I guess it went into the gutter, and nobody really….

The government tried to distance itself from that document, because that was probably more outrageous than Bill 24 ended up being. That was to combine the Agricultural Land Commission with the Farm Industry Review Board. Who knows what was in that? Public outcry was strong and immediate.

Perhaps it was a little trial balloon to see how concerned the public was. But it clearly didn't have a huge impact. Now, the Minister Responsible for Core Review had been saying a lot of things about the Agricultural Land Commission, talking about how he'd been waiting a long time to do this and how he was hoping that he would, I guess, fix it or something.

Let's see now. He made all sorts of assertions, including one complaint that people go back to the Agricultural Land Commission, they keep getting refused, nobody is letting his developers do what they want, and some of that land isn't that great. You couldn't grow a grape on it or something. Then IntegrityBC did a little review of the 660 applications to the Agricultural Land Commission filed in the Kootenay district.

[1615]

I wonder if the Minister for Core Review knows about that.

Hon. B. Bennett: Yeah, I do.

N. Simons: Oh, good. The minister says he does.

Hon. B. Bennett: I know who put him up to it as well.

N. Simons: Oh, apparently, it was someone who was put up to it. Well, I don't know who put 660 applicants up to the Agricultural Land Commission. They put them up to filing applications.

It looks to me like 72.3 percent of the applications to the ALC in the Kootenays were approved, almost 75 percent — "numbers that point to a need for public consultation." That's obvious to anybody, but that was in the newspaper. That was by Dermod Travis of IntegrityBC. It casts some light on the veracity of the comments by the minister, when he said that people were always frustrated in the Kootenays because of the Agricultural Land Commission not letting them do what they want.

I'd like to know from the minister at some point where, in fact, they got the idea that the ALC and the ALR really needed to be changed. What was broken that needed to be fixed? We haven't had an answer to that. I'm not very sure we're going to get an answer on that, but we'll hope. I wonder if it's going to be enough to justify what I call the ridiculous changes that are being proposed in Bill 24.

Was there a commitment to consulting? There was no consultation. Oh, the idea that consultation meant talking to people for a while. It's just unfortunate that some powerful lobbyists got the ear of this minister, who took it upon himself to make it his policy or his political goal as a minister to accomplish what he'd always wanted to do. It's just shocking.

Now, over the years, obviously, the Agricultural Land Commission has been asked to do things, has been given some direction in terms of the tweaking of the legislation. They've been audited by the Auditor General, and recommendations were made. I have yet to hear any minister of government or any member of the government caucus say where the Agricultural Land Commission did not fulfil those expectations of government. What was it that, essentially, prompted this government to embark on this little endeavour?

There were a lot of comments during the release of this legislation that caught people off guard and made many wonder if the minister understood agriculture in this province and whether he understood the impacts of the changes. If he didn't, it would be his opportunity to back away.

He claims to know what he's doing, and because of that, it makes his actions almost more problematic. What he's doing to the act is changing the principle of the legislation that was originally passed, and that's a problem too.

Bill 24 is 12 sections. In the first section it talks about the need to create two zones — one for what they have been referring to as the north and one for the rest, I guess. Obviously, these two zones don't reflect, in any accurate way, two fundamentally different areas of land.
[ Page 3554 ]

I mean, if you're talking about farm cash receipts, maybe you'll see a higher return on investment on the most fertile land, but you can grow grapes. You're not growing…. It's not forage land, but all land that's potentially used for agriculture is important to the agriculture sector.

[1620]

The creation of two zones creates fundamental inequality in this legislation, and therein lies one of its biggest weaknesses, I think, in that land owned by farmers and by people involved in agriculture in the south is supposedly protected, remains protected, obviously implying that land in the other zone is no longer protected. I mean, the government said it themselves.

What we really should be doing is shoring up the protections of the land in the south or in the regions that government refers to as zone 1, because we see the vast majority of agricultural land lost to the province of B.C. has been in those zones that are supposedly still being protected.

Other problems with the act. There are obviously so many problems with this act. The fact is that the legislation not only creates the inequality of two zones; it also essentially formalizes a system that was clearly not going to work — that of the regional panel system, which localized and regionalized decisions on land closer to where that land actually existed.

It's not a criticism of local government or local officials or local appointees that they are subject to a greater amount of pressure — political, economic, public pressure — when something that could be beneficial in the immediate term for economic growth or economic viability supersedes the importance of protecting that land not for next year or for two years from now but for ten, 20, 30 generations.

When you localize decision-making and make it such an immediate kind of a question between do you want to use this now for housing or later for growing food, the economic impact is greater if you say now, for building something. It's not even a question of balance. It's a question of making sure that decisions are made impartially in a way that is based on science, based on the specific facts as adjudicated from a provincial view.

The agricultural land reserve was not protected for zone 1 people or zone 2 people. The province is all one zone. The province's need for agricultural land is shared by people living in Dawson Creek and people living in Delta. It's shared by the folks on Haida Gwaii and in Hazelton.

The concern that we have on this side of the House is that by creating that inequality in terms of how and where we protect land, you're creating different challenges, more challenges than are necessary for the people who are using land in the north.

That's not to mention the fact that if you take the time and look at a map and see where zone 1 and zone 2 are…. It just reminds me of the previous debate about Gracie's finger, the political influence on creating a zone that seems to mirror something other than agricultural productivity areas. It doesn't seem to have much basis in any independent kind of determination.

It seems that you're including Dawson Creek with places in the Kootenays. They're part of the same region? Why exactly? What about that makes sense? We're talking about land in the fertile Fraser Valley being included in a zone with Vancouver Island. There doesn't seem to be any sort of rationale for the division that was made by this government into the two zones.

[1625]

I think that this is one of the biggest flaws in this bill — not the only flaw. Obviously, the increased politicization of the decision-making and the ability of the minister to appoint members and the inability of the chair to have any say after decisions are made — those are equally concerning.

But the regional panel as a way of adjudicating land exclusions or non-farm use of land, I think, is a troubling precedent to set, especially when it's mandated in law, as opposed to an option in law. The option for a local tribunal or a local panel could perhaps continue to exist, but even then, I have a bit of a problem with it.

In Canada we have one law for criminal law, and it's supposed to be adjudicated fairly across the country. We have a lot more zones for people and criminal activity across the province than we have zones for agriculture in British Columbia, but we don't have different laws in terms of when it's in the public interest and the betterment of the entire society. We have one law.

The Agricultural Land Commission is a provincial institution. It's a provincial land protection system. It's a provincial zone. To start chopping it up and opening it up for future governments to say: "Well, we're going to fiddle with it a little bit more, and we're going to make it into six zones…." You never know what well-meaning legislators are going to do. But my worry is that the consequences of their actions won't be understood.

Interjection.

N. Simons: I'm sorry. That sounded like a friendly heckle.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Oh, the Minister of Health wants to talk about the Water Sustainability Act. Now, there's a good thing to bring up. I believe that the Water Sustainability Act was the result of…. Was it a core review process? No. Was it the Finance and Government Services…? No. Was it writing in or accessing a website and putting in your two cents? No, it wasn't that either. It was, like, five years of full-time consultation with the people of the province.
[ Page 3555 ]

I know slo-pitch, I know fastball, and I think that I just got lobbed an easy one. The Minister of Health should know that if he wants to bring up other examples of legislation, other examples of when it worked or when it didn't work…. I credit him for recognizing that good legislation comes from a process that involves the input from experts and academics and scientists and the general public. I agree with the Minister of Health that this, too, should have probably been subject to more consultation than a hit-and-miss kind of "did you get my e-mail?"

It's important to the people of the province. Other provinces look at British Columbia and say: "Wow. You guys did a good job back then." I wasn't a member of the NDP in 1972. I hadn't heard of them, actually. But I have to give them credit. It shouldn't be about: "Well, it was their piece of legislation. We don't like it because they brought it in." It was good legislation back then, and it's still good legislation. It's been tweaked here and there, and it's had to withstand a few attempted elbows and a bit of interference, but right now I think it's getting speared. That, to me, is a major offence, not a minor infraction.

Clearly, the legislation increases the number of people that can be on the commission. It ignores the concerns or the input of the chair when appointing members. They actually specifically remove references to the purpose of the commission, and they take away the power from the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission.

[1630]

It's hard to not suspect that there are motives behind this legislation that are unknown to the people of this province, leaving the province kind of wondering: why this legislation, why this legislation now, what are they hiding, and why are they hiding it? If you just told us the truth about this legislation and the reasons behind it, at least we would have an idea of what the goals are of this government.

Deputy Speaker: The member is doing so well.

N. Simons: I'm looking at the press release of March 27, the press release from the government. It's a news release. I'm afraid to say it, because they're going clap. It says that the ALC will — and it's sort of funny, because it obviously won't — remain a fully independent tribunal and decision-maker.

Oh, and you know what? The truth of the matter is that the ministers should all know that it's an independent tribunal right now. But after they get through with it, it's going to be a lot less independent, and it will not be adhering to the original principle, which is to protect farmland for the future.

Now, the justifications. Let me just go to the justifications for this particular piece of legislation as stated in the news release of this government. There are seven bullet points that the government has included at the end of their press release.

It talks about how few farms have sales more than $10,000. It notes how many farm operators have off-farm jobs or businesses. It tells us how much farmers have to work off the farm. It tells us how old farm operators are in the province. It tells us that the proportion of older farmers is high here, and we have the lowest number of young farmers. It tells us how much farms operated by older people have increased and how few farms exist compared to the rest of the country.

Now, if I were the minister responsible for agriculture, I wouldn't be publicizing its failures to address the farm and agriculture sector in the province. But that's what they're doing. They're justifying bad legislation by saying how bad things have become. It's only become…. I mean, if they want to call it bad, they're pointing to these things as if it's negative and justifies the response. That doesn't do anything of the sort.

The problem is that the government has not adequately supported the agriculture sector for many, many years. We've asked for….

Interjection.

N. Simons: I'm sorry. What?

Interjection.

N. Simons: Well, now the Minister of Agriculture wants to help me, as the Minister of Health helped me earlier, in finding another significant flaw. This is the minister who will proudly tell us now that the budget for the Agricultural Land Commission was increased prior to these changes in order to accomplish many of the things that the commission has said it needed to do.

Then comes along the core review and squishes it like a bug and says: "We gave you money for a good reason, but we've changed the reasons now." It was a different regime that offered this money to the Agricultural Land Commission. It's not this regime.

The Agricultural Land Commission needed shoring up of its budget — absolutely. You know what? We should be supportive. We should speak supportively of the Agricultural Land Commission. I have said….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has the floor.

N. Simons: Yes, hon. Speaker. Thank you. Sometimes I sing in a duet, sometimes it's a quartet, and sometimes it's a whole big choir. Despite the fact that everyone was out of tune, I enjoyed myself.

I don't think it's appropriate that government justifies bad legislation by pointing to its own failures, although it's, once again, humorous — in my head anyway.
[ Page 3556 ]

[1635]

The other justifications for their legislation. A fact sheet issued on the day of the announcement of this legislation speaks to the location of our best farmland and points out quite accurately that the north region has 50 percent of the agricultural land reserve but only 8 percent of the farm receipts, cash receipts.

That's the wrong measurement to assess the viability of farming. It's the wrong measurement not just in terms of what it tells people of the province — that you value the berries but you don't value the grain. It also tells you that this isn't about the future.

Really, everything about the Agricultural Land Commission and everything about the agricultural land reserve is about the future. It's a flexible commission that adjudicates and allows for applications — in the case of the Minister for Core Review, in his area — 75 percent of the time. I think that when faced with the facts, it should impact on the decisions that government is making.

The Agricultural Land Commission has needed additional resources in order to fill the vacancies. If those vacancies had been filled, some of the delays that might have occurred would have been less, and some of the minister's apparent dissatisfaction with the commission would have been alleviated. It's his own government that created the problem. Then he criticizes it, and then he tries to destroy it. That's the concern that I have with this.

This disdain for the commission isn't new, really. It might not be a disdain for the commission but might be an aversion to the protection of land. In the 2005-2006 and '06-07 service plan it was actually stated that 1/10 of 1 percent can be removed for community need every year. The thought of that indicates that this is just…. They want to turn it into a land bank, and it shouldn't be a land bank. The land in reserve should be protected land, and it shouldn't be land that's bought by speculators in order to flip.

If you look at the number of applications that come from speculators and developers, it's over 90 percent, and 5 percent of applications for alternative use and for exclusions come from farmers — 5 percent. Maybe the government should say to the Agricultural Land Commission: "Your priority should always be farmers' applications first." Maybe that would reduce some of the tension or the concerns that people have.

I think maybe the government should contemplate saying: "It's been 40 years. If your land is still in the agricultural land reserve, it should stay in the agricultural land reserve." There's no reasonable argument that can made that…. If you bought the land two years ago, you knew it was in the agricultural land reserve. You shouldn't be about to try to line your pockets on the backs and the stomachs of future generations.

There are concerns about panels, and I'll talk about the concerns about panels. These concerns were raised in a document called Forever Farmland: Reshaping the Agricultural Land Reserve for the 21st Century by the David Suzuki Foundation, written by Charles Campbell. Here are just a few key quotes from that report.

I know I don't have a heck of a lot of time. But here are some basic facts. Currently the ALR has over 4½ million hectares. Just to compare, that's about 47,000 square kilometres; Vancouver Island is about 32,000 square kilometres. So 47 to 32 — it's a big piece of land, and it's important. It's not as much as most provinces have in terms of farmland, but we are British Columbia, and we have our own challenges.

The one thing they point out that I think is key: something that's impossible to reverse is the alienation of agricultural land from food production. That simple fact, I think, should be enough to say this bill should be pulled.

Ronald Wright, in his A Short History of Progress, writes that we need to do one simple thing: shift from short-term to long-term thinking. I think that's fundamentally where this legislation fails.

[1640]

We're not thinking long term with this legislation. We're thinking short term. It's a problem for future generations that we may not experience ourselves, but future generations certainly will.

Now, the panel effort was tried without being mandatory, and it was a failure. It's in the long-term provincial interest to protect agricultural land. That has to be the primary consideration.

"The choice to compose panels of local people likely to have a history with the industry and governments they regulate is also an issue in this regard." That's something that is pointed out by the David Suzuki Foundation. The decisions are often perfunctory. Panels can limit public input. Panels can meet privately with applicants. The small size of panels weakens their accountability.

"A system in which five or seven people make a decision is less vulnerable than one where three individuals rule on the matter. Beyond an increased sample size, the reason for this is simple. When a decision-making body consists of three people, it's very easy for two of them to come to a private agreement."

The government might try and characterize this as saying that their people are dishonest or are people who have other vested interests. No, the pressure in small communities is significant. We all recognize that. We recognize that, and we try and take those kinds of pressures off those small communities. That's why the provincial approach needs to be the one that rules the day.

Now, the difference in values creates an incentive for cash-poor municipalities to build a case for community need. Small communities can get a lot of benefit from development levies and taxes in return for zoning. I think the idea that it's a provincial arbitrator and not a local one protects not just the land better, but it protects the decision-makers.

Clearly, if we want independent and neutral adjudi-
[ Page 3557 ]
cation, we should probably try to maintain the provincial approach because, as the report says: "Superficially compelling reasons to take land out of the ALR abound." Despite that, we need to make sure that the primary purpose of the legislation, the reason it was created, needs to be adhered to.

Sometimes removals can be justified. I think justification for the removal comes after deliberate scientific review, after impartial arbitration. I think the commission has shown respect for community development challenges. The commission is flexible.

Now, from Hansard I would just like to point out that the Minister for Core Review did say that the "original purpose of the agricultural land reserve will remain. But clearly, the amendments — Bill 24, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014 — belie that. It is not the case that the purpose will remain, because they've added purposes and they've really changed that completely.

We're told there is tremendous support in the Peace. We've seen the association of regional governments there tell us that they don't support this legislation.

I just want to turn to some of the people who are very concerned about this legislation. Local governments, food security experts, local food advocates, the statements of previous ministers, the agricultural council, agrologists, academics and environmentalists are all concerned that the legislation as it stands, even with the mentioned amendments, will essentially change the fundamental character of the commission and change the ability it has currently to protect agricultural land.

[1645]

A letter from a professor in the north outlines some of the concerns To quote partially from Dr. David Connell's public letter, he said:

"The purpose of the land use planning is to envision a desirable future that reflects the public interest, understand what decisions about land resources need to be made today to achieve that vision and translate the decision in the policies that protect the land base and allocate its uses.

"The focus on providing flexibility to farmers to have non-farm uses on their land is misguided. It serves no purpose other than to promote private interests at the expense of the finite agricultural land base in the province.

"The restructuring of the ALC panels to reflect local priorities serves only to undermine the very purpose of having a provincial statement of public interest to preserve farmland. The broadening considerations for non-farm uses and land exclusions will weaken the mandate of farmland preservation. The political appointment of regional panel members and CEO will erode the independence of the ALC and its ability to fulfil its mandate free from political interests."

In sum:

"On the day it is passed I believe that Bill 24 will increase uncertainty in the marketplace and undermine the stability of the agricultural land base that has been forged over the past 40 years. The consequences of eroding the province's ability to protect its agricultural land base will irreversible."

That was printed in the Sun.

Soil scientists wrote: "With Bill 24, we not only lose ground in the literal sense but also in the public policy sense. The ALR was established because local and regional authorities could not be relied upon to protect our scarce and irreplaceable farmland from non-farm development."

That's fundamentally at issue here, and that's the concern that most British Columbians have.

To continue: "The six-panel system contained within Bill 24 potentially takes us back to the 1973 situation that gave rise to the establishment" of the ALR and the commission in the first place. "Criticisms of Bill 24 came not only from established soil experts but also from students and young professionals."

A soil science student at UBC says: "The reduced role of science as the basis for protecting farmlands within the ALR is deeply troubling."

I think young people and people in university are fully aware of the attack on science by the federal Conservative government and the dismissal of their concerns. I think what we're seeing, partly, here is a bit of that attitude — that the politicians get to do whatever they want. They have the say. But I would really advise that the learned opinions of people who've studied this for, in some cases, a lifetime should be contemplated. This legislation should not be the result of a single-minded individual with one particular perspective on it. All indications suggest that to be the case.

Here are a few of the other organizations that were present at the rally to save the ALR — farmlandprotection.ca, for the list. There's a long list of groups that support the protection of the Agricultural Land Commission, the strengthening of the agricultural land reserve. The government's plan is, instead, to weaken it. That's clear to everybody who's looked at this issue.

UBCM has not yet determined whether or not it supports the changes. Clearly, they're concerned about them. The district of Metchosin said there's no mandate to do it. The city of Richmond wants the ALC to protect and enhance the ALR. North Saanich is seeking clarification in the core review. Sunshine Coast regional district passed a resolution. The Peace River regional district sent a letter to the minister requesting that the provincial proposal to separate the agricultural land into two zones be withdrawn from the Legislative Assembly.

The village of Nakusp supports the preservation of farmland, calls for a longer consultation period. I have to make sure that they know there was no consultation period. The city of Nelson, preservation of land. The city of Burnaby, opposition to the proposed alteration to the agricultural land reserve. The Islands Trust, a letter to the previous minister supporting the preservation of the ALR.

[1650]

The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities had a resolution against the changes. The Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local
[ Page 3558 ]
Governments resolution at their annual convention in April requested that the government undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties. The Southern Interior Local Government Association passed a resolution to increase resources to the Land Commission and to maintain the provincial commission as an independent tribunal — two things that they refuse to do.

The list goes on. More people will…. In hundreds and hundreds of e-mails that I've received, hundreds of letters, petitions with thousands of names, I've yet to hear anyone or any organization except the Kootenay Livestock Association say anything that supports the changes proposed by the Minister for Core Review.

This is troubling to me, because the government didn't have a mandate before the election to do this. They still don't have a mandate. They have the power, and maybe that's all they care about. They can do whatever they want.

We need to make sure that we can protect farmers, support farmers and make sure that their work as farmers and as food producers is strengthened. We need to make sure of their ability to strengthen their viability. That should be the focus of any agricultural land commission act. It should be to encourage or to promote the ability of British Columbians to engage in the agricultural sector.

Unfortunately, this bill does not do that. What the province really needs is an updated agriculture and food plan. In the U.S. they have a recently passed farm bill that provides support to farmers to protect their land, provides incentives to ensure that land suitable for agriculture is protected for agriculture. A provincial food strategy, as I mentioned earlier, should be one that supports the development and maintenance of a sustainable and secure food system, especially in the context of a changing climate.

Others have come up with recommendations of their own. Here's an organization that does a lot of really good, strong economic analysis and makes recommendations. Marc Lee, who was the author, says:

"The agricultural land reserve is a tremendous asset that other jurisdictions in Canada don't have. Removing productive farmland from the ALR to build highways and new sprawling suburbs is shortsighted. More farmland, if anything, will be required to accommodate larger population," and the challenges that are a result of climate change. "Bolstering the ALR would also serve a double purpose as urban containment, facilitating the transition to 'smart growth' or more sustainable and compact communities in urban centres."

It's done that already, and it should be able to continue to do that.

"The development of local and sustainable food systems can also be supported by leveraging the purchasing power of large public and non-profit institutions in urban areas…."

It's something in the subject of a private member's bill put before this House to ensure that there was more security and stability for the people who are growing our food.

They make recommendations as well. The Auditor General makes recommendations. The CCPA makes recommendations. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association makes recommendations.

Let me talk about those. I mean, they were in 2010. The government has had a lot of time to think about it. They made 26 recommendations, and none of them had anything to do with weakening the Agricultural Land Commission — none of them.

These are the folks who should have more say in this kind of legislation. Why are they being ignored? Why are the members of the B.C. Agriculture Council being told one thing one day and another thing the next?

[1655]

They are being manipulated, I think, by the government, who just wants to get their bill passed, contrary to the best interest of the public. To be more generous, even if it's not contrary to the interest of British Columbians, why wouldn't you bring it to British Columbians and say: "What would you like?" Why doesn't the government do a poll if they want? Not that polls are always accurate, I have to say.

Interjections.

N. Simons: Duly noted, my friends.

However, why not try to ascertain as best as possible from the people of the province — in a real way, in an honest way — find out if people in this province support the changes as proposed?

An Hon. Member: No, they don't.

N. Simons: I don't think they do either. But would that even change their minds? That's my question. Would that matter at all? Maybe it wouldn't; I don't know. But the fact that there's been no consultation, the fact that there's been no effort to determine the interests of the public, strikes me as somewhat problematic.

We need to do whatever we can to ensure the long-time viability of our food supply system. We should be doing some of the things that they're doing in other jurisdictions, increasing the protections we have.

Here's a recommendation from the David Suzuki Foundation, who also made recommendations about the Agricultural Land Commission. They are interesting recommendations, none of which have found their way into the core review document that we have before us. I refer to it as the result of the core review because that's the only obvious, tangible evidence that a core review was done on the Agricultural Land Commission. That's this legislation.

We don't know who they talked to. We don't know who was asked for comments. Nobody had an opportunity to provide input. This legislation was thought up, was written and was tabled with as few people knowing about it as possible, I guess, for obvious reasons. The reasons were clear when it was tabled — that the public fundamentally
[ Page 3559 ]
disagrees with this government's approach to the protection of farmland. It's disappointing; it's sad.

I just want to quote another thing, the British Columbia agriculture plan. It was written back some years ago. In fact, there's a picture of Gordon Campbell, Val Roddick and Pat Bell on the front. It's a nice document with pictures of tulips — and, oh, peppers — and in it there's a recommendation on the agricultural land reserve: "Preservation of agricultural land for future generations of farm and ranch families."

Wow, were they ever forward-looking back then. It was great — because you've got to eat to live. Remember that? A refrain we often heard in this House from Val Roddick. Every two-minute statement she gave, she ended with, "Because you gotta eat to live," and we all joined in. It was a choir — a spoken-word choir.

We all agreed then, way back then — under a different regime when we all agreed. I long for the days of Val Roddick. Some sensibility….

Interjections.

N. Simons: I don't want to tell you what I long for all the time, Mr. Speaker. That would be inappropriate. But in this particular case…

Deputy Speaker: It likely would, Member.

N. Simons: …I long for the presence of Val Roddick in this House, the moderate approach that she took to her job, finding the middle ground, the middle ground that Kevin Falcon used to bring to this House — you know, the days of less fundamentalism. I think that we would all do well to have those days back in this Legislature, the time when some thought was given to the overall needs of the province and not to specific vested interests that we see.

I'm going to be quoted. Val Roddick will become a Facebook friend, I suppose.

Oh, I just realized that my longing for Val Roddick's presence in this House might have an impact on someone sitting close by me. I wouldn't want in any way to suggest that I would….

[1700]

Delta and agriculture go well together, and I think that what I really wished for was an approach to public policy that was inclusive, an approach to public policy that wasn't all about brinksmanship, that saw the possibility that legislation could be improved, could be better vetted by the public. I think this legislation, if put before the people of this province in a way that their input was sought realistically and not just "I'll read your letters…."

If the government set up a plan for real consultation, we'd see it more similar to a combination of the Water Act and the liquor laws. Combine those, and you would find a way forward with this legislation that could perhaps meet the test of the people of the province. As it stands now, despite that there are more votes on the government's side than there are on the opposition side, I think that it's in the best interest of British Columbians, of all of us, to have legislation that reflects all our interests — and not just our interests of today but our interests of tomorrow.

The children of the future rely on us making good decisions in this House today. While they're not here to vote and while they're not here to make their voices heard, I think that it's our responsibility…. It's more than our responsibility; it's our duty to speak on their behalf.

I say so with all the hope I have that the government will reconsider this legislation, perhaps send it to a committee for study over the summer and bring it back. It could still be called this session. We're in the session until we prorogue when we return. It could be brought back.

The saving of face could occur. I would be happy. I'd be the first to stand and applaud the government were they to take a step back from this legislation and tell the people of the province that their right to be heard will be respected, their opportunity for input will be provided and their concerns for their future will be at the top of mind of government.

As it stands right now, unfortunately, none of those can be said to be true. It's unfortunate, it's disappointing, and it's troubling. We have a lot of time to debate this legislation. I hope that it's not just a bunch of people standing up and doing solos. I hope that it becomes a chorus of voices that can impact the decision-making process of this cabinet and that the caucus on the opposite side hear the words, as well, and realize that sometimes political interests should be based solely on the best interests of the people.

I really do hope that that's the case. I'm not under any illusions. The legislation has been put forward despite massive opposition from around the province: from the B.C. Agriculture Council, from regional districts, from food security experts, from scientists, from academics, from the public, from farmers. They completely and vociferously oppose the legislation as it has been presented, with the hinted amendments probably having no effect on the fundamental structure of this legislation.

For that reason, I hope that the people of the province continue to raise their voices and continue to offer their opinions to this government. I will conclude shortly, to the delight of members opposite. I have to find my correct quote.

Let me, just before I wrap up….

Deputy Speaker: I'll note one minute and 30 seconds.

N. Simons: Okay, that works for me, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues are ready and able and willing to offer their words.

Let me quote the current Minister of Agriculture from 2013, end on a note that he may like. He's talking about
[ Page 3560 ]
the increase in funding. "The boost in funds results in the ALC receiving more money — re-emphasizes our commitment to help the ALC become a stronger organization."

[1705]

The legislation that is being presented today will not do that. It contradicts the previous message of the same minister. It goes against the best interests of the people of this province. It undermines the safety of our land for future food-growing opportunities. For that reason, I, my colleagues and, I hope, members of the soon-to-be opposition — the people across the way — will join in saying: "This legislation should be better. Give it time for consultation. We'll think about it then."

Hon. B. Bennett: And now for something a lot different. It's a pleasure for me to stand and speak in support of Bill 24 and to explain why we on this side of the House are supportive of the legislation, why we did it. Perhaps, if members on the other side of the House are open to listening, they will in fact get some answers to some of their questions. That's up to them. I can't force anyone to listen.

The first thing I want to say is: in my capacity as chair of the core review committee, it's my belief personally, and the belief of this government, that any public agency using tax dollars — in other words, money that people out there in the province send us — must be open to at least some occasional scrutiny by the democratically elected government. That would apply to the Agricultural Land Commission. It would apply to all of the Crown corporations. It would apply to any sort of agency that receives public money.

If you do not believe that, if you do not accept that, what that means is that there is something there within the control of government that you believe the democratically elected government of the day has no right to review or look at. I do want to mention….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: If I would be allowed to actually speak, hon. Speaker.

I want to say, secondly, that the changes that we are proposing to the bill in fact were conceived after 13 years of many MLAs listening to their rural constituents. It was conceived after many different exercises in consultation.

I remember the Ranching Task Force, for example. The Ranching Task Force went around this province for many months, perhaps close to a year. There were recommendations in that Ranching Task Force, which were signed off by the ranchers of this province, asking for changes to the Agricultural Land Commission. That's a fact. Now, the opposition may decide that they want to forget about that, but that is in fact something that they asked for.

In terms of our own process on this side of the House, it's comical to hear members of the opposition suggest that…. It's comical to listen to members of the opposition actually suggest that one member on this side of the House would have such sweeping powers that that member could actually conceive of a legislative change all by himself and force the members of his caucus and his cabinet and the Premier to go along with the changes that that one member wanted.

Frankly, I wouldn't want that kind of power, even if it was available. When the minister….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, we have listened for almost two hours to the other side. They're going to listen to me, or I'm just going to stop.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The minister has the floor.

Hon. B. Bennett: Thank you.

The Minister of Agriculture brought some ideas to the core review committee, to our process, several months ago.

[1710]

He came back to the core review committee three times. He then took his ideas to cabinet. He then took his ideas to a committee called the environment and land use committee, where we have MLAs and cabinet ministers sitting. He then took his ideas back to cabinet. He then took his ideas to a committee that we call the priorities and planning committee, which is chaired by the Premier. He then took his ideas back to cabinet again. So that's the third time. He then took his ideas back to the priorities and planning committee.

For anyone to suggest that the changes we are making in this legislation are the result of some sort of one-man show is ridiculous. That's amazing that they would actually think that somebody has that kind of power.

Anyhow, what I'd like to do next is…. Because of the amount of misinformation that has been around this topic, I do want to deal with facts, and I know the opposition will have trouble with that, because they're not good with facts.

I want to say that, first of all, on a personal level, I grew up in a small town — 3,200 people. I was raised there. It was a farm community, mostly dairy farms, but there were a few Herefords standing around in some of the fields. I played hockey and baseball and went to school with farm kids.

In 1974 I married the daughter of a dairy farmer. My brother-in-law still farms that dairy farm. My kids grew up in the barn on the dairy farm. I don't know how many other folks on the other side of the House can say they have the same kind of connection that I do with agriculture. My family actually comes from the agriculture in-
[ Page 3561 ]
dustry originally. I have never lived in a big city in my life.

I'll tell you something else that I think is relevant to this debate. I have been the MLA in East Kootenay for 13 years, and I've been elected four times. When I first got elected, it was an NDP riding. It's not anymore. You know who supports me in my riding? I'll tell you who supports me in my riding: ranchers and farmers. That's who supports me in my riding. I'm proud over the 13 years that I've been the MLA there to have been able to help ranchers and farmers in the East Kootenay.

When I first got elected…. I'm definitely an outdoorsy kind of guy. I know how to use a chainsaw. I hunt, I fish, I've trapped, I've got a quad and I own a snowmobile — and all that stuff. I'm a pretty good old Kootenay boy. That's true. But I didn't pretend to be really knowledgable about issues affecting ranching in the East Kootenay. They taught me.

My constituents actually taught me all of the issues around fencing. They taught me issues about noxious weeds. For the last 13 years there has not been a government MLA who has worked harder or gotten more accomplished in terms of funding for invasive species from this government.

They also taught me about something called ecosystem restoration in the Rocky Mountain Trench. We have a fire-controlled ecosystem that changed about 75 or 80 years ago when we started to put fires out. The ranchers in my region taught me about how important it is to try to restore that natural ecosystem because it provides more rangeland for wild critters and also the cattle.

We established an ecosystem restoration division in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. It was actually the Ministry of Forests at the time. So I have a history of being able to work with my ranchers and farmers. That is, of course, why I'm standing here today talking about this legislation, because it was, in fact, them. It was them. You want to know who asked me as an MLA to get involved in this and to do this? My ranchers and my farmers. That's who.

The agricultural land reserve….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Each of the members will have their opportunity to speak to the bill. Currently the minister has the floor.

[1715]

Hon. B. Bennett: The ALR was created 40 years ago. Anyone who suggests that something that was created 40 years ago can't be improved is a reactionary. I have noticed that there are a lot of reactionaries on the other side of the House, a lot of very, very conservative people who don't seem to like change. That's one of the definitions of conservatism. They are reactionaries.

When the ALR was created 40 years ago, I'm not sure how the lines were drawn in the Lower Mainland or Vancouver Island, but I know how they were drawn in the area of the province that I come from.

How do I know that? Well, I know that from talking to the man who was the chair of the regional district of East Kootenay at the time. His name is Lloyd Sharpe. He's in his 80s now. When I first got elected, Mr. Sharpe came and talked to me about the problems that he had experienced with the Agricultural Land Commission over the years.

He told me that when the NDP government came to the East Kootenay to draw these lines, they didn't want to listen. They didn't consult, period. They did not consult. When they drew the lines for the ALR in the Kootenays, according to Mr. Sharpe, they did not consult. What they did say to Mr. Sharpe in those days was: "Oh, don't worry about where the boundaries are drawn. We're going to do a review in five years." Well, it's 40 years later. Mr. Sharpe is in his 80s.

Mr. Sharpe sent me a note a few days ago. I won't read the whole letter, but I'd like to read a few of these letters into the record. He said: "Dear MLA for Kootenay East: It's about time. I wanted to let you know how pleased I was to read about changes to the agricultural land reserve and commission. These changes didn't go far enough, to my way of thinking."

That's the former chair of the regional district of East Kootenay, so there's at least one person who supports this.

As rural MLAs, we constantly, on both sides of the House, have to wrestle with the fact that we're outnumbered. It's partly to do with the legislation that went ahead earlier today. On this particular issue I have never encountered the kind of rural-urban bias ever before in my time here as an MLA. For the life of me, I don't know why NDP rural MLAs aren't supporting their constituents on this bill, but they're not.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Yeah. The loudest ones, who pound their desks and who are in the media and on Twitter and everywhere else saying that this is a terrible, terrible thing — where are they from? They are from zone 1 primarily, as most of the critics of this bill are.

Now, that's kind of odd when you think about the fact that the legislation doesn't actually change anything in zone 1. It's almost like these MLAs from zone 1, from Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, actually want to tell people in rural B.C. what they should think and what their value should be.

What I think I'd like to do is just read into the record a few letters. There's been a lot said here about there being no support for this legislation, so this is an opportunity for me to show that, in fact, that is not the case. The first letter that I'm going to read a portion of — I'm not going to read the whole thing — is from the riding of Nelson-
[ Page 3562 ]
Creston, one of the NDP ridings in the Kootenays.

[1720]

It's from Creston. This is what the letter says — and I hope you don't laugh at these folks, because they're good people. They're a great couple — Mr. and Mrs. Snow from Creston. So here it goes.

"We are fruit growers here in Creston, B.C., and you may have heard of us. We have the world's best juice, as awarded to us in 2012 for our black cherry juice, and this last year our apple juice won second place for best new juice at the World Juice Awards held this year in Cologne, Germany.

"We won second place and $160,000 in a contest through the B.C. Innovation Council to start our business, as we invented the machinery and process for making our juice. We started our business because of the downfall of the fresh cherry market, out of desperation to save our 100-year family farm.

"We have a small processing facility here on our farm in Creston, B.C., and we just wanted to say that we are in favour of the changes to the ALR allowing non-farm-related business on farm property."

It goes through a lot of history about what they went through over the past 20 years, and then she says:

"With your new Bill 24, we could have continued to farm and enlarge our facility to the capacity that is required. All because of trying so hard for so many years to make a living in the Kootenays just being a fruit grower…. It doesn't work. We hope that after your bill has passed, the next grower will be more successful. We are a 100-year family farm here in the Creston Valley, having received the Century Farm Award two years ago."

She goes on to say later in the letter:

"Save a farmer, and you save the farmland. If farming was profitable and farmers could be assured of making a profit on every square inch of dirt, you would find both a farm and a farmer. Best of luck in passing Bill 24."

That's from an NDP riding in one of the best opportunities for farming in the Kootenay region, in Creston.

I have a second letter from a lady who owns Spring Fresh Farms. She's from Creston as well. She says:

"We live on a 25-acre farm in the Creston Valley and would like to assure you that not all the residents of the valley are opposed to the revision of the current ALR guidelines. For many small farmers, having the option of increasing their income by running a parallel business off their farm may be a way of saving that farm.

"My reading of the summaries of the proposed changes indicate that there will still be an application and approval process for all the changes and that regional approval boards will be tasked with the primary goal of protecting viable farmland while allowing rational other uses of said land. This seems to be completely reasonable and practical.

"Thank you,

"Barbara and Don Torok, Creston."

Here's one from a little closer to my neck of the woods, from Harvey Bombardier. He's a lifetime rancher that lives south of Cranbrook. I won't read the whole thing, but what Harvey has to say is this.

"If we take care of the farmer, if we take care of the rancher, he will take care of the land. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding is that this Bill 24 will bring about the loss of agricultural land. We realize that this change will only enhance and expand agriculture endeavours. So with that thought in mind, I would like to thank the MLA for Kootenay East for his hard work, effort and courage in bringing this bill forward.

"Harvey Bombardier."

Another one is from somebody who's probably in some ways even more important than Harvey, his son Mike. Mike says:

"I grew up on a ranch just south of Cranbrook. My dad and our family work very hard on and off the farm to grow a cow herd, but of the 240 acres of land we own, only 140 acres at most is good for farming. Today everyone I know in agriculture in this area requires additional non-farming income to support their farming operations. Without it, they'd be forced off their land, unable to make a living, unable to continue farming."

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: This is a quotation. I would suggest that members should not disrespect the people who sent these letters in.

"Bill 24 is a step in the right direction because it gives farmers more flexibility to have a secondary business on the non-productive part of their land, so they can make enough income to continue farming the productive part of their land.

"Mike Bombardier"

Here's a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Street — Steve and Faye Street — who have ranched their whole lives.

"The primary purpose of the ALR legislation from 1972 was to 'preserve' agricultural land and encourage the establishment and maintenance of farms.

[1725]

"The ALC has done a very poor job of the encouragement and establishment and maintenance of farms — that part of the legislation. The real problem is the loss not of agricultural lands but the loss of our agricultural producers."

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: The opposition now is starting to denigrate farmers and ranchers. Someone on the other side, I believe it was the Agriculture critic, said "the poor farmers." I wonder if the Agriculture critic really feels that way about farmers and ranchers — the poor farmers.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Point of order.

N. Simons: Point of order. Just to clarify, just to correct the minister, I did say "support farmers," because this government doesn't. I didn't say "poor farmers." The minister can interpret my heckles, or he can wear his hearing device here, which I always wear. It's helpful.

Deputy Speaker: I believe the member has made his point.

Hon. B. Bennett: Thank you to the member for clarifying. I appreciate that.

I go on with Steve and Faye Street's letter. "Bill 24 will offer our agricultural producers the opportunity to diversify, which should better their economics. It should make the opportunities more attractive to our young people, and both of those are critical to the survival of our industry."
[ Page 3563 ]

I have a short one that I want to read into the record from the riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke — a fairly prominent rancher in that area. He says this:

"Bill 24 that you have brought forward is long overdue, and myself and my family are fully in support of your initiative. I have been involved in agriculture in the Columbia Valley in the Golden area for the last 35 years, and I have a small beef operation. In my opinion, the ALR has failed miserably in our area, as the very best agricultural land potential in the valley bottom often is not protected for agriculture."

That comes from Garry Habart, who is well known in that area. I think he's electoral area director for the regional district, if I recall properly.

Here's one from a lady who has been in the farming business her whole life. I've seen her so many times out in the fields when I drive north headed for the mountains. I get across the Kootenay River, go through Fort Steele and I'm heading up the highway. I get to Fort Steele Farm, and I look out in the field and I see this woman whom I have seen for almost 20 years out in that field weeding, picking, hoeing, digging.

She and her husband started and operated Fort Steele Farms. Sharon Mielnichuk has this to say

"For 35 years I've operated a farm at Fort Steele. From my experience, I think that Bill 24 is headed in the right direction. Our application experiences with the ALC have been one of the most frustrating endeavours of our farming years. I am concerned with the amount of fearmongering that is happening, both in the media and through letters directed to government ministers. Government has to look through this and continue to make the best decision for the future."

Sharon Mielnichuk and Mike Malmberg own Fort Steele Farm. Mike Malmberg was the provincial agrologist for the Ministry of Agriculture in the Kootenays for over 30 years. He worked for the Ministry of Agriculture. He was the agrologist. Both Mike Malmberg and Sharon Mielnichuk are entirely supportive of Bill 24.

There's a bunch of reasons why that's the case, but I'll give you one reason. I'll tell you a little story. It's a true story. They own Fort Steele Farm. They're in their 70s. I've seen both of them bent over in the field so many times. I don't know how, frankly, they've done it, but they have. They've been successful. They don't make a lot of money, but they're proud of what they do, and it's a lifestyle.

For so many people, outside of the Lower Mainland where you've got big dollars involved in agriculture, it is a lifestyle. It is what they want to do with their…. It's the way they want to live. It's the way they want to raise their children. But they can't stay on the land from the income that they generate from the kind of farming that happens out there in zone 2. That's a fact, and it's the main reason that I'm standing here before you today.

In any case, Sharon Mielnichuk and her husband applied to the ALC to get out a little, tiny piece of rocky ground that you can't even put a shovel into, so that their daughter and her husband and their two children, whom I've met, could actually put a house on the farm so that the daughter could start to take over the family business.

[1730]

It sounded like a good idea. So what happened? I'll tell you what happened. They go turned down by the commission. There was a huge uproar. It was in the newspapers, and it was all over the place. Apparently, the ALC was approached by a number of different people, and they decided to change their mind. Unnecessary. To put that couple through that kind of stress, that kind of trauma, is unconscionable. That's why they want change.

I've got another letter here from, I think, a veterinarian. He's also from Creston. It's interesting how many letters I've received from NDP ridings. He's a veterinarian, and his name is Dr. David Perrin. He says: "I totally support your suggested changes to the ALR in the Kootenays. I simply gave up on trying to make a profit from selling hay. It's noteworthy that there are over 20 acres of the farm…."

He goes on, anyways, in his letter, and he talks about this one 20-acre piece on his farm where it's not safe to take his tractor. But essentially, because the land is within the agricultural land reserve, he is supposed to cultivate that land. He wouldn't let his kids drive the tractor. He did a few times, he said, but he was afraid to drive his tractor on this steep ground.

One would think that if you can't drive a tractor to cultivate the land, maybe — just maybe — there might be enough flexibility…. Let me make it clear. I'm not criticizing people on panels or even people at the commission. If there was enough flexibility for the commission to say, "Well, you know what? Yeah, it's within the ALR, and maybe the soil is class 4 or class 5, but it's so steep. There's no way anybody can ever use it," maybe that 20 acres could have been taken out.

This is what Dr. Perrin says. He says: "Stick to your guns. Don't let them change your mind. It's time someone had enough guts to stand up for the need for change." Dr. David Perrin.

Here's one from a man that I have such respect for. He's a rancher, and he's a true cowboy. There are five cattle drives that go on provincial highways in B.C. every year, and this man, Randy Reay, leads one of those cattle drives. He's doing it now. Randy is probably…. I don't want to insult him, but I'm going say he's 60. His father did it before him, and his father did it before him, and his father did it before him. These are people who have been in the ranching industry for generations. He says:

"I'm a fourth-generation rancher and very proud of our agriculture industry. I'm also president of the Kootenay Livestock Association. I want to go on record and be perfectly clear that these changes to the ALR were requested of our MLA several years ago. We felt then and we still feel that unless changes are made to the ALR, there will be no agriculture industry in the future, simply because very few young people are willing to put in the hours and the capital necessary to operate a farm or ranch under the economic and operational pressures we are facing."

I talked about Sharon Mielnichuk and Mike Malmberg owning Fort Steele Farms. Well, the fact of the matter is that Mike Malmberg worked for the government for over 30 years so that they could actually build up Fort Steele
[ Page 3564 ]
Farms. Sharon stayed on the farm and worked the farm. Mike went out to work.

That is the story with most of the ranches and farms in rural British Columbia. Statistically, it is true. The Agriculture critic made fun earlier of these statistics from Statistics Canada, but the fact of the matter is it is almost impossible in much of rural British Columbia to make enough money from your agricultural operation for both a husband and wife to call that their source of income. You can't do it.

Without sacrificing the protection of good agricultural land, without sacrificing the independence of the commission, what we're trying to do is allow a little bit more flexibility.

The minister has announced the amendments, and in the amendments it's made very, very clear — I am so happy the minister is making these amendments — that it will be in declining priority. So the protection of farmland will be more important than the economy and than social, cultural and regional planning — local government planning. Very, very clear.

[1735]

It is also very clear from the amendments that the chair…

Deputy Speaker: It's actually, Minister, out of order to speak to the amendments.

Hon. B. Bennett: …will have the independence to pull files back to the commission board. The chair has as much independence, if not more, today than he's ever had over the past 40 years.

It's been a pleasure to address some of the misinformation — I'm sure it's not deliberate — from the other side of the House about what we're trying to accomplish with this bill. We're doing this for farmers and ranchers where I live and where other rural MLAs live, and I'm happy to say that we have 100 percent support from this side of the House for this bill.

L. Popham: I take my place in this debate. On the record, I'd like to say that Bill 24 is the most disgusting piece of legislation I've ever seen in the Legislature.

Interjection.

L. Popham: This minister has had his turn to speak, and now it's my turn to speak.

Last summer, when the Minister for Core Review was appointed and the Minister of Agriculture at the time was appointed, I knew that we were heading for an agricultural disaster in this province.

I was appointed to the Finance Committee, and at one point something sneaky happened. The Minister for Core Review had directed people to give their input on the core review on the agricultural land reserve to the Finance Committee. That was not appropriate, and it also took everyone by surprise — everyone on the committee, including the Chair. That was the beginning of this sneaky, deceitful legislation that has left the people of B.C. out of the conversation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I have never been so angry. The day it was tabled in this House, I went home and wrote to the people who follow me in B.C. That is in every corner of this province, not just in rural B.C. This minister claims that he is the only one who is authentically connected to agriculture, that he is the only authentic farmer in this House. I came into this House because of agriculture.

This legislation is pathetic, and any person in this chamber who stands up to support this…. Anybody in this chamber who supports this legislation is betraying the people of British Columbia. There are a lot of people in this House that are connected to agriculture, a lot of them. The other commonality is that everyone in this House eats. We are all connected to agriculture three times a day.

When I went home after this legislation was tabled — and I have to tell you that that was one of the worst days I have ever stayed in this Legislature — I wrote this.

Interjection.

L. Popham: The minister across the way is saying it's hard to listen to this. Well, she can leave the chamber if she would like, if it's too hard to hear the truth.

I wrote this:

"Yesterday, as the ALR legislation was tabled, I felt immediate rage. I became someone I rarely am inside this chamber. I yelled at the Minister for Core Review. I yelled at every government MLA that had ever stood in that chamber proclaiming their love for agriculture. I challenged them to stand up against this legislation. I don't think my own colleagues had ever seen me so agitated or angry.

"I continued to feel this rage as I walked down the corridors. I heard some of the media saying things like: 'It doesn't seem as bad as the NDP said it would be.' Words like 'benign' were thrown around.

"I got home last night, and a deep sadness took hold. I felt utterly defeated and hopeless. The enormity of this legislation is a weight that I can hardly grapple with. This morning when I woke, I felt my fight coming back, but it was muted by the paralyzing feeling that it was too late and tthat this was a done deal.

[1740]

"I want to feel rage, and I want everybody in British Columbia to feel rage. What hurts my soul the most is that I fear we won't see the rage we need to stop the changes. If you believe in the agricultural land reserve, the time for rage is now. It is a hideous attack on the public trust."

When I posted this on social media, I heard and I saw the rage that I didn't expect. This legislation has enraged British Columbia.

Not only is it bad legislation, but the way that it was brought in is unforgivable. When we had a new Minister
[ Page 3565 ]
of Agriculture appointed, he promised that there would be the consultation that we hadn't had. He promised that it would be fair, and he promised that everything would be on the table, including pulling this legislation.

Pulling the legislation is the only option, because the way that this has progressed is betrayal. The people of British Columbia want to have a say. They want to have a say.

Let's figure out how we got to this point. How on earth have we gotten to the point where a Minister for Core Review is in charge of the agricultural land reserve and in charge of agriculture in this province? How did we get there?

Not too many years ago when I was the Agriculture critic, the Auditor General came out with a report. The Auditor General said that we aren't supporting agriculture in this province, or the Land Commission, in a way that will allow it to fulfil its mandate. Its mandate was to protect agricultural land, and it was to promote agriculture.

Very soon after that, a report came out from the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. This government held it for a year before releasing it. But that report confirmed a lot of the things that the Auditor General said and also laid out some of the things that were improvements for the Agricultural Land Commission. The chair is a very well respected person in the agriculture community. He did this report by talking to people in the agricultural community.

We have a lot of people in this province who believe in agriculture. I would say that the number is up to 85 percent of people who support the agricultural land reserve. It's been in place for 40 years. It reflects our values as British Columbians. Now we see that it has a chance to be destroyed.

When the Agricultural Land Commission chair's report was tabled, it was an eye-opener, because we saw how badly supported the Agricultural Land Commission was and how good of a job they were doing anyway.

If you want to talk about zone 1 and zone 2 and what agricultural land is better than others…. This government, by underfunding the commission, has allowed prime agricultural land in zone 1 to be destroyed because they have no policy on soil dumping in the Lower Mainland, and that land is turning into land that you can't farm on anymore.

So don't talk to me about zone 1 and zone 2 and soil classifications. This government is responsible for destroying much of the prime land that has soil and clay and construction fill on top of it right now. It's not just a couple loads. In Saanich we had 10,000 loads of construction fill put on a farm.

Once that commission chair's report was tabled and looked at, not very long after that did we see sort of an update on what the chair and the commission had been doing since that report. Some money came from this government. I'm not going to stand here and not give this government credit for that. They did give the commission some more money. They had taken a bunch away previously, but they did give them some money.

What was that money used for? It was used for important things like updating the map system, digitalizing the map system and the file system of the Agricultural Land Commission. That was good work, and that's work that the chair laid out that was going to be done to strengthen the commission. They were also conducting a boundary review. They were doing that work.

Then all of a sudden, in the middle of it, the Minister for Core Review decides that it needs a third review, and we need to destroy it.

[1745]

There is nothing that this minister can tell me that will allow me to believe that his intent with this legislation is to strengthen the agricultural land reserve. Everything that he has done so far proves to me that he's in the business of destroying it.

He can rattle off letters just as much as we can rattle off letters. I can tell you: on this side of the House we have received thousands of letters. I get copied on the same letters the minister receives, so I know how many people have responded.

A lot of them have responded because I've pleaded with people to tell the minister their feelings. These are not just ranchers in the Kootenays that support the minister. Ranchers in the Kootenays support the agricultural land reserve the way it was — not two zones, one zone. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association is leery of this legislation. The B.C. Agriculture Council believes that this could lead to destruction of agriculture in B.C.

There are many groups that are speaking out, and it's falling on deaf ears on the other side of the House. If this government doesn't wake up, the result of this will be that we lose our opportunity for food-growing lands that we're going to need in the future. Ninety percent of the agricultural land reserve is now in zone 2. Under the agricultural land reserve and the commission, the highest and best use is supposed to be for agriculture, not for something else — not for supporting the oil and gas industry, not for a rodeo. It's supposed to be about growing food.

The minister goes on to say that somebody wasn't able to make a living growing 20 acres of hay. Agriculture has changed in the last 20 years. I've noticed that members on the other side continually like to say that young people don't want to get into farming anymore and that that's a problem. Well, you know what? I know a ton of young people who want to get into farming.

But farming looks a little bit different. It's reflecting what consumers want. That's about modernizing agriculture. It's about supporting agriculture. It's about things like the Local Food Act. It's not about destroying the agricultural land reserve because the old way of doing
[ Page 3566 ]
business doesn't work. It's about putting policies in place that make agriculture work, not taking away the land that you can do that on.

I have never been so angry standing on this side of the House. I feel like the Minister for Core Review has made a decision for future generations that is going to be devastating. I want the members on the other side of the House to stand proudly with the agricultural land reserve. If you don't want to stand with us, that's fine. Stand on your own, and be loyal to the values of British Columbia. British Columbia wants the agricultural land reserve to be intact.

What's interesting about this legislation is that it is about…. The government has tried to frame it as helping agriculture. They're pushing it towards the agriculture community, the ranchers. Some ranchers in the minister's riding want to see the agricultural land reserve destroyed. But there's another segment of the population that has been very vocal. The minister can discount them because they live in the Lower Mainland, but it's the consumers of this province who want to support agriculture.

They want B.C. products. They might live in the Lower Mainland, but they also eat three times a day. You can consider the Lower Mainland like a giant stomach of this province. They support the people in the rural areas producing the food, and they want them to do that. They appreciate it.

There is a group of chefs right now, and restaurant owners, that are trying to figure out how to stop this legislation, because their business plans depend on it.

Their business plans depend on the agricultural land reserve. What do you say to them — that they don't count? Well, they do. They're part of our economy, and they are part of supporting farmers.

[1750]

If you look up in the Kootenay area or the Peace area, it is part of B.C. that grows different things than the Island or the Sunshine Coast, but what it makes up is a provincial agriculture component.

We have the ability to grow whatever we want in every region if we add it up. The Peace can grow grain. We know that, and it does. But it also can finish cattle up there, and if this government had any foresight, they'd support the meat regulations and put in some slaughterhouses up there so that we could do some value-added cattle ranching.

That's how you solve problems in agriculture. We all know it's about value-added. Where is the government here? Where's the government? No, they've decided: "Can't do that. Instead, we're going to destroy the agricultural land reserve." They've already opted out.

Well, B.C. doesn't want to opt out of agriculture. B.C. wants to opt in. They are willing to step up and support agriculture more than ever. This is the moment for agriculture in British Columbia. This is not the moment to take away our potential.

The Minister for Core Review tries to imply that as a farmer on the Island I might not have the credibility to talk about agriculture. He likes to imply that because I don't come from a family of four generations of farmers, I'm not authentic when I talk about it.

I can tell you with every bone in my body that the reason I am in this Legislature is because of agriculture. It's because of food security, and it's because of sustainability. When I hear legislation coming forward that threatens everything I believe in, it makes me very angry. It's unforgivable.

The minister liked to read out letters today about constituents from different areas of British Columbia. Well, I have a letter from someone from Cranbrook. That minister represents Cranbrook, I believe.

"The proposed changes of Bill 24 will have an irreversible negative consequence for agricultural operations in the East Kootenays. As an ALR farmland owner in the East Kootenays, my opinion qualifies. Hands off the ALR. In recent years the ALC has been making positive changes for ranching and farming operations in the East Kootenays. Leave the ALC alone, and let it continue doing its job. Stop Bill 24."

There are many letters like this coming out of the Kootenays — the East Kootenays. There are probably just as many, I would say, if not way more people that are opposed to Bill 24 in that minister's constituency than are supporting it.

I think that's a fact, and I'd like to see the numbers from that side of the House. Let's start doing a tally. How many people support this bill, and how many don't? I would say the noes have it.

Interjections.

L. Popham: That's right.

It's sad that we have to stand here and defend something like this. My colleagues and I will spend the next two weeks trying to convince the members on that side of the House that this is important and that it's the wrong direction. We will bring in every letter we can find. We will encourage every constituent in British Columbia to try and get through to this government.

After today's display of the arrogance of the Minister for Core Review, I have a feeling that this is going to be an uphill battle. But I have told my constituents that this is a hill that I will die on, because I believe in it that strongly, and my colleagues feel the same way. This is our legislation.

It's really appropriate that the Minister for Core Review left, because I have….

Deputy Speaker: Member, be careful please.

L. Popham: Sorry. Okay, I withdraw that remark.

I think it's a shame that all ministers may not be
[ Page 3567 ]
present in this chamber to listen to what I have to say, because although some might find it completely annoying, others might listen. They might hear what I'm trying to say.

[1755]

This is the only chance I have to express to you how important it is that you do not support this legislation, that you do not support Bill 24. I am a farmer. That's my background. I was never asked what I felt about Bill 24. I was never consulted.

I know how the rest of the people in British Columbia feel. If you got the letters that I have been receiving and the photos that the farmers have been sending from zone 2 and zone 1, standing proudly on their farms, asking the government, begging the government to kill Bill 24, if you actually took a moment to look at those photos, behind those farmers are fields of abundance in every zone.

They are producing food. They are producing food for the people of this province. When did that become irrelevant to this government? As far as I'm concerned, these are heroes. These are heroes in our province producing food for us.

Ask the chefs how they feel about farmers. Every chef needs a farmer these days.

I have a friend who has been farming for about 20 years. He said back in the day, he'd go into a bar. He'd tell the girls that he was a farmer, and it was pretty much a conversation stopper. Now he goes in and talks about farming, and the girls really like it. All of a sudden, it's a pretty awesome thing to be doing.

This is the moment for agriculture. I can't plead with you enough to reconsider this legislation. It's not about the New Democrats, it's not about the independents, and it's not about the Green Party. It's about British Columbia and how we feel as people of this province about our agricultural land reserve. It has been with us for 40 years. Please do not take it away.

L. Throness: It's a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of Bill 24 today.

I want the House to note that I was born in the Peace River. My grandpa and my grandma on both sides of the family farmed in the Peace River country. My uncles and my cousins farm in the Peace River. I grew up in the north, in Fort St. John. So for members opposite to suggest that we as MLAs on the government side do not care about farming or do not care about the north is absurd. It's insulting, and it's wrong.

We've listened to the critic for Agriculture wandering all over the policy landscape in a rambling, long speech. We've heard the anger of the member for Saanich South. But I want to read something that the member for Saanich South said in December of 2012.

The headline in this little story is "Saanich Hands Decision on Gordon Head Farmland to Agricultural Land Commission." This is what the critic said, the NDP's Agriculture critic at that time:

"…spoke at the council meeting about smart farming. She said she felt Saanich 'decided that this property isn't a farm years ago' by developing everything else around it.

"The Agriculture critic took the stance that, given its location, this property should be developed instead of farmed.

"'It's a difficult choice that I've made, and I've probably disappointed some folks in the audience. As far as Saanich as a community, I think it's a better direction to have a subdivision,' she said."

When she exhibits all her rage, we have to look at what she actually said as the critic for Agriculture.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please, through the Chair.

L. Throness: Through the Chair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure to rise to speak in a more, perhaps, rational way on Bill 24, amending the law that continues the protection of agricultural land that's been in place for more than four decades, and it's a law that we support on this side of the House.

I think that the act in broad terms has, indeed, accomplished its purpose. I've heard many stories in the past about people who have been frustrated trying to get land out of the agricultural land reserve, through the commission, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be, because that is its purpose. We need to protect agricultural land, not just because it's a historic way of life for thousands of B.C. farm families, not just to preserve farm communities all throughout B.C. It's not just because we want to enhance food security in B.C.

[1800]

All these reasons are very important, but agriculture is also an important economic driver for the province. We have 20,000 farms in B.C. We have 1,000 food processors. The food industry in total employs 260,000 people. That's 14 percent of all the jobs in B.C. Revenues from agriculture are well over $10 billion every year. Agriculture is very important to our economy, and for all the reasons I'm going to state, we need to protect and enhance farming and food processing in B.C. That's what the agricultural land reserve is all about.

The evidence of the success of the reserve is apparent when you drive through my riding. When you drive through Chilliwack on the Trans-Canada Highway, which bisects my riding, on the hillsides and the mountains — and I live on the hillside; I live on the mountainside — you will find subdivisions and all sorts of places where people live on the hillsides, while the flat area, the valley floor, remains largely devoted to agriculture. That's the way it should be. My constituents support this state of affairs.

It's hugely productive land. It makes it green. It's wholesome, and it's environmentally friendly. It's a beautiful place to live. I would not want this to change, and if I felt that this legislation would do what the op-
[ Page 3568 ]
position is saying it would do, I would not support it. But I don't believe it.

I support this legislation as amended, and I want to tell you why. Now, the law has not been significantly changed in 40 years. The problem with any law is that circumstances continue to change around the law. The policies landscape is always shifting. I can't imagine any law today that in 40 years would be completely relevant. Times change. The law needs to accord with the changing times or it risks becoming obsolete.

Allow me to describe the situation that calls for the changes contemplated in this bill. Today agriculture is fast becoming an occupation for older workers. We don't like this fact, but we have to face it. The age of the average farmer in B.C. is 56. That's the oldest in the nation. And since that's the average, it says that there are many farmers who are older than 56 years old. This concerns the government. It means farms are not being passed along to the children of farmers. The children of farmers are choosing other occupations.

Why are they choosing other occupations? There are a number of reasons that they are, and I want to go over them for the benefit of all members of this House, particularly for those opposite. Farming is a very costly business. There are high input costs like machinery, labour, fertilizer, fuel, insurance and interest costs, just to name a few. All of these have risen markedly over the years. In the Fraser Valley, in particular, the cost of agricultural land is very high. Then you have to add to that the cost of all the other input costs. That makes the future of farming a daunting future unless you inherit the farm and unless the land is very productive.

Second, we can look at soft costs. We can look at the intangible costs of living in the country, some distance away from the nearest town. Social isolation is a cost to the lifestyle. Add to the cost of isolation the cost of time that's spent on the road, travelling back and forth to town, the cost of the risk of all of that extra travel. Farmers have more difficult access to the medical services and universities and swimming pools and libraries and grocery stores and rapid transit that we in the city take for granted. It's not so easily available in the country.

And there are hard costs associated with that distance, like wear and tear on vehicles and the cost of fuel. Now, when we consider Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan, the most productive farming areas of B.C., these soft costs are minimized. Most places in the Fraser Valley are fairly close to an urban area.

Chilliwack is a beautiful place that has all the amenities of a big city. People are finding that out. The city has grown by 25 percent in the last decade and continues to grow, yet Chilliwack is just minutes away from 400 farms. If I want to be in the really big city and go to Vancouver, it's just a little over an hour away, over our very visionary new Port Mann Bridge. From the country to the city is just a matter of minutes.

This is also true for much of the Island and for the Okanagan. This makes the valley where I live a place where a farmer would naturally want to live and raise a family and do the occupation he or she wants to do. We in the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan and, to a lesser extent perhaps, Vancouver Island have a natural advantage that's not enjoyed by the rest of the province. This is not just a difference in degree. This is a difference in kind. We are qualitatively different between the north and the south of B.C.

Now let's add to that the natural advantage, the location of the Fraser Valley. We are situated just a few kilometres north of the U.S. border, right on the main highway in Canada, the Trans-Canada. You can go north, you can go west, and you can go south to the U.S. very easily. All the links by road are right there.

[1805]

We're near one of the premier airports in the country — Vancouver International. We have a new up-and-coming international airport in Abbotsford, very accessible to the valley. If you want to export your product by air, you can do it quickly, and you can do it easily.

If you want to export your product by air, you can do it quickly, and you can do it easily. If you want to ship your product by rail, the main CN and CP lines run right through my riding, right through the heart of the valley. If you want to send your products overseas by ship, the port of Vancouver is one of the top ports in North America. We have it all right here, all the transportation links that we need to move our agricultural product quickly and most cheaply to any destination that the world.

Let's add the category of population to that category of location. In the valley we have a population nearby of 3½ million people. That in itself is a huge market to sell into. It's a huge market for agricultural products. It simply makes sense to locate agricultural producers and processors as near as possible to those major markets, and that's another reason why we have a concentration of agriculture and food processors in the Fraser Valley. It's a natural reason why most supply-managed industries and most greenhouse are there. They're close to the transportation links, close to the major population centres in B.C.

Let's now add another category to the category of location, that of land quality. We've learned once again this spring in the valley that we have an abundance of rain. Wow, have we learned that. We have lots of pure water. We have fine soil that has been deposited by the Fraser River for generations, a quality of soil that makes it so productive that 85 percent of all farm-gate receipts are produced on the Island, in the valley and in the Okanagan. It's a tremendously productive area due to the quality of the land.

Let's, finally, add to the natural advantage we enjoy in the Chilliwack area that of climate. Our growing season is much longer than the season in, say, Prince George.
[ Page 3569 ]
The federal agriculture department has this to say: all along the coast, all through the Fraser Valley and into the Okanagan the growing season is more than 170 days a year. For almost half the year you can grow a wide variety of crops, whether it's berries, whether it's corn, grain, hay, vegetables. And one crop that can only be grown in the Fraser Valley, in my riding, and on the Island is the crop of hazelnuts.

In Prince George, though, halfway up the province, you can knock that growing season down to 140 days, and the growing season just gets shorter as you move farther north. The average temperature is higher in the south. We can get on the land earlier; we can get off the land later. The chance of a damaging frost is much lower in the Fraser Valley. It means that you don't have to restrict the kinds of crops that you grow. You don't risk such high losses if the weather takes a bad turn because we have a more temperate climate here.

The inverse of all of the things I've just talked about is true for B.C.'s north. Probably the only hard input costs in northern B.C. that would be lower for a farmer would be the cost of land. All the other hard costs will be higher, simply because everything is farther away. The soft costs are also higher. The social and the cultural costs are higher for northern farmers. We can add to that transportation links, which are farther away and, therefore, more costly to access.

We can talk about population. I did a bit of adding last night and found that the three strongest agricultural areas in B.C. are near to a total of 3.8 million people, but only 10 percent of the agricultural land is in these three areas. When you take the rest of B.C., where 90 percent of the agricultural land is, the total population in the rest of B.C. is just 765,000 people.

The population is just not there in the northern parts of B.C. to sustain the same level of agricultural activity that we enjoy in the most productive areas in the south. When you're looking for a farmworker, for instance, there are fewer people to choose from. It's hard to find labour.

Allow me to speak for a moment about farmland that is owned in different areas of B.C., to give another indication of the differences that I'm talking about. The amount of farmland owned is in decline in some parts of B.C., and what's interesting is where that decline is occurring. It's in the northern parts of B.C. — the Peace River, Cariboo, Nechako, Thompson-Okanagan regions. They all experienced decline in ownership between 2006 and 2011, while the amount of farmland owned in the Lower Mainland actually increased by 7 percent in that time.

Now, let me talk about quality of land. There are seven classes of land in the ALR. The first class is the best, and the seventh is the worst. When we look at the regions where the best classes of land are, in the Thompson region 31 percent of the ALR is classified in classes 1 to 4. In Cariboo region 37 percent of the ALR land is classes 1 to 4; that means 63 percent of the land is classes 5 to 7. In the north 43 percent of the land is classes 1 to 4, in the Kootenay 54 percent. But on the Island it's 74 percent, in the south coast 74 percent, in the Okanagan 59 percent. Obviously, the better-quality land is in the south.

[1810]

Now, you can tell that I'm bringing forward evidence to make a case that agriculture in B.C.'s north is qualitatively and quantitatively different than agriculture in the south. They are two different worlds that we're talking about, and that means that we need to treat them differently. We have to take into account the different circumstances of the very different areas of our province, and that's what we've done in this bill.

Now, I want to point out the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate in law is first and foremost to protect agricultural land and encourage farming on that land, and that is great. We support that. It's not, though, to protect the livelihoods of farmers or to make sure that they remain viable on the land. It's not to protect farm families or farm communities; it's just to protect agricultural land and farming on that land.

The ALC does this effectively, but for all the reasons I've just been talking about, farms in B.C.'s north are less viable than farms in the south, and fewer young people are taking up their parents' occupation as a result. Now, we could ignore that reality. We could go on as if nothing was changing.

But the end result of the policy, as it's currently working out in B.C.'s north, over many years, over a generation, threatens to have lots of protected farmland, but land that's vacant, land that is not farmed, land that is empty. It means a slow hollowing out of farm communities and rural towns, and all the social dislocation that can bring. As this process continues, it tends to accelerate. If the community nearest to the farm is slowly winding down, it makes it even less likely that children will want to take over the family farm. So the whole agricultural community continues in a slow spiral downward that could take generations.

Now, how do we as a government make sure that we're not managing decline and, instead, that we are helping farmers and farms and farm communities to thrive in B.C.'s north? What can we do? Well, we have many good policies. We have agriculture as one of the eight pillars of B.C.'s jobs plan. We have a plan to increase farm revenues from $10 billion to $14 billion by 2017, and we have different plans for different sectors of agriculture in B.C.

One extra way we can help farms in B.C.'s north is to pass this bill before us today. The bill creates what is a natural division in B.C. — two zones for the Agricultural Land Commission to consider, two zones that recognize the two different worlds that farmers occupy in our province. Zone 2 treats B.C.'s north slightly differently, with slightly more flexibility in order to take into account the changing circumstances in the north — for example, requiring the commission to consider matters other than
[ Page 3570 ]
protecting farmland alone. Of course, the protection of agricultural land will always remain its prime objective, but it will have to consider other factors in descending order of importance.

Now, it's not that the north does not have its advantages. In fact, it does have natural advantages, but agriculture is not the main economic driver in the north. I would remind the House that although 90 percent of the agricultural land in the ALR is in the north, it only produces 10 percent of the farm-gate receipts.

Right now the main economic driver in the north is natural resource development, and in the foreseeable future this is going to be the same. Because we in this government are intent on developing our natural gas resources to the benefit of every person in this province, the main economic driver in the north is going to be natural gas and mining and logging and things like that.

What does it mean for developing in the north if we develop these kinds of natural resources? More activity in mining and natural gas will mean higher population in the north. It will mean more demand for food. It will mean higher incomes and higher land prices for farmers, better services available to rural areas. In short, the way to increase viability of farms and farmers and farm communities in B.C.'s north is to develop the economy of the north, and we're already doing this through the development of natural resources in the north.

Now, let me give you an example how this new flexibility for the ALR might work out in practice in the north. Let me give you just one example. A farmer might want to operate a second business out of the family farm, which might allow the farm to remain viable. It might be a business that services the natural gas industry for parts of the year. It wouldn't necessarily mean taking land out of the ALR. It would simply allow an off-farm stream of income to supplement farm income to allow the farmer to prosper and remain on the land.

Now we have a new Minister of Agriculture. He's an open-minded man. He's brought a fresh pair of eyes to this piece of legislation, and I think he's done a great thing. He's wisely taken a few weeks off to step back and consult with the agricultural community, consult with British Columbians who are concerned about B.C. farms.

[1815]

He's taken a second look at the bill before us, and he has returned from his consultation with changes to the bill. I welcome those changes, and the opposition should welcome those changes, as well, because they are changes that will strengthen the hand of the Agricultural Land Commission to make sure they can fulfil their mandate. The bill was strong before, because the commission retained its full independence before, but it's stronger now due to these changes, and I welcome that.

I would point out that there were concerns that the six regional panels might become too parochial because the people in those regional panels will actually live in those regions. They were concerned that one panel might be too worried about their local interest, not concerned enough about the provincial interest.

We've taken steps to make sure that can't happen, by allowing the chair to make decisions in cases where an application poses a question that places the provincial interest in question. In cases like this, the chair can pull that application to the centre, have the executive committee consider it and make the decision. I think that's a good change. It protects the provincial interest in the integrity of the ALR. So we've responded to that concern.

We've also heard from the B.C. Agriculture Council that we should continue to treat all of B.C. as essentially one zone. But that's something I disagree with, and I represent a semi-rural area with lots of farmers in it. Our government rejects that idea, because of the arguments that I've made today — that B.C. naturally falls into two zones. Here in the south our farms are much more viable, for the reasons I've described. We don't need the extra flexibility that the bill supplies for the north. In fact, the opposite is true.

The development pressures on agricultural land are very strong in the Fraser Valley — so strong that I would argue that we need the protection of the status quo so that the commission knows and is mandated to treat the Fraser Valley differently than B.C.'s north. This bill does exactly that. It protects the status quo in the Fraser Valley, and I want to assure my constituents of that.

To sum up, I've given the reasons why all members of this House can be happy to support the bill before us. It's because B.C.'s north and B.C.'s south are, in reality, very different. The bill should reflect that reality. It's because we want to maintain the status quo in our support for the ALR in the south. This bill does that. We need more flexibility in B.C.'s north so we can ensure that our northern farms thrive and grow and that that land will continue to be farmed.

We've listened. Our new minister has listened. He's made significant amendments to this bill in response to his consultations that he has held. Those amendments strengthen the hand of the Agricultural Land Commission. We hope that the opposition will one day acknowledge that we've listened.

I would remind the House of the fourth point in the mandate letter of the minister that says to "bring forward ALR changes that will further encourage the stability of farm families and the farming industries in B.C." This bill fulfils the minister's mandate letter because it strikes at the heart of the problem — the problem of northern farm viability.

The goal of our government is increasing success and incomes for producers, the viability of farms, healthy farm families, healthy farm communities in B.C. I believe that this bill is one step on the road toward accomplishing that goal. That's why I will be voting in favour of these amendments to Bill 24.
[ Page 3571 ]

N. Macdonald: I'm happy to take my place here, speaking to Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. Let's be clear here. While there are implications for agriculture, what drives this is real estate. That is the essence of what drives the changes here. It's real estate.

Now, the member who just spoke talked about the pressures that are on Chilliwack and why the status quo in that area is absolutely essential because of the pressures. But the minister doesn't understand the Kootenays. The minister thinks of pressures, the money that's coming out of the Lower Mainland putting pressure on that land. But of course, in our area the pressure comes from Calgary.

So if you think there are wealthy people coming out of the Lower Mainland, you're right. But if you think that they're not coming out of Calgary — that there are not people with vast amounts of money who are looking at the agricultural land that is there and seeing that there would be benefits to them to get that land changed from agriculture into recreational properties — you're absolutely wrong.

Let's be clear as well. Where did this idea come from — these changes? They come from the member for Kootenay East. While he'll talk about ranchers, let's be clear there. There is real estate at the heart of this. If members on that side are blindly going to follow along and go with this without thinking it through, you're mistaken. You are doing a disservice not only to the agricultural community, which is clear, but you are doing a disservice to public policy in this province.

[1820]

This is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that inevitably will lead to corruption, in my view — inevitably.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We have lots of time here. We have two weeks. The opposition will use the tools we have to try to make the case and do the best we can to stop this legislation.

The optimal thing that could happen is that backbenchers new to this place might step forward on an issue other than whether a man is a man and a woman…. That is the only place I have seen any people stepping away from the party line on the government side. But on a real issue that is substantive, here's a member who chose that as the one place of rebellion, a definition on a health bill, as obscure as you could get. To actually think through a real, substantive piece of legislation and to think for yourself as to whether it works, line by line — is it a good piece of legislation? It is flawed.

Change your pattern of thinking. Think of this for what it is. It is a real estate bill. That is what this is about. When you move land, when you exclude it, the real change is in the value of the land. You have not made the soil better. You have not made the view better. You have not made anything about that land better, but it increases in value because of the exclusion.

Now, can land be excluded? The member for Kootenay East chose to read a letter from a person that comes from my constituency, on an issue that I actually worked with the person on, which is to get an exclusion under the rules that exist now. Now, as a politician I don't get to choose who makes that decision, so I can't influence it politically in that way. All I can do under the current system is make a principled argument about what the proper course of action is.

The other irony here is that in the example that the member for Kootenay East used, the person got their exclusion. They actually were successful under the process that occurs now. That is the fact of it. So why are you changing the system?

Well, I'll tell you why. It is real estate. You are setting up a system where there will be political appointees who will make the decision on whether the land gets excluded or not and, at the same time, incredibly increase the value of that land — a political decision that will increase the value of the land.

Now, you can talk about areas that have no pressure. In Invermere the Shaws have a recreational home. If you're thinking of Shaw Cable, you are thinking of the Shaws. These people make more money in retirement in an hour than you will in two days here. They are hugely wealthy, and they want a recreational site, a second home.

It turns out their home…. The boathouse is bigger than my house, okay? But it gives you some indication of the pressure that is on that land. This is Calgary's backyard, and they want land. It will either be kept as farmland, with an incredibly active…. I have invited the minister. He's going to come and see what is going on in the Columbia Valley.

You can either have that, or you can have the exclusion of that and certain individuals making a lot of money changing it into recreational properties. I say that is wrong. I say that if any of you take the time to actually look at what is going on, you would not rationally do this.

Is there a way to fix it? Yes. You could either dump this, which I think you should do, or if you decide you want to change it, then go through a proper process.

I only have a few minutes left, but I just want to point you to some good processes. The Minister of Environment introduced a piece of legislation that we all voted for. It took five years to make. I don't think it was perfect.

[1825]

I don't think you often get perfect legislation, but I'm thinking right now that that's a pretty smart way to do things — to actually talk to a lot of people, put out an idea, let experts give their feedback, bring it back, fix it up. That's a pretty good way to make legislation that is not going to come back to bite us.

We spend an awful lot of time fixing legislation. What's
[ Page 3572 ]
an example — TransLink, right? Well, that was a stupid idea. How did that come about? A process like this with this bill. Stupid ideas lead to stupid legislation. It means that at some point, you come back to fix it.

I'll give you another example of a good piece of legislation, the Off-Road Vehicle Act. How many years did that take? We started with that in 2005. It didn't have to take that long, but there was nobody that could say that they didn't have a piece, an opportunity to actually speak to what was in that bill. In the end, when it came, it was thought through. It was decent legislation.

I have an awful lot more to say. I think over the next two weeks there is nothing that will not be said again and again on this. It's flawed legislation, but the opportunity now….

I'm seeing that the Speaker is reminding me that I will keep my place in the speaking order, that I will move adjournment of this debate and that we will regroup here on Wednesday afternoon and continue.

N. Macdonald moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY,
INNOVATION AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $64,213,000 (continued).

G. Heyman: Carrying on from where we were at the adjournment of the lunch hour, we were discussing the issue of the appropriate or inappropriate use of transitory information. I thank the minister for providing the policy, which I believe I'm familiar with, or something very similar to it. My question to the minister is: have there been any directives from cabinet, of which he's aware, to the public service to limit the documentation on sensitive issues?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the waggling of heads behind me indicates the answer is no.

G. Heyman: Can the minister provide one or two examples of when he believes it's appropriate to delete e-mails or limit documentation on the basis that the information contained in them is transitory, and perhaps an example or two of when he thinks it would be completely inappropriate?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Good examples of appropriate messages or e-mails that are suitable for treatment as transitory records and subsequent deletion are the setting up of meetings, travel arrangements, appointments which change. Inappropriate deletions from e-mail or otherwise would include decision documents, final reports and case files.

[1340]

G. Heyman: I'm going to read from some e-mails from fairly senior public servants with respect to certain issues being discussed. I will ask at the end if the minister could comment on whether he believes that this is an appropriate use of the designation of information as "transitory," and if he does, why he does or, if he believes it's an inappropriate use, to indicate that.

Actually, these are all from one particular person, Christine Little, who was then executive director, strategy, policy and performance, international trade investment attraction, Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. One of the e-mails, which was dated November 25, 2012, says: "Transitory advice to cabinet, point 1 below. I have discussed this with Michael, and together we will come up with some draft language for a contract that speaks to point 1 below — namely, that…." Everything else is redacted, so unfortunately, I can't indicate what point 1 below was. It seems that it certainly was advice to cabinet with respect to a contract.

The second e-mail says: "Hi, everyone. Just wanted to let you know that Dave spoke to John Dyble about the India submission yesterday, and John passed along his thanks for the quick turnaround and great work that was done. He recognized it meant people putting in hours over a holiday long weekend and wanted Dave to let us all know that he very much appreciated the effort. Will you let all you know when we hear an outcome?"

This is from an e-mail dated October 10, 2012, again from Christine Little, and here is the relevant line: "In the
[ Page 3573 ]
meantime, please delete all drafts of the materials, and e-mail correspondence should be treated as transitory." Finally, again from Christine Little dated April 12, 2012: "Hi. When you're done the budget, can you send me a copy, please? Transitory information only."

Again, if the ministry could indicate if he believes this is a proper use of the designation "transitory" and if so why, or if it's clearly an inappropriate use of the designation "transitory."

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the Government Records Service Guide says: "Transitory records are records of temporary usefulness that are needed only for a limited period of time in order to complete a…action or prepare a final record."

From my many, many years of legal training, I'd have to say that we'd need to see the entire sequence of records that the member's concerned about, see how it fits into a framework, to decide if that's a component of something that is not yet complete. I think if the member has a concern, it's best if he refer that to the chief information officer, Ms. Bette-Jo Hughes, who is sitting next to me.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister's extensive and well-recognized legal background. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to look at the entire chain of correspondence because it's been deleted as transitory — which is exactly my point.

I take the offer to discuss it with the chief information officer. I know that the independent commissioner for freedom of information has expressed concern on a number of occasions.

I wish I could provide the chain of advice, but surely, the minister might agree that there's at least a fairly good chance that a copy of the budget and correspondence relating to reviewing a copy of the budget or correspondence related to advice to cabinet with respect to a contract….

[1345]

Now, there may be other reasons that's confidential, but certainly on the face of it, it would not appear to be transitory in nature.

Again, to the minister: does this not seem, at the very least, to be right on the line, if not over it?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the member will understand that I'm very reluctant to pass judgment on something that requires the policy framework and the record in front of whoever is going to review the question. I reiterate my suggestion that the member refer the matter to the associate deputy minister who acts as chief information officer for review and perhaps take it from there one step at a time.

I'm not in any position make an off-the-cuff spontaneous judgment or ruling over something in which I have no jurisdiction and don't have the material and don't have the policy framework in front of me. That would be, I think, a bit rash on my part.

G. Heyman: At least this is an example of one of the reasons that I think the estimates process is generally more cogent and productive than question period, where ministers would likely have no problem whatsoever defending whatever was done under whatever circumstance, irrespective of whatever evidence was preferred.

Let me ask the minister whether he believes that documentation such as issue notes prepared for cabinet should or should not be subject to FOI requests, notwithstanding the other constraints that would apply under the act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, I would have to have the policy framework in front of me and the specific note. I'm not sure, again, that it's appropriate for a minister to be passing judgment on those things. It's best for professional members of the civil service to be classifying documents into certain categories or not. One would not want to be accused of having a politician classifying documents, because it could be perceived as self-serving.

G. Heyman: Good point from the minister. Perhaps the minister could confer with the chief information officer about whether issue notes prepared for cabinet should or should not be subject to FOI requests.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out, of course, that section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides for exceptions to disclosure for cabinet and local public body confidences. That, of course, affects the disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

To more directly address the member's question about whether or not these are transitory, that falls under the categories of if they were drafts, what the content is, and so forth. I think the member would be much happier with a substantive written response from the chief information officer than an off-the-cuff response from me.

G. Heyman: I may well seek a substantive written response from the chief information officer.

Perhaps, again, the minister could consult with the chief information officer. I think it's an interesting point. Are drafts transitory?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I by no means want to be evasive here, but of course the usual government answer comes: it depends.

[1350]

The framework is fairly complicated, so the specific doc in question or the specific content needs to be addressed by the individual who would be classifying that document. If it is a first-run draft and full of typos and so forth, then it is transitory, and that would presumably be
[ Page 3574 ]
fixed the next day or later that afternoon to become the final document. It depends a great deal on the circumstances and the content and so forth.

As I say, I don't think it's appropriate for me to be, as an elected representative, passing judgment on any particular document. It's better for the question to be addressed to the chief information officer, who has a statutory responsibility for this area.

G. Heyman: Well, I also take the minister's point when it he says "It depends." That would mean at the very least that not all drafts are transitory.

Let me put this question, if I might, through the minister to the chief information officer, pending a more complete set of questions from me in writing.

It's not my understanding that a draft of advice is transitory simply because it's replaced by something else. It's my understanding that the nature of transitory is something that's relevant to the mechanics of scheduling a meeting or a conference, not something in a sequence of policy documents that results in a final document, because, of course, earlier drafts let the public or the opposition or the media know the thought process that was conducted to arrive at the final — what sets of advice were accepted, what sets of advice were rejected.

I do understand the context that there are other constraints on the release of documents. They may apply, but this has to do with whether a draft is considered transitory, which is separate and apart from whether it's subject to release under freedom of information.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I want to provide a substantive answer to the member's query, and I have in front of me two policy documents defining transitory records. Rather than read them into the transcript here, I'll just read out an excerpt and suggest that, once again, it's probably best if the member's question can be answered substantively by the line ministry staff.

The quote I'll provide is: "Transitory records are not required for financial, legal, audit or statutory purposes and are not regularly filed in the office recordkeeping system." One can read that, obviously, on its face or, to reverse the sense of it, documents that are not required for financial, legal or statutory purposes are not regularly filed in the office recordkeeping system and are transitory by nature. But I would think that would be best coming from the chief information officer rather than coming from me.

G. Heyman: If the minister would be willing to provide copies of that to me, that would be appreciated.

Some time ago the Privacy Commissioner issued a report in which she expressed concern that a culture of what she called "oral government" was developing within the current government. Now, I know the minister has stated on past occasions that if there's a record subject to the FOI laws, it must be released, whether it's private e-mail, government e-mail, notes stuck to the bottom of a shoe, whatever. This obviously doesn't address instances where, in fact, there is no written or electronic record whatsoever.

I'm wondering if the minister has taken any steps to consider or address the recommendations from the Privacy Commissioner's report of last year regarding this issue of oral government.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to that report of 2013 where the commissioner recommended that the government create a legislative duty to document key decisions, this is being researched. The conundrum is that this duty does not exist in any other jurisdiction in Canada, so we're now researching international sources on this issue.

The premise is that we're reviewing the recommendation and also want to have it considered by the next special committee of the Legislative Assembly on the act, which is expected to convene in 2016.

[1355]

It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem in that if there's no precedent, then we'd have to be creating a de novo, and one wants to be careful about that because we have an abundance of government records already. If I'm asked to document the fact that I come downstairs to estimates, we'll have a grand proliferation of government records, which makes it even harder to meet freedom-of-information deadlines. So one has to approach this very carefully.

G. Heyman: It may be that the mechanics of getting here are transitory, but what you say here has more permanence.

First of all, it's gratifying to hear that some review is being undertaken, particularly one with a broader scope. Am I to conclude from the minister's remarks that any potential legislative response to the commissioner's recommendations would not take place until after a committee review in 2016 or that in the absence of examples and models that have been tested in other jurisdictions, that would be the case, but if examples and models tested in other jurisdictions that have proven effective can be found, there's the possibility for earlier legislation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working proposition is that we have an ongoing relationship and exchange with the commissioner on this and many other issues. We, of course, enlist the capacity of the commissioner to give us any cues or tidbits that they come across to help us along this path rather than operate in two solitudes, the commissioner's office and my own.

The working premise is to take those learnings, and if something substantive comes out of it before the 2016 review, we would probably want to advance that, if it made sense. On the other hand, if the answer is indeterminate, one would think that the desirable approach would be to
[ Page 3575 ]
bring it up with the interparty legislative review of the act and view it as a common issue that needs to be addressed.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for the answer, which was fairly frank.

My last question in this area is: are there any other policies than the ones which the minister has referenced regarding the appropriate use or labelling of information as transitory, and are there any trainings provided to ministries or ministry staff in the appropriate and inappropriate use of the "transitory" designation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that of course the able folks in the civil service are way ahead of us. What I would propose is that the policies and the record of training that goes on be provided to the member in writing rather than attempt to review it here. It will be a much more substantial meal if he's able to review it in writing rather than trying to convey it loosely in this venue in oral terms.

G. Heyman: That would be helpful. Perhaps the minister could just simply indicate if this is a uniform policy, uniform training, and if it applies to all ministries.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We, of course, cycle through the roughly 28,000 members of the public service on a regular basis. The policy was revised in March 2014, so as that rota works its way through, the public service will be exposed to it. Of course, we revise as we go along. We don't just leave it static until we've worked our way through 28,000 people.

[1400]

The premise will be that the current state of the art will be reviewed with the member in written correspondence from the chief information officer.

G. Heyman: I'm now going to ask a number of questions of the minister and the minister's staff about the widespread use of police information checks which are used by employers and by volunteer organizations in British Columbia. These are the subject of a very recent report by the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, released a couple of weeks ago I believe, although some time in this Legislature does make me occasionally lose track of time. It might have been three weeks ago.

She referenced the report as one of the most important, if not the most important, reports that has been authored in her time in office. She pointed out that the range of information routinely released on request — the requests are passed on by the prospective employee or volunteer on the request of the employer — may include mental health records, calls to suicide hotlines and allegations which never led to conviction or even a charge — unsubstantiated allegations that may have resulted in a call to police about some incident that somebody claimed occurred at a gathering but for which there's no evidence other than the allegation being made by the person who made the call for whatever reason.

Most people, when they're asked to authorize release of police information, assume it will be about convictions or serious investigations and have no idea of the extent of the information contained in their file. First of all, they don't know it's there. Second of all, they're surprised that it would be released. The commissioner talked to a number of people and reported that there were feelings of loss of dignity, loss of self-esteem.

Many people, when they realize what would be released in terms of information that might be completely unsubstantiated related to quite serious allegations about things which, in fact, probably never occurred or may never have occurred and, certainly, for which there was no evidence that they occurred or information relating to their mental health state or condition at some point in the past which is no longer relevant, simply will choose not to apply for a position or authorize the release in any event simply to avoid this information becoming public once they know what it is or have gone through this process once. There are reports of people who refrain from volunteering their time for a volunteer organization because of the fact that such a check was going to be part and parcel of the process.

Now, the commissioner and I certainly accept, and I know the minister does, that if the position being applied for, volunteer or employment, has to do with vulnerable adults or children, then clearly everything is relevant because the result of not releasing certain information could be seriously damaging to somebody's health, integrity and well-being.

In other cases, the commissioner points out, I believe correctly, that there's no evidence that this has actually improved hiring practices. There's no evidence that it has increased public safety. It's simply a blanket release of all kinds of information that the police happen to have on file because they're documenting things that they were called to look into. But they're not in any way, shape or form actually relevant, because they're either about somebody's health, which is private, or they're unsubstantiated.

My question to the minister is: does the minister believe that police information checks as they're currently administered in the province are adequately protecting the privacy rights of British Columbians in light of the fact that the commissioner has pointed out that we are on the extreme end of the spectrum in B.C. in terms of what police are permitted to release on request?

[1405]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer, I fear, will not be entirely satisfying. This report came out three weeks ago from the commissioner and has been primarily referred to the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry
[ Page 3576 ]
of Justice, essentially to establish what the facts are. We, of course, in this ministry will be involved once those facts are pinned down in terms of what the appropriate response to that factual matrix is, but we have not been active on this matter, pending hearing from the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice.

I'm not sure if those estimates have been held already, but nonetheless, one would expect that the member will hear back in more detail once we have heard back from the Ministry of Attorney General and come up with a policy response.

G. Heyman: I understand that it's a bit difficult for the minister to answer questions on an issue which is in another minister's bailiwick, but having said that, the issue of protecting British Columbians' privacy, I think, is fairly squarely in this minister's bailiwick. Can the minister tell us if he or his ministry is being consulted as the Ministry of Justice reviews the facts highlighted by the commissioner or if the minister is clear that once the Ministry of Justice actually reviews practices in B.C. and in other jurisdictions in Canada, the plan is to engage this minister and this ministry in deciding a course of action?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We would in this ministry be actively engaged in that process once the facts are clear. Of course, the challenges are, as the member points out, where there are matters such as applications to work in daycares or in pediatric psychiatric units, where particularly high standards must be met before an individual is engaged. On the other hand, to work at Starbucks it would seem to be entirely inappropriate for the police record to be disclosed without any screening whatsoever. So this is an issue that is under consideration.

I'm now informed that the Ministry of Justice's estimates have not yet been held, so I don't want to simply refer the member to those estimates. But that would be the first port of call, and then our ministry would expect to be engaged, as I say, once the factual matrix is clear and the criteria that have been used to date are known to us. At this point we simply would be commenting in a void.

G. Heyman: Well, my next question, I think, the minister clearly can't answer, and undoubtedly the Minister of Justice probably can't either. It was whether there were any plans to implement any of the five recommendations issued by the Privacy Commissioner.

I will point out that part of her recommendation matrix was to ask that there be a halt immediately on the release of mental health records pending any potential legislation that would permanently halt the release. I think that's important because as a review is taking place, information is being released. So I would ask the minister for his opinion on what mental health information, if any, the minister believes should be released in general police information requests if it doesn't directly relate to a vulnerable adult or a child.

[1410]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I was just able to clarify that the core government ministries don't actually retain any CPIC records or health authority mental health records. Those records wouldn't come across our plate in this scenario.

That's a roundabout way of answering the member's question about the immediate cessation of responding to these requests. My understanding is that those requests are addressed to the CPIC database, and the police are the ones able to answer that question. Once again, that is managed entirely by the Ministry of Justice.

We don't deal with disclosure of police records directly, because they're not in a core government ministry. They're managed and overseen by the Ministry of Justice. So the policy framework would come from Justice, and if there's any direction to be forthcoming from central government to those police forces — whether they're RCMP or municipal — that would be coming from the Ministry of Justice. It simply doesn't come across our plate.

G. Heyman: I understand that. I understand that it's actually the police that are releasing information, and they may have that information through a variety of means. I also understand that it's overseen by the Ministry of Justice.

My question to the minister is because the minister's responsibility is to protect the privacy of British Columbians, among other responsibilities. That's why I asked the minister if, in the minister's opinion, there is any reason to release for anyone — whether it's a government ministry or the police — a mental health record for any reason other than the protection of children or vulnerable adults.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, calling upon life experience, there's a very famous bit of litigation at the University of California, where the regents were sued in about 1970 for failing to disclose the mental health status of an individual who then went out and shot seven people. That precedent from about 1970 has pervaded court systems throughout the English-speaking world in terms of whether prior or appropriate disclosure is appropriate.

Our ministry does not actually get involved in those legal questions of necessary or appropriate disclosure of sensitive mental health records. It just doesn't come across our plate. I'm not trying to avoid the member's question. All I can suggest is that it be, perhaps, phrased for the Ministry of Justice, and that would then form part and parcel of the matrix that we would expect them to be bringing to our ministry in the near future so that we can respond to the commissioner's concern.

Unfortunately, we don't have anything to contribute, because we don't get into the legalities of those cases like
[ Page 3577 ]
the University of California's circumstance. Those tend to be infrequent, dramatic cases where there's a great scramble to sort out whether or not it's appropriate to disclose something.

[1415]

They are not the scenario that is commonly contemplated with applications for child care positions or pediatric psychiatry situations. They are rare, threatening situations which may warrant the disclosure of records in a way that would otherwise be presumed to be inappropriate. But as I say, we don't get involved in that. That's up to the Ministry of Justice.

G. Heyman: I alluded earlier to the concerns that the commissioner expressed about the checks being an inhibitor to people applying for jobs or volunteer positions. What she said exactly was:

"What is clearly demonstrated by evidence and academic research is that the income, stable housing and social networks that are fostered by employment are significant predictive factors against an individual with a criminal record reoffending. Therefore, record checks that prevent citizens from obtaining work may actually result in a burden on society as a whole that is significantly greater than any perceived benefit to the employer."

I realize that, in some ways, this is outside the mandate of the minister and the ministry, but the minister is also part of cabinet, part of government. This recommendation…. This independent commissioner — although she actually reports to government, issues reports to this minister — has expressed concern about not only this inhibiting employment but actually interfering with the rehabilitation of people who may have some form of criminal record in the past or anyone who needs a job in order to be a contributing and productive citizen, which is one of the themes of the government.

Leaving the mental health issue aside, other than the protection of vulnerable adults and children or perhaps in the interest of some clear threat to public safety, does the minister believe that there are appropriate circumstances to release unsubstantiated allegations and records that have resulted in neither charge nor conviction?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The paragraph that the member read out sounds very much like one of the middle paragraphs from the judgment I referred to. There are societal interests in protecting privacy which can only be superseded in selected circumstances, and they are very specific to the individual circumstances.

Rather than come up with a broad-brush policy statement, which would be subject to many qualifications and corrections, I think it would make more sense for this ministry to wait to see what the framework is, what the overall range of considerations is from the Ministry of Justice and then to approach it from the privacy lens that is provided for in the statutes that the member is suggesting and for this government to come up with an overall response to the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner rather than an off-the-cuff, broad-brush statement of policy as would be done here.

This is coming back, again, to the premise of…. How a court would approach it would be to talk about the broad principles and then apply it to the specifics of the case at hand. We just don't have any specifics of any case at hand, and it would be quite irresponsible of me to speculate about the range of circumstances, because I just don't have that information.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for his remarks. One of the things that I think I would read into your remarks…. I'm checking whether I'm reading too much. I appreciate your reluctance to narrow down the circumstances where release may be appropriate in the absence of some greater clarity around the criteria.

Should I read into that also, then, that the minister would not consider it good policy to simply release all information on file to anyone who requested it — period, full stop?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I suggest that that's the very question that the Privacy Commissioner has put to government, and it needs a substantive response. I'm reluctant to call upon the patience of the member opposite, but given that the report came out three weeks ago and the pace of government, we are anticipating a proposed response from the Ministry of Justice in the near future.

[1420]

We will, of course, apply the privacy lens that we're required to, to that report and hopefully come up with a satisfying and purposeful response — keeping in mind, of course, that it's not only working with children that one has to be concerned about. One also has to be concerned about things like nuclear facilities, toxic chemical facilities, biological facilities. These things all may have legitimate concerns that may call upon a government agency or a government-related agency to provide security checks, and the question is: where is the line, as the member wisely points out?

As I say, I would not want to speculate on the range of circumstances that suggest where that line should be, and we wait for advice from the Ministry of Attorney General about the various different parameters that they have considered over the years. Then this ministry will apply its privacy lens to that and the statutory framework and say: "We agree with their planned disposition" or "We suggest it needs to be amended." That would then become the overall government policy on these issues.

G. Heyman: What I did hear the minister say, and I'm not going to ask another question other than…. If you think I'm putting words in your mouth or misinterpreting, you will let me know. But I believe I heard you say that there should be some limits, that it seems reasonable to assume that there should be a line drawn.
[ Page 3578 ]

You referenced Starbucks or Tim Hortons earlier as jobs that perhaps didn't require the same level of review of past history and criminal police information as some other jobs might. So I'm assuming that the minister believes that there is some line that needs to be drawn.

My other question to the minister, assuming that he's not going to correct me on that interpretation, is…. I think Justice will look at this and look at it from a justice and legal perspective. I believe it's also important — and many British Columbians and, certainly, the commissioner believe that it's important — that the rights to privacy and the principle of protection of privacy should be applied rigorously to this question as well.

I'm hoping the minister will commit that he and staff in the ministry will be very much part of the process and ensure that those interests are fully part of the equation as the review takes place.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To concur with the first part of the member's statement, clearly there has to be a line in terms of disclosure or non-disclosure of these police records — what are essentially allegations. The question is: where is that line? It cannot be arbitrary. It must be subject to revision as society develops and learns, and it must be subject to an appropriate understanding of the role of the individual and the role of the state.

As I say, I'm not in a position to suggest where that line should be, pending the role of the Ministry of Attorney General. But I would again concur with the member opposite that this ministry will have a role in that once we understand the details from the Ministry of Attorney General. We would hope this gets addressed in the near future, as there are legitimate privacy interests involved in this matter.

G. Heyman: I'm now going to move into the area of another report issued by the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner, and that has to do with the privacy of health records.

The commissioner recently released a report — very recently — expressing a number of concerns that there is, in fact, a patchwork of legislation regarding the privacy of health records. I'm assuming the minister is familiar with the report. I'm not sure how familiar, because it is fairly recent.

I'm wondering if the minister can give me some idea of any initial response from himself and the ministry to the recommendations in the report. That's question 1. Question 2 is whether staff in the ministry were actually aware of this as a problem and had done any work on it or any preliminary work for future legislation and — this is question 3 — whether, in the initial stages of review at any event, the minister believes that the recommendations require some follow-up and action on the ministry's part.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member hits upon a very important issue in our time. The date that I have for the report coming out was April 30, which is, I believe, six days ago. So the member may have read it in more detail than I have at this point.

[1425]

I did have the advantage of perusing it generally, and it points out that we currently have a bit of a patchwork of legislation that has evolved on a demand basis over the past 30 or 40 years.

There's a well-known 1992 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada called McInerney v. MacDonald that deals with the issue of who actually owns the information in health records, and it is the patient. It's not the physician. It's not the hospital. They own the physical record, which used to be a paper record, but the information in the record itself belongs to the patient. The physician or the hospital or other entity holds it in trust for the patient.

This, of course, in an electronic age raises all kinds of headaches, and the commissioner has wisely pointed out this is going to have to be addressed. This matter has landed squarely in the Ministry of Health for them to be concerned about, and we will watch with great interest and, I expect, be consulted in the near future.

G. Heyman: Did I hear the minister washing his hands of this issue entirely? That would get us out of here far too early. I don't think I can….

Well, I may be more familiar with the report than the minister, but I doubt it. I don't have the same level of staff support as he does.

What role, if any, does the minister see the ministry playing in assisting the Ministry of Health or guiding the Ministry of Health or reviewing any potential responses of the Ministry of Health to the problems identified in this report, seeing as a patchwork of legislation probably isn't what anyone wants as an efficient way to regulate the privacy of health records that, as the minister correctly points out, belong to the patient.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This area of information management is in rapid evolution. Fortunately, the ministry that I'm responsible for has fairly wide and abundant experience dealing with comprehensive data sets for a standardized data structure across a large organization. That's not the case with our health institutions. In a set up like Ontario, where every hospital maintains its self-governing status, they are in a complete patchwork of hundreds of different data sets, plus all the physicians' offices.

In British Columbia we've had the benefit of area health authorities for a while now. Each of them has a data structure and a data management arrangement. But nonetheless, we have the benefit of, as I say, a comprehensive standardized data management regime. So as health data becomes more standardized, with efforts like the Telus e-health initiatives, where they are seeking to put
[ Page 3579 ]
doctors' records onto standardized platforms, our experience will be, I think, invaluable in assisting and guiding those organizations toward doing things that (a) work, (b) serve the public interests, (c) protect privacy and (d) are affordable.

G. Heyman: We're talking about breaches of privacy for health records, and there are other records. They really go to the heart of what needs to be held quite privately, because, as the minister correctly points out, this is information that belongs to the patient. Obviously, it is shared with the patient's physician, maybe shared under certain circumstances with permission for legitimate purposes like medical research or consultation. But it is sensitive. People may decide to let other people know about their condition, but they're certainly under no compulsion to do so.

The result, especially in the case of mental health but not just mental health…. The potential affront to not only the dignity but the self-esteem…. Even the employability, the standing in the community, the relationships with family, friends and neighbours, depending on the nature of the medical information, could be significantly compromised.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Does the minister believe that there should be strong penalties in place for wilful non-compliance with the legislation or failure to adequately exercise the responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of private information?

[1430]

If the minister believes that penalties need to be in place to be effective, could he comment on what the nature of those might be?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Not wishing to engage in any amateur lawyering, given that I'm now retired from the Law Society, I can outline that there is the potential full range of penalties, from criminal sanctions, which usually don't work in this kind of regime because of the need to convict beyond reasonable doubt, to the prospect of, secondly, administrative penalties, which can range from sanctions through corrective measures through fines and so forth.

Then, finally, there's perhaps the less efficient but certainly very persuasive prospect of civil litigation and even class actions, where individuals or groups of individuals go to the courts and say that their privacy rights have been violated. This is actually more common than one would think in the current information age — not so much with health records but with marketing and other private records that individuals accumulate and then are agglomerated elsewhere without their consent.

This is a developing area of the law, and certainly, the sanctions, penalties or other responses to this issue are in evolution. I think the member's question is essentially addressed to the administrative penalty side of things. As the Privacy Commissioner points out, it is something that is going to need to be addressed in the near future because the current patchwork legislation we have may not be sufficient to address anticipated future developments.

G. Heyman: If I might have a minute to consult with my colleague, who I believe has come here to ask a question.

I'd like to yield the microphone briefly.

V. Huntington: That's very kind of you. I didn't mean to interrupt a line of thought here.

Basically, these are just two or three written questions that I'm very willing to have a written response to. They really are dealing with the numbers of applications — it's not on subject, which is unfortunate — that have been received, FOI applications, and the skyrocketing numbers that you're having to cope with.

My sense is that a great many of them are from journalists and from MLAs. You may recall that the first Privacy and Information Commissioner, who had a lot to do with writing FIPPA, indicated that it was never conceived that politicians would not be able to access information or would have to access information under FIPPA to do their jobs.

These questions are surrounding the fact that I think there is far too much…. The ability of MLAs' sitting is being very tightly controlled. We have to go through a minister's office to access even the deputy minister, for heaven's sake. We can't ask questions freely of what should be an independent public service.

These questions relate to what I think is a growing inability of the MLAs to do their jobs properly, so if the minister and his staff wouldn't mind answering these, I would appreciate it.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Thank you to the member for Delta South. We'll receive those questions and respond in a timely fashion as soon as we're able.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Delta South for being so concise. You actually are in the topic area. It's information and privacy, all the same commissioner.

[1435]

Back to the issue we were talking about, which is health and privacy. My questions may or may not fit with the areas in which the minister's able to answer, because, as he's pointed out, much of this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. The minister did seem to indicate a moment ago that he believes some legislative solutions need to be put into place to address the patchwork and the holes in the patchwork, if I understood him correctly.
[ Page 3580 ]

If I did understand him correctly, which was question No. 1, should I understand that the minister expects to have a plan to address this issue? If so, when? Or was the minister simply saying that the Ministry of Health needs to have a plan to address this issue?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The observations I made are that I'm aware of a number of pieces of legislation that have happened intermittently over the years. The Privacy Commissioner suggested there is a need for one comprehensive piece of legislation to cover health data and health information.

The conundrum in health is always that if one of us, me, from Vancouver, goes outside and is hit by a bus and is taken to the Royal Jubilee and I'm unconscious, I would very much like them to know my medical history. But if I have a runny nose and go to a walk-in clinic, I feel like I want to control the information that they have access to.

This is the conundrum in health information: how to put together a legislative package that allows for those emergency situations but also anticipates the individual's desire for appropriate levels of privacy and protection of their personal information.

My remarks should be taken as general observations. As the member opposite knows, the Ministry of Health is responsible for their slate of legislation, and they will consult with their counsel, of course, and come up with, again, the factual matrix related to this issue, which is very complicated. Then we would expect to have a role in reviewing what they have to say to make sure that our legislation is properly addressed in whatever response the Ministry of Health comes up with.

The challenge here is that this field is moving so quickly that one doesn't want to build battleships in the aircraft carrier age. One has to be careful not to build obsolete legislation before C drives are replaced with cloud computing.

G. Heyman: I'm sorry to hear that the minister is in the same position as I am, that in the absence of enough family physicians, we may both be reduced to walk-in clinics. I'm hopeful that the minister can speak to his colleague the Minister of Health about this.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: Well, I'm moving in though.

Has the minister conferred with his federal counterparts regarding the challenge of our freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy laws under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the concerns expressed by the U.S. Trade Representative that they constitute a trade barrier and/or that our requirements that data be housed in servers in Canada accessed only by Canadians — this is health data, under the Maximus contract and other contracts — is a trade barrier that violates the North American Free Trade Agreement?

[1440]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The issue of data hosting has come up a number of times in the recent past. The premise that this government works on is that our data are hosted in Canada. That's for a wide variety of reasons, but it also makes us sleep well at night in that we know that they're not accessible under the security provisions of the Patriot Act in the United States. Our data hosting facilities are in Kamloops, backed up in Calgary. They're in earthquake-free zones and safely hosted in Canada.

The position we understand to be taken by the United States trade representative is that they would like to create business for American data hosting organizations to host our data. The answer from us is that anybody is free to bid on contracts and to go into the data hosting business, but our data are hosted in Canada, period.

If that scares them off, so be it. We are not about to compromise the security of our citizens' data by in any way facilitating a company that has any intention of hosting them outside of Canada.

G. Heyman: Before I return to the issue of data hosting, can the minister provide assurances that even in the face of allegations by the United States that this is a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, our privacy laws will remain intact and our policies about protecting British Columbians' data will, by hosting it in Canada, remain in place?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise is that our privacy legislation is strong. We intend to keep it that way. We intend to respect the integrity of the data of our citizens. If an outside entity from another country of whatever character, under whatever vehicle — whether a treaty, contract or otherwise — intends to challenge us, we will fight that challenge.

G. Heyman: Has the minister had discussions, or have ministry staff had discussions, with federal counterparts about exactly how this defence might be carried out?

[1445]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Not to date, because the issue, from our point of view, is a moot point. We see no reason to invest staff time in investigating the possibility of an American company challenging our data hosting practices. Our response is, to put it glibly: "Feel free, 'cause we'll fight you all the way."

G. Heyman: In e-mails from February 2012 that were obtained from an American freedom-of-information request, industry representatives from the U.S. allude to potential changes in B.C. laws and encrypting data so that it could be stored in the U.S.
[ Page 3581 ]

I will point out that we only have this information because we were able to retrieve it from a freedom-of-information request in the U.S., not in B.C., because there was no record of these discussions or scheduling of meetings on this issue in B.C. or the fact that conversations took place with the U.S. trade representative.

In any event, can the minister confirm what he stated before, and just stated, that there is no personal data of British Columbians currently being stored in the United States, nor have there been any plans to do so?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Speaking on behalf of the government of British Columbia, the member is correct that we're not aware of any significant data being stored in the United States that would be in any way personally identifiable or, for that matter, any data at all. That may be subject to correction if there is information about mountain sheep that is somehow stored in America, but certainly personal information is protected and retained in British Columbia.

We cannot, of course, speak for entities outside government, such as the numerous chain stores and marketing organizations that we fully understand do store their data in America and make it available to marketing organizations.

G. Heyman: I stand corrected. I actually was referring to government information. I think you've answered that.

I'm sure the minister knows that one of the key terms of the recently renewed contract with Maximus for the storage of and management of the personal health records of British Columbians….

[The bells were rung.]

I guess we're going to take a little break.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Finish the question, and we can….

G. Heyman: Okay, I'll finish the question.

An important term of that contract was that the data had to be stored in Canada, on Canadian servers, and only be accessed by Canadians. This was precisely because of concerns about the Patriot Act.

A recent Auditor General report with which I'm sure the minister is familiar found that the Ministry of Health could not actually be assured that Maximus was living up to that term of the contract because it relied solely on Maximus self-reporting compliance with that term of the contract. There was no mechanism in place for the ministry itself to verify that Maximus's reports were accurate.

Now, I raised this in the House, as I think the minister will recall.

The Chair: I think we'll take the recess right now, Member.

The committee recessed from 2:48 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

G. Heyman: I'm trying to pick up in mid-thought, if not mid-sentence. I think when I raised this in the House with the Minister of Health he said that the information was, in fact, stored in Canada. That was a fact. That was question period; this is estimates.

In recent conversations with the Auditor General — although admittedly, I haven't talked to him about this issue for about a month — he was not aware of anything other than the fact that the Ministry of Health was moving to put mechanisms in place to get this assurance but had not yet completed that. They were working on it. Regardless, I'm not sure how they could provide assurance retrospectively.

Given that the minister has expressed a very strong opinion that British Columbians' private medical information and other information — at least that information that is controlled by government — will be safe and will be housed in Canada, is the minister monitoring the situation with the Ministry of Health? I'll leave that as the first question.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm pleased to report that to the full extent of this ministry's knowledge, the terms of the Maximus contract do provide for hosting in Canada on the terms that the member opposite has described. We are not aware of the current state of auditing that or reviewing that, given that that's in the Ministry of Health.

I understand their estimates are coming up shortly. I think that the best response is, rather than for me to say, "I don't know," which would be unhelpful…. It's better for me to say that I think the member opposite should better address that question to the Ministry of Health, because they're in the process of following up on those queries from the commissioner.

G. Heyman: Fair enough. As I said, those are in fact the terms of the contract, but it's also a matter of record from the Auditor General that the steps to actually enforce and monitor that term of the contract were inadequate, and it was a key term of the contract.

Let me ask a question that I think is clearly in the minister's bailiwick. If the minister became aware that key contract provisions with respect to protecting the privacy of British Columbians' information controlled by government were not being properly enforced or monitored, or that they were inadequate in the first place, as the minister responsible for privacy, would the minister take action to ensure that there were appropriate and consistent contractual practices across ministries?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer to that question is in the affirmative, in that our role is, to the maximum
[ Page 3582 ]
extent of our ability, to ensure that the data hosting and data standards of this government are applicable across all ministries. Given that various ministries are responsible for their own data sets, it's our ongoing role to check in with them. If something comes to light, then we have to deal with it to make sure that they are in compliance with the overall government policy.

The member opposite talks about a particular contract where it may be a matter of reviewing the relationship with the contractor. As I say, it's best to raise that with the Ministry of Health, and we'll be most interested in the answer.

G. Heyman: I'm just glancing over some questions because they may, in fact, lead to the exact same answer I just got.

[1510]

Let me offer an example. Moreover, there is currently no legal requirement that prevents the B.C. Cancer Agency from disclosing certain health information for the purpose of medical research, at least no legal requirement of which I'm aware. The minister will undoubtedly say that this is an issue for the Ministry of Health, as he has said in response to questions about the Information and Privacy Commissioner's recommendations.

If the minister believed that the Ministry of Health was not properly taking action to address the patchwork of legislation or to protect British Columbians' information or to enact a comprehensive health information privacy law, would the minister then take some action to ensure that such a law was put into place or that there was consistent practice across government, and if he would, what might that action look like?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the thesis of this afternoon is applicable, in the circumstance. The member refers to information that apparently is held by the B.C. Cancer Agency. There are, of course, layers within this of things like test results that have to be done in the United States because it is the only place in the world that does them. Then those would be brought back to Canada. What happens with the information in the United States — that's their contractual relationship that the cancer institute has to sort out with the American laboratory.

This is speculative. I'm not saying that such a thing exists. Most of us followed the litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court which finally established that the monopolistic company in Utah could not, in fact, maintain their monopoly on some breast cancer tissue testing.

So without commenting on the specifics, because I don't know about the specifics, the working premise is that we seek to have the legislative framework that is established for government as a whole to be uniformly applied and to be implemented throughout government.

Where there are specialized statutes dealing with specialized bits of information such as the various Ministry-of-Health-managed statutes dealing with health care information, again, we seek to have those entirely compatible with the overall government security and privacy policies.

We work with the other ministries on an ongoing basis. We try to do this proactively, and then occasionally one is taken by surprise, and things have to be done reactively. I think that's the great advantage of having the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, because her office will provide the heads-up for things that may not have occurred to us in the busy life of day-to-day work. We're in a position to take action connected with her recommendations and to make that a governmentwide approach.

I hope that satisfies the member's question.

G. Heyman: It does.

The Ontario Privacy Commissioner has issued recommendations to Ontario police services to stop making mental health history available to the law enforcement officials after there were a number of complaints of Ontarians being denied entrance to the United States. This is often done by United States border officials if they're aware of mental health issues with individuals. That's one of the reasons I believe the B.C. Privacy Commissioner raised concerns about the extent of police information checks.

Has the minister been made aware of any recent incidents or any incidents at all in which a British Columbian was denied access to the United States or was subject to increased border scrutiny based on medical information that should have been private?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm pleased to report that the horizontal wagging of heads behind me indicates that we're not aware of any such incidents.

G. Heyman: The minister may now want to take a short break. I'm about to move on to technology.

The Chair: We'll have a bit of a recess here while we change staff.

The committee recessed from 3:15 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

G. Heyman: I was remiss before the recess in not putting on the record my thanks to the staff of the ministry who deal with information and privacy issues for being present and assisting with the answers, so I'll do so now.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Like the member opposite, I would like to thank the staff. I should note that they found our estimates so scintillating that they have elected to stay for the rest of them, with one exception, who
[ Page 3583 ]
was driven from the room by our repartee.

G. Heyman: The Business Council of B.C. recently released a report that, among other things, indicated that while B.C.'s tech sector is performing very well, it still has a lower average share of the provincial gross domestic product compared to other provinces. Other jurisdictions such as Alberta have substantially more invested in developing their high-tech sector than we do here in B.C.

Again, while I believe the sector is doing well…. I'm aware of a number of programs that are in place to assist the sector. I'm aware of industry associations and the work they do. I'm aware of the accelerator programs. But I'm also aware, as I'm sure the minister is, that the B.C. Technology Industry Association has pointed out that we're on track, I think, to hit about 111,000 jobs in the sector by 2020, but they believe the capacity is there to reach 143,000 and to double the percent of GDP from about 8 to 16.

I'm wondering if the minister, in light of those opinions, has had discussions with BCTIA or with anyone else and has any plans to try to ramp up funding and training and government support to take the measures that are appropriate for government to take to help the tech sector reach its fullest potential here in B.C.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The remarks from the member opposite are most welcome in that he recognizes the value of this sector in our community.

The history of this is somewhat interesting in that Ontario and Quebec developed as heavy industrial centres, and manufacturing became the core of their economies. They developed intellectual property and technologies spinning off from that. We only need to think of the aerospace industry and the auto manufacturing industries to point that out. There has also been a long history there of biotechnologies spinning off from, literally, Banting and Best and Connaught Laboratories, which pioneered the work there, and the large pharmaceutical laboratories that grew up around Montreal.

We started from a simpler base, around about World War I. Our industries traditionally, until about 1970, were not particularly technology-intensive. Alberta grew up next to us as the petroleum field blossomed into a highly technologically driven age after about 1975. So we've been playing catch-up and accelerating quickly.

[1520]

The member has correctly pointed out that our technology sector is growing quite rapidly and is now responsible for about $23 billion of sales and about 7½ percent of GDP and growing strongly with very strong wages and very strong recruitment.

The member opposite asked about government programs related to this. We divide those, essentially, into a few categories.

The first I can broadly describe as talent, which is making sure that our higher education institutions are producing graduates who are comfortable entering the technology workforce, whether that be in a biological field, with a master's or PhD in biochemistry or cell biology, or if they come out of high school and become adept and skilled in the fields of coding and game development. Both of those are proving to be successful.

Nonetheless, we do have to keep an eye on it and make sure that we're matching the skills of the graduates to the needs of the workplace. The blueprint for jobs that was announced about two weeks ago on the doorstep of the Legislature is entirely in keeping with that. We've also had ongoing conversations with the research-based universities, and they are fully engaged in this issue of producing graduates who are essentially job-ready in the highest of professional categories related to biotech, clean tech, the engineering sector, software development, etc.

The second category that we talk about is capital. Our venture capital programs start with the very successful angel investor tax credit, which is now being discussed as a potential item for rollout across the country. We've engaged the federal government on this issue, and they seem to be interested, but we'll see what their tea leaves show as time goes by.

There's also the issue of markets and marketing. We are in the process of shifting our procurement regime to not necessarily pick a B.C. company first but to make the procurement regime workable and suitable so that small, mid-size and large British Columbia companies spot the opportunity and don't see it as a legalistic nightmare.

We have developed the two-page procurement document for the majority of contracts, with the goal of a significant increase in small business procurement by government, including in the technological fields. The example that I've often used in speeches in the community is: if there's an opportunity for the companies in British Columbia that have developed processes for extraction of phosphates from sewage to prevent water pollution downstream, that's a good thing, and let's make sure our procurement anticipates that and is amenable to the marketplace.

We're not going to spot winners and losers. We're not going to designate winners and hand them subsidies. But at the same time, we have to make it workable for our British Columbia technology companies to find a niche in local markets and grow out from there rather than canvass the world and then come home to British Columbia as their last port of call.

G. Heyman: The minister mentioned that we started slower because of our resource extraction history in British Columbia, and that's true. But it's also true that commentators note that while B.C. has grown fairly substantially in the tech sector in the last couple of years, our rate of growth — not just our level of employment and our percent of GDP but our rate of growth — lags other
[ Page 3584 ]
jurisdictions in Canada, the Canadian average and the global average.

I'm wondering if the minister can comment on why he thinks that is. The industry is quite vibrant, and there are a lot of success stories, but clearly, there are more success stories elsewhere. I'd like to know from the minister what additional steps he thinks either the sector can take or government can take hand in hand with the sector to ramp up the rate of growth.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member points out a very interesting issue that we are very much aware of, and it has different answers in the different technology sectors.

If we start with, in general terms, a clean technology space, a good example is Westport Innovations, which has developed natural gas injection systems for engines and has major contracts with engine manufacturers and is focusing on the trucking industry. They have 1,200 employees now in Canada, and they have employees distributed around the world in various locations where that heavy-engine manufacturing occurs — places like India and China, in cities that aren't nearly as attractive as our own, but that's where the engine plants are.

[1525]

That's a good example of a company that grew locally. There is no downstream market here except for the end-user purchaser. It has to go through an auto manufacturer first, so their markets were found exactly where those auto manufacturers were. Fortuitously, the company decided to stay in Canada, in British Columbia, because of our overall concentration of talent and the environment they work in rather than moving to Indiana or Chicago, where it would have been much easier for them to be closer to their customers.

Another example in clean tech is Pulse Energy, which in downtown Vancouver. They are a software company that has been very successful in penetrating a big energy-using market, which is buildings, which account for about 40 percent of worldwide energy consumption.

Their approach was that they had no intention of going anywhere. They could have moved anywhere quite quickly, but they decided to stay in Vancouver because they could easily fan out in the world, and their product is delivered by wire. It doesn't have to be delivered by air freight or in a bulk carrier, so they can be anywhere in the world. They decided to stay here and have recently signed a very large contract with British Gas, which basically doubles the size of their market, and they intend to continue on that plan.

So clean tech is one example. They have to find specific markets where they're driven by local need, which may be regulatory, or it may be consumer-driven, or it may be driven by the manufacturer who wants to be ahead of the curve.

That is very, very different from the software world, where the numerous Vancouver and other companies based around the province find niche markets where they can dive in deep from anywhere in the world. If they're looking for consumer markets, their hand-held video game either sells in a week or it doesn't, and they don't care if they're in Helsinki or Dusseldorf or Melbourne, Australia. They can do video games from anywhere around the world because they're sold on the web. That's a completely different environment because their capital and marketing needs are completely different, and they have been very successful in British Columbia.

Another example is the group that worked for B.C. Lottery Corporation in Kamloops and developed their B.C.-only on-line gaming regime. Then they decided that perhaps they could move across the street, so they did, and they're running quite a successful company in British Columbia, in Kamloops. It has now got the contract for the Manitoba Lottery Corporation and is working on one in Wisconsin to provide the same product to those jurisdictions.

The software companies are a special case because they market largely by word of mouth and by word of web, if I can put it that way, and their products are absorbed in the marketplace almost organically. They don't have to go and visit customers a great deal.

In the middle space between those two extremes of clean tech and software we find the biotech companies. The current leader in British Columbia is Stemcell Technologies, which has about 500 employees and about $100 million a year in business. Their product is culture media and stem cell progenitors, which they produce at a facility at Seventh and Ash in Vancouver and ship all over the world in tiny little containers that cost thousands of dollars.

They are a home-grown company that has no intention of moving because they can service their worldwide laboratory demand from here in Vancouver. They have offices in France and one in the United States. Those are basically sales offices. Their manufacturing is done here.

Those are examples of widely divergent needs. They all require the talent that we try to produce to the best of our ability — to employ British Columbians and to attract people from all over the world who want to work for these firms. The member opposite is probably aware that there has been bit of a Finnish and Japanese influx to Vancouver to work in the video gaming business because it's become a bit of a hub for that line of work.

In order to encourage these companies, we try to provide a very attractive tax regime so they have no reason to go elsewhere. The recent arrival of the Microsoft development center, announced last Thursday, is done on the basis of no incentives, no handouts, no subsidies. You come here on your merits because we have great people to work with, a good talent pool, a good tax regime and a great location — that is, the province of British Columbia, not just downtown Vancouver, of course.

Also, we have, for those who need it, the right kind of
[ Page 3585 ]
approaches to capital, although some of these companies coming in are sufficiently large — and sometimes huge — that they don't really worry too much about our capital regime. They bring their own money, and we encourage that as well.

[1530]

In terms of building the sector and encouraging the sector, I come back to the points made earlier about making sure there is the right talent pipeline of people coming out of our institutions and the right regime to attract people to stay here. When I was a deputy minister ten years ago one of the big concerns was that we didn't have the cohort of middle managers and senior managers to manage these tech companies.

Coming back ten years later, that issue has evaporated because those youngsters who were doing start-ups are now on their fourth or fifth start-up and saying: "We know how to do this business." They are mostly native-born British Columbians who choose to live here. The business and tax regime is attractive to them. They have access to talent. They know their markets, and they travel the world servicing them.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

They have that wonderful regime that is attracting not only homegrown companies like HootSuite, Global Relay and the like, but also attracting the majors to that developed talent pool. We have a big enough talent pool now, and a sophisticated enough talent pool, that the majors want to come and make the best of that.

When we hear of a company like Microsoft coming to double its employment in British Columbia with 400 new employees, it turns out that they are not looking for people that are working at call centres. They are working on the premise that their lead products — that is, mobile, tablet-based applications and Office 365, which is their cloud network…. The people in Vancouver will be making very substantial amounts of money in developing those lead products because they think the talent is here and the opportunity is here. Fortuitously, it's about an hour away from Redmond, Washington, so they can drop in to say hi whenever they feel like it.

The regime we have now is working in the tech space. There have been hiccups in the past that we're all aware of. QLT and Angiotech both ceased to function after initial flourishes. In the middle part of the last decade, about ten years ago, they were darlings of the biotech sector. Then they both faced such overwhelming competition in the marketplace that they ceased to function, and their intellectual property became, arguably, obsolete.

However, there have been substantial benefits and spinoffs in that the talented people who grew up in QLT and Angiotech have largely stayed in British Columbia. I had the lucky opportunity to visit a company last week in Burnaby that has set itself up to make sterile biological-product-packaging processes which are revolutionary and stand the opportunity to replace traditional pharmaceutical packaging and delivery systems and create large numbers of jobs. Their machines sell for about $1.8 million each. They're about the size of a Fiat 500, and they are now being snapped up by companies all around the world looking for better ways to deliver their product.

The staff at that company are all QLT alumni. They are people who decided to stay in Vancouver and to take their chances in the marketplace and develop their own products based on their experience at QLT. They did not disperse. They were not snapped up by foreign employers. They decided to build the next company right here, and they have done so successfully.

To summarize that overall picture, we focus on talent, capital, markets and making sure that our tax and employment regime is friendly to these companies. So far, so good. Like the member opposite, I do hope that their role in the economy will continue to blossom and that we will be looking at an even bigger tech sector. The current tech sector has now printed up on the inside of its business cards the key facts, which include that our tech sector is now bigger than forestry, mining and petroleum combined. That is good for all of us.

I look forward to encouraging this sector to continue to prosper, and, like the member opposite, we will all look for ideas and angles and ways in which government can contribute to their success.

G. Heyman: Certainly, that is good news for all of us: the fact that the tech sector is flourishing; the fact that it's a jobs-intensive industry; high value-added; highly paid on the whole; subject to very little controversy, other than perhaps we might at some point look for ways to expand the job possibilities, more than we have done, outside of the Metro Vancouver region to benefit other parts of the province.

[1535]

We don't see large protests about the environment or greenhouse gas emissions. I don't want to in any way cast aspersions on the resource industries, but this is a huge part of B.C.'s economy, it's in many ways the economy of the future, and it's doing well. But it could be doing better, because other countries and other provinces are doing better, not just in the percentage of GDP but in the rate of growth.

First of all, I appreciate the depth of the familiarity which the minister clearly has with both the subject and the sector in British Columbia. I think that history predates his time as minister, to some extent. It's good, deep knowledge.

I'm not convinced that I've heard enough detail about what specifically the minister thinks will actually ramp up the rate of growth to be equal to other jurisdictions around the world, or that we're taking the lessons from some of those other jurisdictions whose rate of growth
[ Page 3586 ]
in this sector exceeds ours. Maybe I didn't listen carefully enough. I don't particularly argue with any of the areas in which the minister said we should concentrate, but for some reason, we're not quite matching other jurisdictions.

In a moment or two I will ask a couple of specific and more honed-in questions about things that we might be able to do or that business groups have suggested we should consider.

I'm wondering if the minister has given thought to anything we could do differently or if he just thinks we should do more of what we're doing.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to the member's query, the sector tells us that they are not looking for any revolutionary inputs. What they say consistently is that access to venture capital is a concern throughout the tech world and that it's easier to find capital in places like Boston and the south end of San Francisco Bay because the venture capitalists are local.

This raises the conundrum of how we encourage large-scale venture capital into Canada when we have a federal regime that doesn't particularly encourage venture capital moving into the kind of space we find in the U.S.A. Now, it's not that we need to copy the U.S.A. We distinguish ourselves in many ways from the U.S.A., and that's why we live here and not there.

Nonetheless, we do continue to suggest to the federal government that they look at their tax regime for Canadian-controlled private corporations, known as CCPCs, because it tends to create a bit of a glass ceiling for mid-size companies, once they cease to be CCPCs. If they bring in outside investors, they can lose their CCPC status and thereby lose some of the federal benefits that are only available to CCPCs.

There's also the prospect of encouraging a more thoughtful federal procurement and regulatory regime. I can come back, for example, to the issue of the clean-tech company that was seeking to take phosphates out of sewage. It's very difficult to do that one jurisdiction or one municipality at a time. It's closely tied to federal regulations dealing with marine issues.

We continue to make suggestions to the federal government about how they could improve their regime to make it more friendly to the tech sector, and we count our successes in small but happy increments. With each passing federal regime, we come with a new vigour in our approach to the issue.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer. I particularly appreciate the minister noting that there are measures the federal government can take, particularly because of the nature of Canada, being a large country with a smaller population, that some coordination over procurement could actually assist Canadian companies in competing effectively and growing to the point where they can supply.

But it's not just a question of venture capital being concentrated in Boston or the United States. Our rate of growth is also trailing other jurisdictions in Canada — almost all of them. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on, within the Canadian context, what some provinces might be doing that is working for them and that we might emulate, or if he believes the conditions in those provinces or the nature of the industry is simply not comparable.

[1540]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It's best to address the specifics of the jurisdictions in question when making comparisons.

Of course, Ontario and Quebec, as mentioned earlier, come from a long lineage of manufacturing. Ontario, particularly, has injected very, very large subsidies into its auto sector to keep them in Canada. As the Canadian dollar has oscillated up and down, they've received various threats from the auto manufacturers that they'll just move their production elsewhere.

They've had mixed success with that, but it has spun off a fair amount of engineering technology development. There are substantial companies in Ontario servicing the auto sector — like Magna, just the best known example.

Ontario has also developed some other sectors in an intentional way, largely through subsidies. Most recently the solar sector there has had a very unfortunate setback, copying the Solyndra experience in California which led to a $500 million write-off by the United States government.

This government has taken the perspective that subsidizing a particular sector has not proven to be successful over the years in other areas.

Aerospace, of course, is chronically looking for subsidies, largely in the form of defence contracts, leading companies like Boeing to make very large four-engine bombers which they could then redesign into the Boeing 707 and 747. We don't have that large defence sector in Canada, so the developments that have spun off in aerospace have been largely in Quebec and to a lesser extent in Ontario. That's where their technology successes have traditionally been.

There have also been subsidy programs in Quebec — indirect subsidies that kept the pharmaceutical companies there. There were substantial successes in pharmaceutical research in Quebec over the period from about 1970 to about 2000. Those laboratories have largely now entirely closed down. Quebec is paying a price for that because they kept them there on a subsidized basis, and the international pharmaceutical companies basically got out of the research business. They've outsourced it all, and they just pick and choose companies to invest in.

Ironically, we have a bit of a benefit from that with the active biotech sector in British Columbia, largely based at UBC, where a number of those large multinational drug
[ Page 3587 ]
companies have redirected their money into that centre — GSK is one of them; Johnson and Johnson is another one — where they have found that it's more fruitful to invest in start-ups in British Columbia than it is to maintain their own laboratory facilities in Quebec.

So the trend line is working in our favour. As the member opposite and I have noted, we started from a smaller base, circa 1975. It's going very well. The growth rate may be better elsewhere, but we think ours is probably more sustainable in the long run, because we're witnessing companies like Microsoft coming here rather than there.

G. Heyman: The minister referred earlier to the gaming industry. He mentioned Finland and people from Finland and Japan coming here to work because we're a hub, and that's true. But it's also true that many found over time that they were not able to get steady work.

The industry's doing well, but I was talking recently to someone who worked in the industry in B.C. for about ten years and returned to Finland because Finland, notwithstanding its small population and small size relative to B.C., all of a sudden has this booming gaming industry. My understanding is part of the reason for that is the equivalent of a Crown agency that has done some very targeted seed investment that has assisted the gaming industry in Finland to do really well. I'm wondering if the minister is familiar with this and is able to comment on it.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am indeed familiar with it. The member opposite raises an interesting point. As gaming has shifted from desktops and consoles to hand-held devices, the capital cost of developing a game has plummeted.

[1545]

It's also a matter that gaming code is no longer written de novo. It's written by connecting building blocks. You no longer pour the LEGO pieces in a plastic mould. You just buy the LEGO pieces and stick them together and make Angry Birds or whatever else it is you are fascinated with playing this week.

Finland has proven to be a successful centre, and their approach has been to invest some government funds in small companies with small capitalizations on the premise that 1 or 2 percent of them will take off and turn into billion-dollar valuations. So far, so good in Finland.

British Columbia's approach has been to encourage employees, because the digital media and video effects tax credit that we provided — I believe it's 17.5 percent — grew out of the relationship with the movie industry. The movie industry was doing well here on a labour tax credits basis, and some visual effects companies grew up around it and said: "Well, what about us?" So they negotiated a lesser tax credit. Of course, that's closely related to video gaming, because the people in the business all do the same thing. It's just whether they're doing it on an action movie screen or on a hand-held device.

But the market has shifted quite dramatically in the last three to five years so that hand-held gaming has taken over. If we consider the prototypical 15-year-old, they consider desktops to be for another generation. They'd much rather do it on their hand-held device. So the hand-held device market has taken off.

I think this government is very much aware of that Finnish experience in encouraging small companies to be owned and based in the home jurisdiction rather than encouraging through credits employees of multinationals. So this is an interesting topic for ongoing examination. The question is whether the Finnish model will prove to be durable. There is, of course, the perennial question that so few people in the world speak Finnish that they tend to club together in Helsinki, and can that be exported? That's a rhetorical question for the ages that I doubt the member opposite knows the answer to.

G. Heyman: I think what I do know is that from my travels in Scandinavian nations, it was hard to find anyone who didn't speak English.

Can the minister indicate if he sees anything in the Finnish model that this government might consider pursuing with respect to small amounts of capitalization for small companies? It's my understanding that a couple of these did very well, and the return to the government in tax revenues was far, far in excess of the amount invested.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I believe I received the same presentation that the member opposite did from the same Finnish gentleman, who was quite charming and persuasive. I've handed that off to my deputy minister and asked him to have a look at it.

G. Heyman: Yes, he was persuasive. He certainly persuaded me that it was worth a look, in any event. I think we all know that sometimes you dig and you find some things that weren't mentioned. But I thought the person, who had a big interest in the B.C. industry, having worked here for a long time with many friends, was pretty frank and honest about the different parameters of the experience and some of the things to watch out for.

I haven't met many people in industry who have said what they're looking for is massive infusions of government capital. But I have heard that there is some very targeted investment in research and development in Ontario and in Alberta as well as government investment in export market research that's been very useful to the industries in other provinces in Canada that could be useful in British Columbia — that we're lagging behind. I'm wondering if the minister has given consideration to trying to ramp up that aspect of B.C. government support for the sector as a way of ramping up the growth rate of the sector.

[1550]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As mentioned earlier, we try to be responsive to the sector. The voices from the sector, including the BCTIA and Life Sciences B.C. and the like, are mostly focused on the issue of late-stage venture capital and the ability to raise that.

Some of them are, fortunately, successful and don't have to dilute out their equity by bringing on venture capital, but they are the exceptions. Fortunately, some of them are very successful and very large now — and growing — and intend to spin off companies right here in Vancouver and British Columbia.

The sector itself tells us that our issues are primarily federal in terms of tax policy and ensuring that the talent pool continues to come out of our institutions — and also this issue of maintaining the small business venture capital tax relief that is provided to angel investors, and we do intend to continue with that.

G. Heyman: There are some people…. Obviously investment capital is needed. Venture capital is the shape it takes in this industry, by and large. But there are some people in the industry who comment that one of the problems with attracting venture capital from jurisdictions south of the border is that the interest is in the product more than the company and the location, and there's a bit of a tendency to try to suck the company down south.

I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts on whether anything can be done to counter that trend or if that's just one of the unfortunate results of seeking capital that isn't available in Canada, or whether there are some measures that either the industry or government could take to help counter that unfortunate trend.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We've been fortunate in that we're now seeing venture capital investors starting to move north. There's been an example, a company called Versant, which has moved a person to Vancouver specifically to look at investments — early-stage and mid-stage investments — in biotech companies in Canada and specifically in British Columbia. That's, I hope, the first of very many positive steps in terms of bringing more capital into Canada.

The experience is that our British Columbian tech entrepreneurs — and there are a good number of them right here in Victoria, especially in the gaming and IT industries — do not want to leave. As they mature into experienced managers with access to capital, their premise is that these are their babies. They don't want to lose them, and they fully intend to keep them here. If there is the need for dilution of equity through venture capital investment, they are more and more selective about who they deal with.

There's the chronic problem that if there's too much venture capital in a market, then bad ideas and bad companies get funded. If there's too little, then meritorious companies starve. There are always the cruel market forces that find the right position on that dial.

We're getting better and better at it. We're seeing less and less loss of companies. Partly, that will be related to the fact that we're seeing less and less loss of talent. More and more British Columbians are returning here to work in the tech sector or have no intention of leaving, and that's a very good thing for all of us.

G. Heyman: Yes, who would want to leave this province? The answer is: people who can't make a go of it here or who get a better offer elsewhere, which is why, of course, it's in all of our interests to help the sector be really vibrant here.

One of the comments that people from the B.C. Technology Industry Association have made to me — and made to everyone, because it's in their documentation — is that B.C. has a smaller level of mid-size but particularly of large employers, which they define as 500 or greater employees.

The problem with this, if it can be termed a problem…. Or maybe it should be better termed a lack of opportunity. With a larger number of large-size and larger mid-size companies, it tends to create hubs that attract investment and nurture and support the growth of smaller companies, which in turn become medium- and large-size companies.

I'm sure the minister is aware of this, and I'm wondering what activities the ministry is supporting through any of its agencies to help speed up the development and growth of medium-size companies to large companies.

[1555]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is actually fortuitous timing for this question because we have had very rapid and robust growth in some local, homegrown companies in the last few years: Stemcell Technologies, HootSuite, Global Relay — these are all prospering companies in the 500-and-up employee range that are now operating worldwide, based right here in B.C.

We also have the multinationals operating in the 700-to-2,000 range: McKesson, Microsoft, Sony digital media, just to mention a few.

I think we are actually fortunate that we now have enough liquidity in employment that when Pixar decided to shut down its studio in Gastown about September of last year because of the losses they had taken on the dreadful Lone Ranger movie, of those 90 employees, two-thirds of them were employed within a month in the industry, and the others decided to find other things to do and looked around and found work.

We never heard a single story about adverse outcomes from the Pixar shutdown because we have a big enough sector…. It's robust enough. It absorbs people quite readily, and they continue to grow.

I think the member opposite and I share the goal of
[ Page 3589 ]
seeing more companies with 300 or 500 or 1,000 employees. They are coming quite quickly.

Sap now has 1,500 employees here and is muttering about doubling that. Sap is a classic example where Crystal Decisions was born by an entrepreneur based in Vancouver. He grew it out to about 300 employees, sold it for around $350 million to a company in the U.S. southeast that kept the facility here and kept all the employees. They grew it out to about 500 or 800 employees. Sap, being the biggest European software company there is, arrived from Germany, purchased the entire operation and is continuing to double it.

I think the member opposite and I would agree that we have such great people here who don't want to leave that the majors are coming to us and the companies will grow. We don't need to coax them with incentives. They are coming here because of our talent.

G. Heyman: I would agree with the minister that we both believe this sector is integral to the future of employment in British Columbia, the vibrancy of British Columbia. It's a great sector. It's got fascinating people in it, very creative and intelligent people. I think we both share an interest in seeing it grow. I think B.C. has enough homegrown talent as well as enough natural advantage that whether it's the film industry or the tech industry, it's going to attract people here.

I may differ a bit about whether there are some things we can do by way of incentives to speed that process up, because the faster it happens, frankly, the better for all of us.

I want to refer briefly to a Policy Perspectives report from the B.C. Business Council that talked about the importance of the tech sector and talked about some things that the business council thought could be done. One of the things that the business council said is: "Government should adequately fund the advanced education programs, including graduate programs, that are critical in expanding pools of highly skilled individuals needed by technology companies."

We know from the past week that the government released an education plan that was meant to address the skills shortages — what would be needed for mining and for oil and gas, particularly the liquid natural gas industry — but it did so without adding any new money. The reason, in my opinion, that the business council is making this recommendation is because many people in the industry have said: "Look, when we attract people to go to school here or we retain people to go to school here, they develop roots. They want to stay. They tend to stay."

It's not like B.C. is a horrible place, but often if they go to school somewhere else they may stay there because they put roots down there. They get married, start families — all of the things that lead to people becoming rooted in a place. B.C., unfortunately, is the only province in Canada — if I'm correct, and I'm pretty sure I am — that has no student grant program. We have the highest level of student loan debt in Canada.

[1600]

I think there are things that we could do in British Columbia to actually address this issue of making it easier for students to get their skilled education, the education that would enable them to be productive members of a strong talent pool in the technology sector in British Columbia. I'm wondering what the minister's reaction to this particular recommendation from the business council is.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It's timely in that I met with the author of the report and the incoming president of UBC last Friday and canvassed this very issue. We've had some positive feedback from the president of Simon Fraser University and from UBC about the blueprint for jobs that has been released by this government so that we can start to not focus all PhD programs on feeding employees to Stemcell Technologies — that would be folly — but rather to encourage the employers and the universities to be in touch with each other through co-op programs and otherwise.

That is happening, and it's actually remarkable that the academic research institutes, certainly in the biotech space, are now increasingly enthusiastic and focused on commercialization. That is a new thing in the last ten years. The academy in Canada has generally, in the past, taken a hands-off approach to employment. That has undergone a change because they've caught up with the universities throughout the rest of the English-speaking world — in Australia, the U.K. and the U.S.A. — that take a profound interest in the employment prospects of their graduates.

We can see this shift in policy at the universities and the colleges. They are very, very much aware of the employment prospects of their graduates, and they seek to make sure that they're ready for the workplace.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer, but it still seems to me that when you compare British Columbia's support for students in advanced education, it lags other jurisdictions in Canada — those very jurisdictions that actually have a higher rate of growth of the sector than we do. I'm not going to suggest that it's an absolute correlation, but it certainly matches up.

I guess I'm asking the minister questions that perhaps should go to the Minister of Advanced Education, but you are the minister responsible for technology. You believe the sector should grow, and you are a member of cabinet. I mean, there are some correlations here.

Does the minister think we can do more in our support of students in advanced education in British Columbia that would ultimately be beneficial to the sector and repay itself over the long term by taxes from high-paid, high-skilled individuals?
[ Page 3590 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is quite correct in that my ministry does not deal with student loan policies or student grant policies in any way. The member opposite may well be aware of the program we've supported in the past, the MITACS program, which the now-incoming president of UBC pioneered and actually ran nationally from Vancouver. Prof. Arvind Gupta managed to match up technology companies and companies in need of a bit of a technological edge with graduate students, and that has proven to be very successful and very well-received across Canada.

I don't think any of us are ashamed to say that about double our population ratio of successful programs are run in British Columbia. Thirteen percent of the national population lives here, and we've got about 25 percent of these successful MITACS programs.

G. Heyman: I'm clearly going to get nowhere with that line of questioning with this minister, so let me move on to an issue I raised with the minister yesterday in question period that I think is concerning.

[1605]

The ministry commissioned a report by Deloitte to a spending review. That spending review determined that with the ministry's contracts for web-hosting services with Hewlett-Packard Advanced Solutions and for workstations and workstation support with IBM, not only were the contract lengths well above the average for the industry, but the spending was 17 percent more than the industry average for workstations and workstation support and 59 percent more for web hosting.

When you ran out the numbers that were contained in the government's 2013 price book for the sector and looked at the contracts, it looked like we were talking about $30 million in savings, which is fairly substantial. That would more than cover a lot of programs that have been scaled back or services that have been scaled back around which we've had much debate in the Legislature.

I understand a contract is a contract until it's perhaps breached by the person contracted for service. Could the minister comment on what action his ministry has taken or will take in future contracts to ensure that contract lengths aren't wildly beyond industry standard unless there's a corresponding price advantage, which in this case there clearly isn't?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member points out that the 2011 Deloitte report reflecting on the state of play at the time talked about the costs at the time. The support costs were $593 per user but are now down to $454 per year, per user, which is a 23 percent reduction. That was achieved through our contracted yearly seat-rate reductions, because we go through regular price reviews on these contracts which drive down costs to match market rates. We also managed to negotiate some additional benefits.

The hardware costs for our previous refresh — we refresh every four years to keep up with technology and speed so that our civil service is as efficient and quick as it can be — were $42 million and for the most recent refresh were $31 million, which is a 30 percent reduction, a total savings of $3.7 million annually.

The upshot seems to be that the Deloitte report, which is now three years old, is reflecting on events of four years ago. Times have changed, and we have some very hard-nosed folks in the ministry who have extracted more value from the contractors, and that's an ongoing phenomenon. We have regular price reviews, and depending on technological change, we always drive down the price.

G. Heyman: So is the minister saying that in fact the entire 17 percent discrepancy in web hosting and the entire 59 percent discrepancy on workstations and workstation support has been eliminated, or just a very large portion of it?

[1610]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I've now been educated, even more than I was yesterday, to answer the question substantively. It turns out that apples are being compared to oranges with the 17 percent and the 59 percent figures the member noted.

As mentioned in the earlier answer, those have been addressed in some significant degree, but the apples-and-oranges issue is that this is not just buying workstations, bringing them to someone's office and saying: "Have fun; plug it into the wall, and see what happens." The package includes workstation amortization, help desk, technical support costs, software licensing and patching, antivirus protection, power management, security, web hosting, installation, maintenance and training.

As I understand it, the Deloitte report is quite out of date now, in that times have changed and we're now in a different space.

G. Heyman: Without the Deloitte report in front of me, it's difficult to address that fully, but I don't think it's quite apples and oranges. I understood always that software was included, support was included, a number of other factors were included and that it wasn't necessarily a direct comparison, but if you looked at all the elements of the services that government had purchased, and I believe Deloitte did, and you looked at the cost of them to the average consumer, there was a significant discrepancy.

So again, my question was: does the minister believe that the discrepancy identified by Deloitte — in fact, I think he's now questioning the size of the discrepancy — has in any event been fully eliminated or that there's still some way to go?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I understand it, the apples-to-oranges story is valid in that the Deloitte report, based
[ Page 3591 ]
in information four years ago, was in a different world. We're now in a world that has, as I say, gone through price renegotiation and adjustments, so much of the discrepancy that was noted there has been addressed. Secondly, these ancillary services…. I mean, it's quite a different value package than was being criticized at the time.

G. Heyman: Well, there are two things I take from that, and the minister will correct me if I'm wrong. One is that some portion, perhaps most but not all, of the discrepancy has been eliminated and that if we were to do a report today, it would look different because we're talking about different services.

The world of technology is ever changing. My point is that we need — I think, on behalf of taxpayers — particularly in an era where we regularly talk about such things as rising hydro rates, rising MSP premiums, cutbacks in ferry routes, raises in ferry fares, clawbacks of child support from mothers on income assistance…. If there's money elsewhere that doesn't need to be spent elsewhere and that could be used by government to ameliorate some of these others impacts on government services and supports, we should in fact be looking at them.

Can the minister say what is different now in the practices of the ministry in entering into contracts with significant service providers in the IT sector than was the case when Deloitte did its spending review?

[1615]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that there are two solid issues which have been addressed in going to a longer refresh cycle. Because of the plateau in workstation performance — faster processors aren't coming onto the market — we're now in a wait-and-see mode on our four-year refresh cycle in whether to just carry on with the machines we've got. We'll do it on the basis of market demand. That is what the consumers want. Fortunately, our large civil service do not play video games on their machines, so they don't need fast processors for that.

Secondly, there's been a change, a reduction in the number of printers and MFDs — I think that's multi-functional devices — that is being implemented through what's known as a managed print initiative, which was another one of the suggestions of Deloitte. This has been something that I certainly experienced in the private sector in the last five years — that companies rarely own their own printers anymore. It's all outsourced so that the printers are refreshed on an as-needed basis, and the reliability and servicing of them is somebody else's problem, not government's problem.

In terms of the actual approach to dealing with the vendors, that's become progressively more hard-nosed. That's an industrywide standard. Because of the market power of the two participants, the plateauing of performance of desktops means that the consumer has more and more power in the marketplace, and we use that power to push back on the vendors.

G. Heyman: The next area that I am going to look at could be either government communications and public engagement…. But I also have a few questions on the services card, which I think we did not flag for the minister. I'm just wondering if you need to get any different staff in the room.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the member suggests, we're going to rotate a couple of staff here who are no longer required. I think we have sufficient people here to deal with the services card. Then, once that's done, we have the GCPE staff ready to go.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the staff who are leaving.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Mr. Heyman continually pre-empts me on etiquette, and I thank him for pointing out that I should have thanked the staff for their able contributions to today's proceedings.

Thank you for the correction, Mr. Heyman.

G. Heyman: I've been defrocked as the member for Vancouver-Fairview.

I am going to cede the floor for a moment to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey, who has a question.

D. Eby: I'm sure my friend across the way knows exactly why I'm here and what I'm asking about. Is there anything in the budget related to expenditure relating to the Jericho lands or any update that he can provide my constituents?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite was kind enough to forewarn me of his question. I may not have told him at the time, but it certainly remains the same answer that it was a couple of weeks ago. Nothing has changed from last year's estimates in terms of the Jericho lands.

As far as we know, the federal government is continuing to engage with the First Nations on the department of defence property, which is over toward Alma Street between 4th and 8th avenues, and the provincially owned lands farther west. Nothing has changed. We will wait to see what transpires with the federal lands before the next round of estimates so that we can advise the member opposite of any changes.

But essentially, nothing has changed.

D. Eby: Thank you to the minister for that information.

I'm just wondering whether there's anything in the budget to send a staff member into those negotiations, to sit in so that the province is at least up to date on what's happening — although I realize it would be difficult to release that information, given the nature of the negotia-
[ Page 3592 ]
tions. But is the province sending somebody to these negotiations so that our interests are protected?

[1620]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer is that we are neither invited nor attend any negotiations conducted by the federal government, but we do have land management, asset management staff who keep in touch with federal Public Works to find out what's going on. There has been very, very little to report from them, other than that they are still speaking with the First Nations.

D. Eby: Well, this is a very good opportunity, I think, for the government to insert itself in this process. I can certainly advise that in my community there's a huge amount of concern about what's happening, about what's being negotiated and what's being discussed and that their interests aren't being protected.

The history of this site is that in 1946 the provincial government sold it to the feds for the purpose of a permanent military base. But it's not a permanent military base anymore. It was during wartime that we actually leased it to the federal government, so it's this cooperative attitude, historically, on this site between the levels of government to accommodate the needs of each level of government.

I wonder whether the minister would consider dedicating some of his budget to pushing the federal government to have a provincial presence at that table, because it's incredibly important.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise with the federal government, with which I have perhaps more experience than I care to remember, is that we have great difficulty inserting ourselves in their relationships with First Nations. They take the view that they have their own jurisdiction, and in this case they own the property. So we rely upon our diplomatic good offices to extract information from federal Public Works once they have finished their discussions with the First Nations.

That may change over time, but right now we feel that's the most productive way to keep a finger on the pulse in terms of the federal Jericho lands. I can assure the member opposite this is an issue that we're trying to keep very much on top of.

G. Heyman: With respect to the B.C. Services Card, a government news release states that by the end of February 2014 over one million cards had been issued. Can the government confirm the number of B.C. Services Cards that have been issued to date?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: While I don't have a number at hand, they are being rolled out at the rate of about 100,000 a month. The number in February, I believe, was one million. So if we simply do the arithmetic, one can estimate that we're at about 1.3 million now, and that is continuing apace.

G. Heyman: So would the minister say that the uptake of the new card is on track and in line with projections?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to the query, the answer is: yes, the rollout is going smoothly. We're on track. We're finding that as British Columbians roll over their drivers' licences, they're quite happy with the concept of the services card to date. We hope that continues, and we'll do our best to serve the interests of the public with the card.

G. Heyman: In terms of the contract with SecureKey, the provider of the new B.C. Services Card, does the province receive any discount if citizens begin using the card for access of both health and non-health services?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise is that the secure identity service provided by the card can be used for a variety of things, depending on public interest and uptake and the public obtaining their necessary password to enable those services and choose the ones they want to use from the limited range of services that the consultation panel supported.

[1625]

I'm not aware of any discount or pricing arrangement with SecureKey, the premise being that their job was to make sure we had the solid identity document in the form of the services card and that what we did with it beyond then is up to us and, of course, the public, the citizens of British Columbia.

G. Heyman: Can the minister confirm which non-health services are planned for access by the B.C. Services Card?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Not to use props unduly in the room, but the member opposite may be familiar with a three-coloured table that was found in the consultation report from the citizens' panel. The plan is to investigate the ones that the citizens' panel endorsed, subject to workability, budgets and viability in the marketplace and not to pursue the ones where the panel recommended restricted uses, because if there isn't public uptake there's no point in pursuing it.

G. Heyman: Does the minister think there's value to reading those services and putting them on the record in Hansard?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It would be somewhat speculative at this point to go through the list, which is available on the public record, because it depends on workable arrangements being developed and, of course, budgets for the various items on the list.
[ Page 3593 ]

At present we're not in a position to offer any of these services with the services card. We were essentially wanting to figure out what the scope of opportunities would be with the public so that once we are in a position to start rolling out passwords, once we get to a critical mass of people with the card — say, 60 percent of the population as a guesstimate — then the public may say, "Well, I'd like to use this" — for something or other. If I live in Telegraph Creek, I'd like to get a birth certificate on line rather than driving to Terrace to find one or to the very capable services centre in Dease Lake.

The goal is to have figured out what services would have public buy-in, which ones we can afford to roll out and which ones are efficient to roll out by the time we reach critical mass with the services card, which as I say, will be a couple of years down the road.

G. Heyman: Just to sum up, the three-coloured table which the minister referred to is found in the report of the consultation that is available on line.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That's correct. The member may want to google "digital services priorities summary table B." I'm hoping that will take him there.

G. Heyman: I'm sure it will.

My final question on the services card is…. There is a PowerPoint that indicates a "pricing model protection" aspect of the contract with SecureKey which allows for an alternative pricing plan when citizens begin using the cards for non-health services.

What exactly is the financial incentive in dollars, if any, for the province to push as many users as possible into non-health services?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We will have to provide a written response to that to the member opposite because we just don't have that information available right here.

G. Heyman: The minister may want to invite GCPE staff forward.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite has been so gracious as to allow me to remember to thank staff before he steals the opportunity and proves me to be socially inept. I thank him for that.

Thanks go to our associate deputy minister, the chief information officer, Bette-Jo Hughes, and to our other associate deputy minister, Mr. Sarf Ahmed, the two of whom keep the ship afloat.

[1630]

G. Heyman: I add my voice to the thanks to the staff for helping with the process and the answers. Thank you very much.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We now have the capable staff of the government communications and public engagement team here — the deputy minister, Athana Mentzelopoulos, and her cast of a few. For fear of being accused of keeping them suppressed, I'll introduce them: John Paul Fraser, David Hume, Denise Champion and Kelly Gleeson. I'm sure they'll be able to answer any query you have in mind.

G. Heyman: I don't have a lot. I think I have six questions. The first one is: what amount was spent on polling or on research in support of government initiatives in fiscal year 2013-2014?

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

In addition, because I expect that the answer to the second question will be "I need to provide this to you in the future, in writing," can the minister provide a list of the information going back over five years?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The 2013-14 polling expenses were $104,567. The member correctly notes that we'll have to provide him with written answers for the previous five years because we don't have them here.

G. Heyman: That number just provided includes research and support of government initiatives? That's the overall…? There's no other polling or research that would be outside that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm advised that the number quoted for 2013-14 for GCPE polling, of $104,567, actually includes the research amounts.

G. Heyman: What is the total number of full-time-equivalents currently employed in GCPE, and how many vacancies are there currently?

[1635]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The staff complement is 294, and there are currently ten vacancies within that. So we're looking at 284 people currently on staff. Of those, 81 are in the strategic initiatives division, and 203 are in the traditional GCPE group.

G. Heyman: Following the last set of estimates, the minister provided the number of suppliers to GCPE in a written response — in response to a question from me, obviously — but no names of the suppliers. Can the minister provide a list detailing the names of all the supply arrangements and/or contractors for GCPE and the amounts paid for all contracts over the last two years?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That will be forthcoming in reasonably short order, with names and amounts of suppli-
[ Page 3594 ]
ers to GCPE over the past two years.

G. Heyman: How many contracts have been awarded to Kirk and Co. in the past year?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The GCPE has contracted twice with Kirk and Co. in the past year. I'll leave you with that tidbit of information.

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister could also leave me with the total value of those two contracts?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Two contracts were paid to Kirk and Co. in the past year — one for $24,000 even and the other one for $3,618.

[1640]

G. Heyman: Should I assume that due to the size of the contracts, they were direct awards, or was there, in fact, some competitive process for either of them?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Direct awards.

G. Heyman: What was the total cost of media training over the last five years?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We'll have to provide you with a written response to that, sir, due to the lack of information in the room.

G. Heyman: I'm a bit shocked at my sudden elevation in status.

What was the total cost of the Lean initiative to date? What are the targeted savings, and what is the current financial progress of the Lean initiative?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The Lean initiative is actually operated through the Public Service Agency. GCPE staff tell me that they are not in a position to answer really anything about it.

G. Heyman: I have no more questions, but I do know that the member from Oak Bay wanted to read some into the record. I suggested that if he was here by 4:45, which was a bit earlier than I'd initially anticipated, he'd be able to do so.

I don't know if I should talk for the next three minutes, or thank all the staff for being available. I obviously had far fewer questions today than I did last summer for staff from GCPE. But there were lots of answers provided last summer, for which I'm appreciative.

So I will thank the staff. The minister likely wants to do the same, and we'll see if the member from Oak Bay shows up.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think I'll ask the GCPE staff to go about their business.

I did receive questions from the member from Oak Bay, so I suppose we're in the position of knowing what is going to be said. I suggest that we could probably just take a short break until he enters the room.

Oh, here he is now.

Thank you to the staff from GCPE, and to our executive finance officer, who I'm pleased to say has seen the merits of living in Victoria rather than Ottawa and was recruited here from the federal government. So please join me in welcoming him to the kinder, gentler, warmer west coast.

A. Weaver: I, too, recognize the beauty of living in this region. I was born in Victoria, and I'm proud to say that I still live here today. So I understand the comments of the minister just a few seconds ago.

I'd just like to provide the minister with seven questions, written questions, that I'm hoping the minister could provide written response to at a later date. If that is possible, then that will be the end of my questions.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I received seven questions, dated May 5, 2014, from the member from Oak Bay. If they are the same questions, I suggest we can save the bother of reading them into the record and creating a paper trail. I have the questions, and we'll arrange for answers in the near future.

A. Weaver: Thank you. That's perfectly fine.

Vote 41: ministry operations, $64,213,000 — approved.

Vote 42: Shared Services B.C., $425,540,000 — approved.

Vote 43: government communications and public engagement, $37,255,000 — approved.

The Chair: With that, we will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 4:51 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND SKILLS TRAINING

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $183,688,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have some opening remarks?

Hon. S. Bond: I do, just very brief ones, because I know we want to get down to actually answering questions.
[ Page 3595 ]

I appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I want to, mostly, this afternoon express my appreciation for an incredible staff, and throughout the course of the next few days we'll have the pleasure to work with many of them. But, obviously, in the very short term I'm joined by the deputy minister of JTST, Dave Byng; George Farkas, who is the assistant deputy minister of management services; and Murray Jacobs, who is our CFO.

We have an amazing ministry and a broad-ranging number of issues. We have incredible opportunities in front of us in the province. One of the things that's critical to us is ensuring that we are looking at job creation, making sure we have the workers necessary and positioning success for our families across the province. So an amazing ministry, a fantastic team, and we look forward to answering a number of questions about the work that's underway.

H. Bains: I, too, would like to take this opportunity in the opening to thank the staff for being here. They were here last time around as well, and many of them are sitting over there.

We will go through different areas of the ministry. I think I sent a message to the minister that we will start with some general questions about the ministry. Then we will go into WorkSafe, then jobs, and then we'll go into the area of labour. Then my colleagues will come in. The Minister of Tourism will take care of that, and then we'll go into skills training. Then, I think, at the very end we are looking at immigration, temporary foreign workers and that area of the ministry.

I do want to start here with the notion that we will go into back-and-forth discussions about where I will try to draw the attention of the minister and then where the government is failing in many of these areas. That failing does not mean…. I want to repeat this again this year. I want to start it again. It's not a reflection on the staff. It is the government policies. I think the ministry staff is doing a very good job under the circumstances that they're placed.

[1655]

There are different areas, especially for WorkSafe B.C. There are many challenges. For workers all across British Columbia, there are some serious issues that we will be bringing to the minister's attention.

When it comes to jobs, again, there are British Columbians who feel that they are being squeezed out. They are not even considered, not even in the lineup. Never mind somewhere in the lineup. They're not even in the lineup when they go and apply for certain jobs. Their applications — the first thing they see is the trash bin.

I think those are some of the cases. They are real cases. It's not just hearsay. It's not just the stories. Those are real people. Our intention is to draw the minister's attention to that. Hopefully, we could deal with those issues — those are real issues — so that the people of British Columbia, the workers who are looking for those jobs, can see that they do have an opportunity, that they actually, in fact, are front of the lineup when you consider the temporary foreign worker program.

All of those areas are there, and as I said, WorkSafe B.C. — that is a whole area that needs revamping. Again, it's not a reflection on the staff. They are given a mandate, and they're working within that mandate. The workers right now do not feel that they are safe. They have placed a sacred trust. It is a sacred trust of the workers and their safety in the workplace. That sacred trust is placed with WorkSafe B.C. and with the government to enforce all those regulations that they bring.

Right now they believe the trust is broken. Right now they don't believe that WorkSafe B.C. is doing their job to protect them in the workplace. Their families don't believe that when their loved ones go to work…. They go out there to turn the wheel of our economy. They are out there to provide service to the province, to all of us. Many of them don't come back home. I think there's a problem there.

We have something on the average of about 150 workers die on the job here in B.C. Since the Westray bill, we have had 1,350 people die on jobs. Not a single charge has been laid.

Those are some of the concerns that we have. Something is wrong with that system — 1,350 workers die, and not a single charge, never mind conviction. Not a single charge. All those concerns are there. We have seen the Babine explosion, the Lakeland explosion — again, no charge. No one is being held accountable.

I think those are some of the real concerns that we will be raising, but I will start with some of the discussions on the ministry and general questions. For example, I'll start with the mandate letter that we discussed last time, from the Premier to the minister. Maybe my first question would be: can the minister please outline the steps taken to fulfil each of the instructions given by the Premier? Maybe that's the first question.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member's comments. We're going to agree to disagree on the commentary already that talks about the failings of the ministry. There is so much great news and so many good things happening in terms of the decisions and directions we're taking. I will just ever so briefly highlight a couple of the items in the mandate letter.

[1700]

Obviously, a very significant workload. Work is underway on every single item. Some of them have been completed. For example, balancing our ministerial budget in order to control spending. We can check that one off, not just as a ministry but as a government. Easier to check it off than to actually get to that point.

Refresh new ambitious goals. The B.C. jobs plan. As of March 31, 2014, over half of the original 61 action
[ Page 3596 ]
items have been completed, with the remainder either in progress or considered to be of ongoing nature. Eleven of the 19 targets have been met. The 24-month job plan progress report was released in September of 2013 and included a series of looking-ahead commitments.

Labour division is working with private sector union partners to ensure the labour code meets the needs of employers. I think the member opposite has been surprised at times about the exceptional working relationship we have developed and are continuing to develop with organized labour. One of the recent outcomes was the Premier's Liquefied Natural Gas Working Group, where we looked at skills training, workforce planning. An interim report was delivered in January and was released on April 3, 2014.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Labour market and immigration division. A central part of the jobs and skills training plan was actually looking at immigration, looking at labour market data. A number of things have obviously taken place since we got our mandate letter. We are also aggressively lobbying the federal government to increase our PNP numbers. We saw an increase this year, but we would like to see that move higher still.

Ensure we are training the right people for the right jobs. I'm hopeful that the member opposite has seen our blueprint skills training plan. We renewed the labour market renewal. We are working on the ITA, looking at all of those issues with regard to the mandate letter.

Working with Education to identify best practices and pilot new programs. We've completed that work, obviously, with the blueprint.

Review the role and function of the ITA. We released a report on April 29, 2014, which has significant implications for change. We announced the new board members just earlier this week. So that work — the final report on the ITA — is done, and we're looking forward to the implementation of all those recommendations.

Reviewing the sectoral jobs round table. We're working on a framework for review of the sectoral round table and labour market partnership program.

Major investments office — very exciting. We're looking at 17 major investment projects that the MIO is currently working with.

We're also working with the Ministry of International Trade and IGRS, acting as the lead ministry for Premier's trade missions, tourism and small business division, executing our provincial tourism strategy and working toward our Gaining the Edge goals and implementing film industry commitments, as outlined in our platform. All of those commitments are also in progress.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell us: is there any timeline for the items that the minister has listed that haven't been completed? What is the timeline for having completion of each one of those?

Hon. S. Bond: I did walk through all of them and provided the information on the completed items. There are a number that will be ongoing. For example, when we look at ensuring we are training the right people for the right jobs, that will be an ongoing commitment of our ministry and government. There isn't an end date for that, which is the case with many of the items.

I notice that I actually left one off, because it's at the bottom of this page — working with AVED and Education to develop a seamless ten-year training plan. That is also completed.

Most of the ones that are still in progress would be long-term and continuing work–type issues. For example, working with MIT and IGRS as lead ministry for Premier's trade missions — that will obviously continue to take place.

Looking at our provincial tourism strategy and achieving goals — that will continue to be part of our responsibility in the months ahead. The balance of the ones that have not already received a check mark are underway and would be ongoing work because of the broad nature of the request.

[1705]

H. Bains: Let's pick one: training. The minister said that that part will be ongoing. I get that, but I think there have to be timelines. What are the targets? When would you complete it? What are the numbers we are looking at?

I've seen the agreement between the labour unions and the government and other stakeholders — a 15-point agreement that was signed — and part of that is an apprenticeship program. There are a number of jobs listed, and they are in different trades.

My question to the minister is this. We will be moving more deeply into that later on. As part of the mandate, there must be a target. When would you have all the training completed — so that people looking at that agreement and your progress can actually see and try to match if we are moving on target? When would you have all those people trained to fill those positions?

Those jobs — as I'm sure later on we'll discuss — according to the minister and the Premier, are coming at a certain date. So you need to have all those jobs and the training to upgrade the skills of all the workers that are needed to fill the jobs completed by a certain date.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, we've just unveiled one of the most significant training plans, and the way it has been done is unprecedented in government. We have three ministries working together, looking at a significant re-engineering of the system. The work started months ago. It continues every day. Each piece of that…. And I'm happy to entertain specific questions related to the plan.
[ Page 3597 ]
Obviously, the Ministers of Education and AVED will answer for their pieces.

Let me give the member an example. The Industry Training Authority review is complete. We have appointed a board of incredible leaders in our province. They will meet later this week. They will begin to put together a 90-day transition plan to take the 29 recommendations that were created, that were presented to us by Jessica McDonald. The work on that begins immediately.

For each section of the skills blueprint, there is an implementation and planning team that will work through each one of those commitments to make sure they're underway. So there isn't an end state in the skills and training plan. There is an ongoing need for us to, between now and 2020-2022, actually look at how we train, where we train and how many people we train.

The answer is: the work is underway today. There is significant reform that needs to take place, not just here but across the country. An example of that would be that the ITA is expected to deliver a transition plan from the current state of the Industry Training Authority, looking at the 29 recommendations, within 90 days.

H. Bains: Again, the minister talks about 2020-2022, when most of the jobs will be opening up. Again, you need to do an audit of the existing skills inventory and see where the shortages are. Then you must have a program in place to say how far you could go and when you would have all those gaps completed. That's what the mandate calls for.

You can't just have an open-ended program. "Maybe in 2025 or maybe in 2035 we will have all that completed." I think there has to be something definitive or at least a certain time frame put around it so that we know. Is it 2016? Is it 2018? Is it by 2020? There has to be some finality to it. You can't have an open-ended program. "We will train these people. Don't know when, though."

Hon. S. Bond: Our plan is hardly a "don't know when." It is comprehensive and detailed. Perhaps I could just give a couple of the items. I could read the entire list of dozens of recommendations. I don't think that would be the most productive way to spend our time.

For example: doubling the number of ACE IT spaces to 5,000 over the next two years; targeting $270 million in post-secondary operating grants over the next three years; investing $185 million in infrastructure targeted for skills and training; investing $6.6 million in critical trades-training seats — that's taking place as we speak — reforming the industry training authority; and, as I said, there will be a 90-day period where the new board puts into place a transition plan.

[1710]

As we look at other specific goals, a minimum target of 15 advisers — this comes from the Industry Training Authority recommendations — should be introduced within the next calendar year. Obviously, as I meet with the new board chair and the new board, we'll be looking at their ability to deliver on commitments like that.

There are literally pages of specific details which outline exactly what the commitments are. But to the member opposite's point, it isn't about being done by 2022, and it's not about being done by 2018. When you talk about apprenticeships, we need to look at innovation. We need to look at increasing the numbers. An apprenticeship takes four years. We will be phasing in a number of projects. There are specific changes we need to make.

We've also committed to working on harmonization of apprenticeship across the country. We're not going to fix that overnight, but we are going to lead the country on that front. We're also looking at mobility of apprentices between provinces. We're working very closely with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan to work constructively.

This is a blueprint. It is a document that outlines all of our goals and strategies in totality. We then take each one of those and create an implementation and moving-forward plan for every single item that's in that document.

H. Bains: Let me go into a couple of areas of the mandate letter. First, let's talk about No. 3: "Working with the Ministries of Advanced Education and Education, develop a seamless ten-year skills-training plan for students from high school through entry into the workplace."

That was a year ago that that letter came. There is a mandate given to the minister for ten years, to have that plan. Are we going to be completed, that particular area, within ten years, or is that going to be, again, open-ended, and we don't know?

Hon. S. Bond: No, in fact it's not open-ended. I don't remember the date last week. It was Tuesday. We rolled out a ten-year skills-training plan for students from high school through entry into the workforce. It contains pages of…. I just actually read some of the specifics, like doubling the number of ACE IT spaces and targeting $270 million over the next three years.

The report is detailed. It is comprehensive. Most critically, from my perspective, it's one of the first times — and I'm a 13-year cabinet minister — that I've actually seen ministries — three, four, five ministries — working together to produce one document that says we understand that students need to start early. We need to make sure they are exposed to new opportunities, new information, from the time they're in elementary school and working their way up through high school.

We have, in fact, completed that part of our mandate letter, and we are very excited about the blueprint that's been created. It has received incredibly positive feedback across the sectors. We will be working now, energetically,
[ Page 3598 ]
to deliver on each of the items in that blueprint.

H. Bains: Maybe I can look at another one, No. 7: "Working with the Ministry of Education, identify best practices and pilot new programs to ensure high school students are able to obtain applied trades skills while in high school."

Has that been completed, or how far are we into it?

[1715]

Hon. S. Bond: On page 10 of the B.C.'s Skills for Jobs Blueprint, which is the ten-year plan that we have worked on, some of the programs are described in terms of working with education and post-secondary institutions. For example, we are very supportive of and are looking at dual-credit programs, making sure that students have opportunities to take courses and programs. They can do that while they're in a secondary school program, and then they attend a college or an institution.

There are a number of ways. We're looking at dual credit. We're looking at ACE IT. We have high school apprenticeships. We have a number of ways that we're saying that students should have opportunities earlier. They should be innovative. We're looking at partnerships as well.

That work is included, as are a number of the other items that the member is asking about, in our B.C.'s Skills for Jobs Blueprint.

H. Bains: Is the minister saying, then, on point No. 7 in the mandate letter, that that mandate is completed?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the work to talk about best practices is completed, because it helps to guide the plan that we've created. But piloting new programs and looking at ways to move forward…. The principles of the plan will continue over the course of the next number of years.

I'm always impressed by school districts' and post-secondary institutions' creativity and innovation. In fact, we've heard some very good feedback about the innovation that this document encourages. I look forward to seeing a number of new programs over the next number of years.

Initially, we're going to look at ACE IT programs. We're going to look at expanding opportunities for dual credit — looking at how we teach courses, looking at innovation partnerships with industry.

In terms of identifying best practices, yes, I would consider it, having been completed, to be a part of the framework of this. But I think it's essential that you continue to identify best practices.

My comment about there isn't an end state here…. I would want a system of skills-training opportunities and an educational system that is constantly evolving, always looking for best practices and always creating new programs. So I don't see that one as having a final checkoff. It's something we will continue to do. But for the document and for the work we've done together, we certainly spent a great deal of time talking about best practice and looking at new programs.

H. Bains: I understand the education system is always evolving. But if we are to bring changes — and it seems to me the mandate letter clearly is requiring the minister to have certain changes so that the high school students are able to obtain applied trade skills while in high school — there has to be a program in place. There has to be a program that is up and running.

If we don't know when that will be up and running, whether the program is in development stage…. Is the program in place now? Or will it be in place and up and running?

[1720]

Will it be a full-fledged program — whatever the program may be, the new pilot programs — so that the high school students are able to obtain applied trade skills while they are in high school? Because that will be the foundation as far as skills training.

I'm just asking the minister how far into that program development we are. Are we moving towards a certain implementation date? When will we have the model? The minister probably has a vision, or the Premier has the vision. What kind of model are we looking at? When will that program be up and running in high schools?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite earlier, one of our commitments is to double the number of ACE
[ Page 3599 ]
IT programs. ACE IT programs are partnerships with school districts, employers and post-secondary institutions, and the models vary by school districts. What we're saying by piloting new programs is: "Take the principles behind having students in both high school and then at post-secondary at the same time and capitalize on that." We're going to double the number of those programs.

Some of the most profound stories of success that I have heard, both in my time as Education Minister and now as minister responsible for skills training, are of students who take these very programs. They absolutely love being at a post-secondary institution, getting their credits. They get credits at two levels. They finish their high school graduation credit, and they also get first-year apprenticeship technical training credits.

What we're saying is: "Figure out best practice, and pilot new ways if necessary." But in addition to that, we're going to double the number of opportunities kids have to take those programs.

We also have secondary school apprenticeship programs, Youth Exploring Skills to Industry Training. What we've said is that we're going to continue to look at best practice, encourage innovation and partnerships with industry, and that's an ongoing practice.

We are going to, as I said, double the number of ACE IT spaces and continue to look for innovation, allowing students to do exactly what we said we think is critical — that is, to start earlier, to have more hands-on opportunities, to have an opportunity to have engagement with industry throughout that process.

H. Bains: Again, it just fails me, because I have asked this question in a number of different ways. I understand what the minister is saying, but again, when the minister says, "We will double the ACE IT spaces," when the minister says, "The second-year apprenticeship program will be in place," there has to be some timeline. When will the ACE IT spaces be doubled? By what time, what date? There must be some plan in place so that by a certain date you require the schools, you require the ministry to make sure that we have doubled those spaces.

Again, the apprenticeship program in secondary schools — when will we have that implemented? When will that start? I think we are looking at some of the time frames. Otherwise, we are leaving it open-ended, the programs. They may be here next year, or they may be here ten years from today.

Only to be fair to all those people listening here, they need to understand by what date, by what time frame. Do you have any timeline put in place around these to make sure that they know when those spaces will be doubled and when the secondary apprenticeship program will be in place and up and running?

Hon. S. Bond: I have already answered the question about ACE IT spaces. I said that it was over the next two years. In fact, that is a program that works in two parts. High school students take their first level of technical training in certain trades, which is exactly what we're talking about, which could qualify them for apprenticeship industry training programs. So we're doubling the number of ACE IT spaces over the next two years.

We're also looking at how we support schools and students in a variety of ways, including expanding dual-credit programs. Those are programs that, as would be fairly self-explanatory…. They take relevant courses and programs that help them move into post-secondary studies or the workplace faster with the skills that they need.

[1725]

There is an entire list of things that we are going to work through. As I said to the member opposite…. He's more than welcome to repeat the question as many times as he likes about ACE IT, and I'd be happy to answer it as many times as he asks it. The facts are, and I listed a number of them, that we're going to double those spaces to 5,000 over the next two years.

The report itself, in terms of the actual blueprint, is just under 50 pages long. In it we outline a strategic plan with specific steps that we intend to take to look at how students get started earlier, how they get new opportunities in the middle of that career.

Then on the other end of that, we're reforming the Industry Training Authority. As I said to the member, we are moving aggressively on the Industry Training Authority plan. We've appointed a new board. The chair is in place. We expect to see a transition plan to the new system, looking at the recommendations that were presented, within 90 days.

H. Bains: Was any budget, if there was any, allocated to any of those ten points?

Hon. S. Bond: The plan that we have is called Re-engineering Education and Training in British Columbia. Today we spend over $7 billion on training and educational opportunities — skills-training opportunities. The work that we have done, which is incredibly comprehensive, actually takes an existing system and says: "We have to line up what we're doing with the needs that British Columbia will have today and in the future." That's exactly what we have done.

There are some new dollars that are being allocated in education and in advanced education — small amounts of dollars. The member is welcome to discuss those amounts with those ministers as part of their budget discussions.

The point of re-engineering is taking $7 billion of taxpayers' money that we spend every single year in the province and making sure that we are giving students the best opportunities to be successful. It is not about an either-or situation. We are not simply saying that we're not going to do these things and that we're going to do all of these things. We're saying that we need to be better aligned in the way we spend those dollars.

We've been clear from the beginning. We believe that $7 billion of taxpayers' money is a fairly significant investment on an annual basis. Our goal is to make sure that the programs that are offered are aligned to the needs that our province will have.

H. Bains: We will explore that part of the estimates, I think, later on.

I'm going to move on to the ministry here. Are there any asset sales from this ministry in this budget?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the answer of my team was: "We don't have any assets." We have a lot of assets; they're called human assets. No, we have not disposed of any. We do not have any capital assets that we are disposing of.

H. Bains: Did the ministry receive Treasury Board approval for access to contingencies and a new programs vote?

[1730]

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]
[ Page 3600 ]

Hon. S. Bond: We do not have access to contingencies for 2014-2015 at this point.

H. Bains: As part of the core review, each minister was tasked, actually, with identifying which programs and services under this ministry should be reviewed. My question to the minister: did this minister make this determination yet?

Hon. S. Bond: We have taken on a number of initiatives related to the core review concept. We started inwardly, and we looked at our own ministry to decide. One of the major goals of the core review is to look at barriers and how you can do things better, more efficiently. I think you should be doing that all the time.

When we looked at the specific core review mandate, we started with our ministry. We made the determination that in order to deliver on our mandate letter, which we've just gone through, we needed to look at how the ministry was shaped and begin to focus on some other priorities. One of those would be data.

We, as a team, have looked at the principle that data actually does drive decision-making. You need to understand the labour market — that's part of our job — in order to create policy and to create a blueprint for a Jobs and Skills Training plan. We started within our own ministry and decided we were going to look at things differently.

[1735]

So that would be the first thing I would consider part of what our core review decisions were. Secondly, I was concerned about the process related to the processing of PNP applications — immigration, generally, in the ministry. Everyone's working very hard, but we need to streamline that process. We need to be able to speed it up, so we're looking at moving that system on line, which will take some transition time. That was the second piece.

The third piece the member would be well aware of. That is that we are taking a look at WorkSafe. We're looking at it not only from the health and safety aspects that he would be well aware of, but we're also looking at it from the perspective of costs, administration, efficiencies — all of those things. That would be the third.

Another would be looking at our Gaining the Edge strategy, our tourism strategy, making sure that it's current, up to date and refreshed. Those are the key things that as a ministry team we decided we would focus on in terms of a core review.

H. Bains: Those are the only four areas that were reviewed? Are there any additional areas that are being looked at?

Hon. S. Bond: The four substantive pieces are the ones that I mentioned earlier. But in chatting, we…. There are three other far less substantive pieces, things that we're looking at in terms of our efficiencies.

One is the major investments office. Again, that was just looking at: is it working well? It receives rave reviews on a regular basis, but are there other things we could do to help major investors coming to the province? It's really not a significant piece.

Second is looking at all of the things that we do from a Jobs lens. That is something…. Does this create jobs? Does this project create jobs? How do we…? We are very driven in our ministry, obviously. We're responsible for the jobs plan and its outcomes. That would be another sort of far less substantive piece.

[1740]

The only other area that we're taking a look at is just the efficiency and cost and spending of the Labour Relations Board. That, again — a much less substantive piece.

It has been ten or 11 years since it's been looked at. It is not about policy change or anything of that nature but simply just doing a touch-base to make sure that 11 years after the last time it was looked at — I should be clear that I'm not 100 percent sure if it's ten or 11 — we've gone back to just look at and make sure that there are efficiencies, and at spending, those kinds of things.

That would be all of the pieces, but the three I just mentioned are far less substantive — really, work we would do in the normal course of our ministry work.

H. Bains: When will all these reviews be completed?

Hon. S. Bond: Our timeline is that of the core review more broadly. The initiatives needed to be completed before the end of the year. In the case of an item — for example, a data-driven ministry looking at how we organize ourselves — I mean, there are ways that we're looking at the work that our staff currently does. Do we need additional capacity? Do we have the right expertise to do those things? That is underway.

Our timelines are lined up with the core review generally, which was that the task was to be complete by the end of the year.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell the House what services this ministry has outsourced to contractors?

Hon. S. Bond: We have not discontinued a service that we provide and outsourced it. We have not done that. We, like other ministries in government, from time to time do, though, have contracts for services. A good example of that would be when I asked Jessica McDonald to do the review of the Industry Training Authority. That would have been a contract for service. But we have not discontinued any of the services we provide and outsourced them.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could tell us how much was spent on contractors providing services to the min-
[ Page 3601 ]
istry in the last fiscal year.

[1745]

Hon. S. Bond: We're looking at trying to find the total here for you.

If you look at new contracts in fiscal 2013, the total value was $4.074 million, and that was 87 contracts.

H. Bains: How does that compare to the previous year? Has the value gone up or lower?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not in a position to comment on it, because it hasn't been a year yet. I'm advised that there is a fairly consistent amount, but we don't have the data for the last year. We will get that number and bring that to the member opposite tomorrow.

H. Bains: My next question is: how many of these contracts were tendered of the 87 total? How many were direct-awarded, and which ones?

[1750]

Hon. S. Bond: Just for the record, obviously, any direct awards were made following core policy, which is that contracts may be negotiated and directly awarded without competitive process where one of the following exceptional conditions applies: another government organization, only one contractor is qualified or available, unforeseeable emergency exists, maintain security or order, confidential or privileged nature and a notice of intent is posted on B.C. Bid.

The number of direct-award contracts issued in 2013-14 was 41, and the total amount was $641,000. The average, I'm told, was approximately $13,000, but you can imagine: there were 41 contracts, $641,000.

H. Bains: As the minister said — and then read out the criteria for direct award…. Was each one of those 41 in that category? They met the criteria that the minister read?

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: It's certainly my expectation that all of the direct-award contracts would follow the core policies. Obviously, it goes through a process, through the ministry with approvals. The decisions were based on core policy.

In addition to that, I can share with the member opposite that there is a vendor complaint process. If a vendor is concerned about any of the contracts that have been let by our ministry, there is a process. In fact, I can tell the member opposite that we only received one vendor complaint in 2013-2014.

H. Bains: Can the minister share about that complaint — what that complaint was about and which contract? If the minister can name the contract and the contractor's name.

Hon. S. Bond: The one vendor complaint we received in 2013-14 was related to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. We fondly call it WCAT. The complainant, who was a systems service provider, questioned whether a request for proposal, an RFP, had been drafted to favour the incumbent. There was a concern about the way it had been posted. What WCAT did was to extend the solicitation period and post additional information for potential vendors onto B.C. Bid, and the complainant was satisfied with WCAT's approach.

H. Bains: How much is budgeted for in the coming year for these contract services?

Hon. S. Bond: The amount budgeted for operational contracts is, in 2014-15…. I'm going to give the member the number. It's going to be bigger, and then I'm going to explain why. It's $11.165 million. The reason it's bigger than the numbers previously is because there are multi-year contracts that we still have to pay. So if the contract was put in place two years ago or whatever it was, you'd see the accumulation of that cost in budget 2014-2015.

I should point out, though, that that is a $5.867 million decrease from 2013-2014, where the total amount for operational contracts was over $17 million. That is because of the change of Destination British Columbia. In other words, DBC has moved outside of government, and the amount budgeted for operational contracts has since decreased by over $5 million from 2013-2014.

[1800]

H. Bains: The ministry must have some dedicated FTEs to monitor and review these contracts and review the performance of these contractors. Perhaps the minister could tell the House how many FTEs. Are there regular reports made on the review of the contractor's performance, and are those reports available?

Hon. S. Bond: There are three dedicated staff that are responsible for oversight and management of ministry contracts. That doesn't mean that…. Line managers, for example, are also responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of those contracts. So we have three that are in oversight positions, and they also scrutinize the process of tendering and making sure that we are following the core expectations. In essence, they're responsible for quality control.

So we have three people doing that. That would be in addition to our CFO and EFO, both who have, obviously, the end responsibility for the overall management of the program.

H. Bains: My second part of that question was,
[ Page 3602 ]
Minister: is there regular review of the performance of these contractors? If the answer is yes, are those reports available, and how often are those reports produced?

Hon. S. Bond: As I alluded to earlier, line management staff for the program departments actually do the day-to-day management and looking at whether or not the deliverables are being met through the contract. They obviously have the advice of the CFO and EFO and the three dedicated staff.

[1805]

Again, I need to point out that the three dedicated staff are actually responsible for the entire process, making sure that we're meeting the expectations of core policy. The day-to-day management of contracts, ensuring that deliverables are being met, is the responsibility of the line manager in whoever's part of the ministry that contract is applicable to.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could ask it from a little different angle. Have there been any problems with performance of contract, and have there been any penalties, fines or any other sort of resolution to these problems? Or has there been an audit done and the report came out and suggested that a certain contractor did not perform the way the contract requires, and what was the end result?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised that we have very few defaults, issues with fines. I'm told that there is one circumstance that is currently under review so I'm not in a position to speak to the details of that. The review is underway, and they are working to find a resolution with that particular contract.

Generally speaking, we have exceptional deliverables, and there are very few issues in terms of the contract management process.

H. Bains: I will move on to some of the easier questions for the minister now. I know the minister will have it at her fingertips. These are very easy ones.

What is the current number of FTEs in the ministry right now?

[1810]

Hon. S. Bond: The number is 617. Obviously, there is some variation, but that was the average number over the course of last year.

H. Bains: How does it compare to the previous year?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the number because it would actually be an apples-to-oranges comparison. The ministry in this format did not exist last year. For example, the Ministry of International Trade has been created and Destination B.C., where we had a significant number of people who were employed and are now working outside of government. So it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. We don't actually have the number with us. The current number, though, for this year, as I said, is 617.

H. Bains: Are there any vacancies currently in the ministry that need to be filled, and will they be filled?

Hon. S. Bond: The average vacancy rate — again, it's a point in time — in 2013-14 is 16 percent. We expect that we're about that place.

We do have an envelope within which we work to fill staff. As I said to the member opposite, we are looking at how we change our ministry and look at where we need capacity. So some of those vacancies may well be filled. It will be limited net new positions, but obviously, all of our staffing actions will be in alignment with our staffing targets.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion on the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services and report progress on the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:14 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