2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 12, Number 4

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

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2014

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

L. Krog: Lord, as we gather in this chamber every day, conscious of our many responsibilities and the honour bestowed upon us by the people of British Columbia, we also give welcome this morning to this Assembly to 14 members of the Canadian Armed Forces who recently served in the Afghanistan mission.

We offer our thanks and our prayers for those who have returned safely, our thanks and our prayers for the souls of those who will not return, our thanks and our prayers for those who are recovering from the trauma of combat and our thanks and our prayers to all of their families and loved ones. We recognize their courage and sacrifice for our country and for the people of Afghanistan, who struggle for the benefits of democracy and freedom and peace that we enjoy here every day.

Amen.

Tributes

DAY OF HONOUR FOR VETERANS
OF CANADA'S MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN

Madame Speaker: Members, our special guests on the floor this morning have joined us as we commemorate the National Day of Honour in recognition of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014.

It's my absolute pleasure to make the introductions: Capt. Robert Peel, Canadian Scottish Regiment, recipient of the Medal of Military Valour for his actions in Afghanistan; Lt. Daniel Sargent, 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron; Master Warrant Officer Dan Menard, unit sergeant-major, Military Police Unit Esquimalt; Chief Petty Officer 2nd Class Kelly Yerama, Canadian Forces Fleet School Esquimalt; Chief Petty Officer 2nd Class Daniel Poirier, Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, logistics branch; Chief Petty Officer 2nd Class Dave McAlpine, Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Breton; Sgt. Michel Duguay, Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, construction and engineering branch; Master Cpl. Jayden Cormier, Canadian Scottish Regiment; Master Cpl. Robert Chalmers, Canadian Scottish Regiment; Master Seaman Jamison MacMurchy, Canadian Forces Fleet School Esquimalt; Cpl. Sheldon Crawford, Military Police Unit Esquimalt; Cpl. Colin McGregor, Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Breton; Cpl. David Jaen, Military Police Unit Esquimalt; Leading Seaman Sylvain Dostie, Canadian Forces Fleet School Esquimalt.

Would everyone please pause for a moment of silence to reflect on the sacrifices made by families and communities across the land and for the brave men and women who have served in the Afghanistan mission.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Ypres, Vimy, Passchendaele, Dieppe, Ortona, Monte Cassino, Courseulles-sur-Mer, Normandy, Korea, Cyprus, Suez.

These are some of the places around the world where Canadians have fought, died, for freedom and to preserve the peace. This is the legacy of those special people who join us in this chamber today.

These remarkable servicewomen and servicemen remind us that from this day forward, when we stand before the cenotaph or bow our heads towards the flags that line the Highway of Heroes, let us also remember Kandahar, Camp Nathan Smith, Kabul, Camp Julien.

Let's remember the storied regiments and units — the Canadian Scottish, the Royal Westies, the air squadrons, the naval forces, the military police — whose colours flew in a troubled land and who left a lasting impression of what it is to be Canadian.

[1010]

Most importantly, let's remember the individuals whom we ask to stand in harm's way, those who we ask to confront the horror of pointing a weapon at another human being and the fear of having a weapon pointed at them; to kill when necessary and, tragically, to be killed; to deal with the trauma of watching a friend or an innocent child killed or maimed by those bent on the preservation of tyranny and fear.

Most came home. They walk among us. Their scars and haunting memories are camouflaged beneath uniforms and the required veil of civilian life.

Many did not come home. The reminder of their ultimate sacrifice reveals itself in the faces of the husbands, the wives, the sons and the daughters, friends and loved ones who every day mourn their loss.

To those that join us today and to those families who mourn elsewhere, in fairness we cannot really understand your experiences. We cannot really comprehend your loss. We can only say thank you and pledge to never, ever forget.

B. Ralston: We on this side join to recognize those Canadians who courageously gave their lives in the mission in Afghanistan. We acknowledge and honour their sacrifice and join with their families, their partners, their parents, their children and their communities across British Columbia in so doing.

As we honour those who died, we also recognize those veterans of the mission who returned either physically disabled by war injuries or bearing deep psychological injuries from the experience of battlefield conflict. We wish that they and their families receive the support
[ Page 3670 ]
they require to rejoin Canadian society successfully and in good health.

We honour those Canadians who lost their lives in the Afghan mission. We shall remember them.

[Applause.]

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: I would like to introduce someone who is sitting in the gallery today. It's sometimes unusual for members of this side of the House to introduce staff members from that side of the House, but I would like to introduce today Suneil Karod, who is in the gallery today. He is the associate coach of the Junior B champions, the Victoria Cougars.

Members may remember that I did issue a bit of a challenge to my colleague from Nelson-Creston. Today I'm collecting on that bet, and there'll be more about that shortly, but can we please welcome Suneil and the great work he's done in bringing the Victoria Cougars championship to us here in Victoria.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 43 grade 11 students from a Burnaby community school, along with their teacher Greg Neumann. They're here to learn about the great history of this great building and also the political system that they will be watching today. I think they are seated up there. If they're not, they'll be walking in soon.

In 2012 Byrne Creek was awarded the Whole Child Award by the international Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Please join me to welcome all these wonderful students here today.

V. Huntington: I am extremely pleased today to be able to introduce a wonderful constituent of mine, Ms. Sylvia Skratek, who is a highly regarded labour arbitrator in the United States and is a former Washington State senator. She is accompanied by her sister Carolyn, who is visiting from Michigan and is fascinated with the business we conduct here. I've assured her that she'll be even more fascinated after this hour is over.

Will the House make them welcome.

[1015]

Statements

RESPONSE TO KIDNAPPING
OF SCHOOLGIRLS IN NIGERIA

M. Elmore: I think it was with shock and disbelief we heard of the stories of the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria by an insurgent group who are opposed to the education of girls. It was brought to the world's attention by local activists in Nigeria: parents who are desperate for the return of their daughters, their children, and also an international social media campaign, #bringbackourgirls.

I think I am accurate in saying that for all members of the House here, our thoughts and prayers are for the safe return of the girls in Nigeria and are also with the parents who are desperate to have them returned. They're also with the local Nigerian communities here in British Columbia and across Canada, who feel very desperate and helpless.

I'd like to extend our support to them and also let everybody know that the local Nigerian community…. Sam Oseghale, with the Nigeria Canada Development Association of B.C., has called the kidnapping barbaric, and they're organizing a rally at the Vancouver Art Gallery on Saturday at 12 noon, at the Robson Square.

Our support is with them. There is action that we can take, each of us, to send that message to the Nigerian government to not only recover the girls safely but ensure that girls and children are safe going to school in Nigeria.

I'd like to ask for the support of the House for this endeavour and that our thoughts and prayers are for the safe return of the schoolgirls.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

RECOGNITION OF
GORDON NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE
AND ST. PAUL'S ADVOCACY SERVICES

S. Chandra Herbert: Today I'm honoured to recognize two vital organizations in the West End that represent the best in how we live and look after each other and how together we grow. I speak of Gordon Neighbourhood House and St. Paul's advocacy.

In the West End–Coal Harbour we live very close to each other. Walking across my riding — and most walk to get to work — you pass a whole world, from condos to co-ops, lots of rental, with many immigrants, longtime West Enders, families, elders, students and a great small business sector. At the heart of our diverse riding, within blocks of each other, we have Gordon Neighbourhood House and St. Paul's advocacy pulsing with activity.

At any given time of day people stream in and out of Gordon Neighbourhood House. Founded in 1942, the House has acted as an extended living room, dining room and kitchen for West End residents on a daily basis. From creative children's play to drop-in teen art to an elders lounge to new immigrant supports and community lunches, the house nourishes people inside and out with its huge variety of affordable and free programs. It lifts people up, empowers them and brings together our community in all of its diversity.

A few blocks away, just off Davie on Jervis, St. Paul's advocacy, which was founded in 1995, serves as one of the few places where you can really believe no one is turned
[ Page 3671 ]
away and no problem is left unheard. St. Paul's advocacy provides help and support to anyone in difficulty. Incredible volunteers help people who are sometimes in the depths of despair to have hope once again and get the support they need, from income assistance to housing to medical support. They make a real difference.

Their homelessness outreach team supports some of the most vulnerable people in our riding to get housing. Their unofficial motto must be "Giving people a reason to smile," as that's what they do, and that's what they work for.

These two organizations do so much with tight budgets, coupled with a profound need for their services. Their inspiring volunteers make it all possible. Thank you to both Gordon Neighbourhood House and St. Paul's advocacy.

FLOOD PUMP AT HARRISON HOT SPRINGS
AND FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECTS
IN CHILLIWACK

L. Throness: Last summer I visited the village of Harrison Hot Springs in my riding to see an old flood pump. The Miami River flows through this beautiful community into Harrison Lake, and in the spring the Miami threatens to flood the entire village if the lake is too high.

That's why the village installed a flood pump long ago, a pump that is now ancient and decrepit. So Harrison applied to the infrastructure program and appealed to the province for assistance — of course, with my support.

[1020]

Last week it was a pleasure to visit the village again to announce that the provincial and federal governments will each contribute a third of the total cost of $1.7 million for a brand-new flood pump. This is vital infrastructure, hugely important to the village.

That's not all. There were three other important flood mitigation projects announced last week in Chilliwack, always vulnerable to flooding from the Fraser River. The Collison pump station will be upgraded. Cultus Lake will receive a Frosst Creek sediment basin upgrade, and in Hope we're providing greater outfall protection for the wastewater treatment plant. These four projects will cost a total of $5 million, and our government alone is committing $1.7 million toward them.

Especially in the wake of flooding in High River, Alberta 11 months ago, it is ever more important that we pay attention to flood mitigation here in B.C. That's why I was also encouraged to hear that the Fraser Basin Council is undertaking a flood mitigation study along the Fraser River from Hope to Richmond. The Integrated Flood Hazard Management Committee will give us a bird's-eye view of all that we need to do to make certain that floods will not threaten the safety of millions, as well as billions of dollars' worth of investment in the Fraser Valley.

As MLA, I'm proud that our government is listening to smaller communities, and I will continue to advocate for more flood protection in the Fraser Valley.

AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER
AND ANGELS FOR AUTISM EVENT

S. Hammell: Autism spectrum disorders are complex, lifelong conditions that affect individuals, their families, friends and caregivers. Although many choose to focus on the limitations of those living with autism, I want to share with the House the accomplishments of the award-winning children I met at the Angels for Autism dinner.

Emma Giesbrecht, 16, was the winner of the social responsibility award for her outstanding advocacy on the issue of backyard chickens in the town of Langley. She started a petition to the mayor, set up a Chickens for Langley Facebook group and spread the word to surrounding communities.

The recipient of the arts award, Marcus Tovell, five, went from having difficulty drawing lines and circles to drawing human faces, and he's now an avid painter, achieving his most creative works on a huge piece of paper on his kitchen floor.

Jesi Piwek, 11, winner of the fine arts category, is known for her exceptional writing as well as her creative comic strips. The delightful kindergarten award winner, Nishaan Gill, another five-year-old, impressed everyone by learning to count to 100 by 18 months and by teaching himself to read at 3½.

Tyus Lammers, winner of the academic award, excels in math, science and social studies. Finally, an active participant in the Vancouver Canucks Autism Network, eight-year-old Jacob Paige was the winner of the sports award for outstanding performance in all sports activities.

These kids were beyond thrilled when a medal was placed over their heads, and there was not a person watching who was not deeply moved. Congratulations to the ABA academy, the founder of the Angels for Autism awards, for giving every one of us at that event the opportunity to witness these moments.

ST. JOHN THE DIVINE ANGLICAN CHURCH
IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Dalton: I stand in the House today to recognize the remarkable history of the oldest church on mainland B.C. I attended the celebrations at St. John the Divine Anglican Church in Maple Ridge last weekend to commemorate the church's 155th anniversary, constructed during the 1850s gold rush.

Rev. William Crickmer arrived in the community of Derby, also known as Old Fort Langley, shortly after British Columbia became a Crown colony in 1858. Spurred by Derby's booming population, Rev. Crickmer laid plans for the construction of the church, which was
[ Page 3672 ]
completed in 1859.

However, the boom at Derby was short-lived. The colony of British Columbia transferred the new official capital to New Westminster, and Derby became a ghost town overnight.

The church's storied history includes withstanding two moves. The first move in 1882 saw the church disassembled to drift across the mighty Fraser River, on a daring raft made of its own timbers, to what is now Maple Ridge. After the huge pile of lumber crossed the river, a team of oxen and every available man used rollers and windlasses to hoist the church up the steep slope of the riverbank.

[1025]

With the help of the Royal Engineers from Chilliwack, the second and more modest move nearly 100 years later saw the church relocated down a city block to its present home. Later renovations included a large hall for social functions, community group use, church school and daycare.

Today St. John the Divine is a community and heritage landmark. I would like the House to join me in congratulating St. John the Divine's rector, Charles Balfour; Rev. Maggie Cole; and all of its parishioners on the church's 155th anniversary and for keeping vibrant this historical building of significance for all British Columbians.

PARTICIPATION BY VICTORIA COUGARS
AND NELSON LEAFS HOCKEY TEAMS IN
CYCLONE TAYLOR AND KEYSTONE CUPS

M. Mungall: Each year the Cyclone Taylor Cup brings together the champions of B.C.'s three Junior B hockey leagues and their host team to square off for the cup and the chance to play in the western Canadian Junior B championship, the Keystone Cup.

The tournament is aptly named after one of professional hockey's early stars Cyclone Taylor. In his day, at the turn of the last century, Cyclone was, well, a cyclone on ice. One of the league's top scorers, he eventually led not one but two teams to win the Stanley Cup. First it was the Ottawa Capitals in 1909. His second cup came with the Vancouver Millionaires in 1915. The Canucks can take note.

Now, aspiring Stanley Cup winners head to the ice for the coveted cup in honour of Cyclone. This year the Nelson Leafs hosted the Aldergrove Kodiaks, Beaver Valley Nighthawks and Victoria Cougars April 9 to 13 at the Nelson and District Community Complex.

Nelsonites know a thing or two about showing off our beautiful community. After all, we were named by Maclean's magazine as one of the top places to visit in Canada, so no surprise that the Nelson Leafs did an excellent job hosting the event. Walking along our famed Baker Street, I overheard several visitors from the tournament comment about how much they loved Nelson and how the Nelson Leafs had top scores as hosts.

Unfortunately, the Leafs' exceptional job at hosting did not translate into on-ice hockey standings, and so I stand before this House today admitting defeat in my wager with the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads. The Cougars beat the Leafs for the bronze, with Kootenay West's Beaver Valley Nighthawks taking the cup.

Nevertheless, everyone played good games, gave it their all and had a good time. Well done to my neighbours in the Beaver Valley, but today, in honour of my wager and the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, I have to say: "Go, Cougars, go."

ABBOTSFORD INTERNATIONAL AIR SHOW

D. Plecas: One of the things I'm most proud of in my riding of Abbotsford South is the Abbotsford International Air Show. For over 50 years now this show has been host to hundreds of flight crews and aviation experts from around the world. In doing so, it has provided incredible entertainment for tens of thousands of spectators who attend each year.

This year the show will take place, as it normally does, in the second week of August. I would like all members of the House to drop whatever they're doing and make sure they get out there to see the show. If you haven't been to this show before, then you will appreciate, going there, why it's recognized as one of the best air festivals in the entire world.

That said, what most people don't know is that Abbotsford, through the Abbotsford Air Show and the adjoining international trade show, is becoming a significant platform to showcase Canadian excellence in the aerospace industry. That aerospace industry, as you may know, is worth $1.9 trillion worldwide, and every country in the world is competing for the highly skilled jobs and economic boost that come along with unprecedented growth opportunities.

For our part, right now in British Columbia the aerospace industry amounts to a $1.2 billion economic activity, and it employs over 10,000 British Columbians. A big part of that, as just one example, is Cascade Aerospace, which makes its home right at Abbotsford International Airport. Cascade Aerospace is recognized as a leader and major innovator in aerospace. It all speaks to demonstrating that British Columbia has what it takes to produce innovation and quality in the aerospace industry.

[1030]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PLAN

M. Karagianis: Sadly, last week we saw another incident of domestic violence that resulted in a death. That marks the latest in a rash of murders rooted in domestic violence in the past few months.
[ Page 3673 ]

Sadly, the office of domestic violence that this government set up can offer no help and no resources. It has no teeth, no programs. In fact, it has no authority over or responsibility for anything other than coordinating intergovernmental programs.

In estimates questioning it was made clear that specific responsibilities for policing and domestic violence units sit with the Justice Minister, so my question is to the Justice Minister. What steps is she taking to prevent more of these terrible deaths?

Hon. S. Anton: These recent serious and tragic incidents remind us why we need to be always working to help people in violent situations and to prevent violence. That's why the Premier has made a commitment towards a violence-free British Columbia, and that's why the emphasis on the provincial office of domestic violence.

Over the past year government has taken significant action on domestic violence, including the launch of the domestic violence plan, $70 million a year in prevention and intervention services, most of the recommendations from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, protection orders and enhanced policing.

But there is more that can be done. There's more that must be done because we need to help people in those situations around British Columbia to prevent these tragedies. That's why we've made a commitment to introduce a long-term, comprehensive strategy to move towards a violence-free British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I think it's very apparent that is yet again another empty slogan from this government. The children's representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has voiced her serious concerns. Recently, as recently as yesterday, she has said things like "It isn't, in my opinion, much of a plan. It's a bit of an empty shell." She also said that "there isn't sufficient justice system ownership of the issue," and yesterday she said there are no "detailed, serious initiatives consistent with best practices in responding to domestic violence across Canada."

The current budget clearly shows that the domestic violence plan will not have any money until 2015, and then for only one year. Well, women who are at risk of violence right now cannot wait for 2015 for a plan. Once again, will the Justice Minister tell us how she's going to take immediate action to stop these tragedies?

Hon. S. Anton: One of the things the representative mentioned yesterday was the $70 million for crime prevention and intervention services. That includes $12.4 million for 160 victim service programs across British Columbia, $16½ million for violence against women counselling and outreach programs — and by the way, there were 34,000 people referred to those programs last year — $12.3 million for crime victims assistance programs and $32 million annually to support transition houses and safe homes.

We've got Police Act amendments to support bias-free policing. We've got the launch of the provincial domestic violence plan. We have supports for housing, including an annual funding to the WISH centre.

[1035]

We are making very serious commitments in government to a long-term, comprehensive strategy to move towards a violence-free British Columbia. But not just plans; there are actions. That $70 million a year represents actions in British Columbia that serve tens of thousands of people, particularly in domestic violence situations in British Columbia.

ACCESS TO LEGAL AID
BY VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

L. Krog: Well, history tells us something different. It was this government that slashed legal aid access for women fleeing violent relationships.

West Coast LEAF describes the lack of access to legal aid and the exclusion of women from access to justice as the biggest and "most urgent crisis in B.C.'s justice system." Legal Services Society policy is to handle only "serious family problems," and in the case of a single mom with one child, that would mean she'd have to make under $2,070 a month. This income threshold means that many women are left trapped in abusive situations because they simply can't navigate a complicated and confusing legal system without help.

How can the Justice Minister justify putting women's lives at risk by restricting access to legal aid?

Hon. S. Anton: Government has committed an additional $2 million — I am pleased to be able to report to the member opposite — this year to the Legal Services Society and is working with legal services on improved access to criminal matters, to criminal legal aid and to family legal aid.

So $74 million on legal aid and in addition to that, there's $30 million spent on our justice access centres — including one in the member's own riding — and family mediation centres. These are available to families in family dispute situations all around British Columbia. That's over $100 million committed by government towards legal services and legal assistance for people in British Columbia.

Indeed, we have increased the amount of legal aid. The increase will go towards family matters, and it will help families in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The Member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.
[ Page 3674 ]

L. Krog: The paltry two million bucks doesn't even begin to restore legal aid funding to where it was a dozen years ago in this province. Even when women can access legal aid to leave abusive relationships, the arbitrary limits on how much aid they can access is leading to situations where abusers are deliberately dragging out the court battles until the legal aid for their spouse runs out.

This leaves many women to represent themselves even though, as family lawyer Salima Samnani says: "These women are fleeing for their lives." Yet instead of offering them more hours to conclude their cases, the Justice Ministry forces women to choose: proceed through court without representation, or sit down with the abuser outside of court, where they are further re-victimized and often put at risk of further violence.

Does the Justice Minister really think it's fair and appropriate to force women to spend time with their abusers in order to access legal aid hours?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned, there are an additional $2 million a year going into legal aid in British Columbia, with a focus on family matters.

I should note, at the same time, that the justice access centres are available — and the one in Nanaimo — to people who need help, and they can go in there in an unlimited way. They provide crucial services to low-income clients, and that's actually a line from the West Coast LEAF's report. People acknowledge around British Columbia how valuable those services are.

But let me talk about another approach from government, another aspect of helping victims which is so important — that's our domestic violence units. I had the opportunity to visit the domestic violence unit in Vancouver recently. In fact, I've been there twice. They offer a robust response, a close partnership between family services, social workers, counsellors and police who attend together to calls of domestic violence.

These are the kinds of on-the-ground things that help victims and help families in domestic violence services. They're available in a number of cities now, and they are being increased throughout British Columbia because they do such good work to help people in violent situations.

[1040]

NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD HEARINGS
ON KINDER MORGAN PIPELINE PROPOSAL

A. Weaver: On April 14 Robyn Allan, one of 400 interveners in the Kinder Morgan hearings, submitted a motion asking the National Energy Board to introduce oral cross-examination into the process.

I joined many other interveners in writing a letter of support for Robyn Allan's motion, as I felt this was the best way to formally express the importance of such cross-examination.

The government had ten days to submit their own letter of support, but they didn't. A letter from the province would have had a profound influence on the NEB. Yesterday the NEB ruled on Robyn Allan's motion and a similar motion tabled by MP Elizabeth May, dismissing their requests for oral cross-examination.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Given the government's own comments that oral cross-examination of Enbridge was an essential part of determining whether or not the project met their five conditions, why did the government not take this opportunity to stand up for British Columbians and formally request oral cross-examination in the NEB hearing process?

Hon. M. Polak: I thank the member for his question and thank you for alerting me to his interest in the matter.

With respect to the National Energy Board hearings, I know the member is aware that they are a body that designs their own standard for how those hearings occur that we as a province do not influence.

Nevertheless, to the member's question, the oral cross-examination, direct cross-examination, is not the only way in which one can put forward a case. In fact, there are still opportunities for participants to ask questions of Kinder Morgan and present their own information and perspectives to the panel. Interveners have the option to file detailed written information requests that Kinder Morgan is obliged to respond to — and, in fact, in writing.

Also, interveners have the ability to address the review panel in person and to make their arguments and file written evidence.

With that knowledge we determined that the opportunities were still sufficient for us to provide as strong an argument for our five conditions around Kinder Morgan as we did in the northern gateway hearings.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Thank you, to the minister, for the response.

Oral cross-examination was essential to assessing the extent to which the project met the government's five conditions. It uncovered serious gaps in Enbridge's evidence and led the province to conclude that it could not support the project.

For the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project, oral cross-examination has been removed by the NEB. On April 23, I submitted an open letter to the Premier asking her to consider formally calling on the National Energy Board to introduce oral cross-examination. Two days ago I received a response that stated the following: "The province will use every forum available to ensure that the five conditions are met."

I respect that response. However, my question to the
[ Page 3675 ]
minister is this: does the government believe that two written requests are sufficient to assess the meeting of the proposal with its five conditions? And if not, what other forums is the government using to ensure that it will receive sufficient information to assess its five conditions?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I thank the member for the question. He will no doubt be aware that the province has not only committed to participating in the process, but we've actually been making our preparations to participate for months now as we approach the deadlines for submission.

For us, we still believe that with respect to our ability as interveners to request information in writing from Kinder Morgan…. We believe that we can do that in a detailed way that will provide us the information to evaluate. We also believe that we can provide to the panel, in person, an effective argument on behalf of our five conditions.

But it's also important to note that passage through the NEB process successfully is only one condition for us as a province. If we are not provided with sufficient evidence — not just commitments, but sufficient evidence — from the hearings, we certainly will maintain a position that upholds our five conditions.

We have seen that at the end of the northern gateway hearings when we concluded with a submission that, in fact, presented a lack of support from British Columbia.

[1045]

We will take the same approach here, entering neutral if we are not provided with sufficient evidence. If that process doesn't provide us with sufficient evidence, we will take the same approach.

IMPACT OF INTEGRATED CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ISSUES
ON INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

M. Mungall: April Davie is living in a transition house with her daughter. She has found a permanent home to move into, but she is waiting on her rent cheque from the Ministry of Social Development. She can't get it because of the week-long computer crash. Now she is at risk of losing the home she worked so hard to get. She and her daughter are worried that they're going to be going homeless because the Liberals failed to heed the warnings of this expensive, expensive computer system.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development. What is he doing to ensure that no one is left homeless because of the computer system crashing again? We want a better plan than just tweets and Facebook messages.

Hon. D. McRae: I want the member opposite and the general public to know that the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation works with about 175,000 clients at any one time, and we're doing our best to make sure we prioritize the ones that are in critical need right now.

Madam Speaker, I'm sure you wish to know as well. I want to reinforce that all income and disability assistance cheques for the month of May have gone out as of April 23. Now, occasionally there are issues where cheque stubs are not signed and such, and more work needs to be done, but that being said, the ministry continues to be able to provide services to clients in crisis need.

We can provide meal vouchers and grocery cards. We can provide arrangements for taxis and overnight shelters. We can provide referrals to the community agencies and resources. We can also contact landlords if an individual has an urgent need to secure accommodation. It's really important that all individuals, including the individual mentioned by the member opposite, work with the front-line staff in Social Development and Social Innovation.

The offices are open. The phone lines are up. E-mails are able to be received. People can go out. The front-line workers often know these individuals. We'll do our very best to prioritize this individual, and I thank the member opposite for raising this particular person.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: The computer system is down, and everything that the minister listed off is not doable because the computer system is down.

Interjections.

M. Mungall: Yes, it is. We have memos — we talked about them yesterday — that people are not getting the crisis grants. They are not getting the grocery vouchers. They are not getting the things that they need so that they can pay their bills and pay their rent and eat food.

April Davie is not alone. We've talked about several people, but I want to share the story of Martin Alexander, because he is suffering because of this failed computer system. He's a single dad with three kids under 12 years old. Martin did everything right when he recently applied for income assistance. He was told to send in his forms, and he did that, but he never heard back. He wasn't told that the system was down. He wasn't offered any assistance or any explanation at all. The system has been down for a week now, so to avoid a shelter for him and his sons, Martin had to rack up debt on his credit card. That's not right.

When is the government going to fix this problem? What's the date? When are they going to fix it? What are they doing in the meantime? And what are they telling Martin and April and their kids?

Hon. D. McRae: First of all, I don't want to ever belittle
[ Page 3676 ]
this situation. I want to apologize for the service delays during this stressful time for individuals. Ministry staff are working yeoman's service across British Columbia to make sure we're prioritizing the urgent needs that people come forward with and making sure that those who need services first are getting them first.

Also, the member opposite knows that the system has had intermittent problems going forward. We were in estimates last Thursday. ICM did not come up. We were in estimates all day on Monday. ICM did not come up. I understand that the Citizens' Services Minister was in estimates on Tuesday. Again, I don't believe that ICM came up there. That being said, there are service delays.

I want to be clear. The member opposite is wrong. There are supports that are still available for individuals. I said it earlier, and I'll say it one more time because I don't want people to leave this chamber thinking that services are not available.

[1050]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. McRae: Misinformation scares people, and that is not responsible of the members opposite.

Meal vouchers are available. Grocery cards are available. Shelter accommodations are available. Individuals can go into an office. They can phone an office. If they have access to a computer, they can send an e-mail. They can make contact with the front-line workers.

It is a challenging time right now. I do not want to belittle that for a second, but we are prioritizing those who need services first. We're making sure that those are getting the services they need.

Thank you to the member opposite for raising these individuals' names.

C. Trevena: There's a sense of "Let them eat cake" about the minister's responses.

My constituent — and I'm going to give the minister another example — is Silvana De-Natale, who lives on Cortes Island. She's got no money, and she's got no food for her children. She called the ministry, and they said that she can apply for a crisis grant. She legitimately could get a crisis grant, but since the computers are down, she'd need to take two ferries to get to Campbell River to do the paperwork by hand. The ferry would cost a minimum of $50. She'd need to get a sitter for her child.

Can the minister please tell this House and tell Silvana how this makes any sense at all?

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously I cannot comment on this particular case. I don't know if a waiver has been signed.

That being said, I'm sure that the member opposite for North Island heard recently that the offices are open. Phones are available. E-mail is available.

You know what? The other thing as well…. The member opposite for North Island has raised this issue for a constituent. Thank you very much.

Again, the member opposite was in estimates when I said that if they are aware, as an MLA, that a constituent is having a specific trouble and they can't get the answer, her MLA office is aware. So there's one thing you can do. You can raise it in this chamber, which is very appropriate, by all means. The other thing you can do is contact my ministry office and make sure the contact has been made.

To the members opposite: meal vouchers are available. Grocery cards are available. If people are going hungry, that is an issue that's very important and that we want to know about. We have the ability in the offices.

ICM is just one of the tools that the front-line workers in Social Development and Social Innovation use. They are incredibly skilled. They work so very hard. They're working to make sure individuals who need services the most are getting them right now.

IMPACT OF INTEGRATED CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ISSUES
ON SAFETY OF CHILDREN

C. James: Well, the staff who work in the ministries are working incredibly hard, and the last thing they need is a parade of ministers, as we saw yesterday, standing up and saying everything is fine when we know it's not, and the clients are struggling because of it.

Yesterday at 3:47 p.m. the Minister of Children and Families finally sent out guidelines to child protection workers on how to proceed with their work in light of the constant system crashes. Two years ago the Representative for Children and Youth urged the B.C. Liberals to put in place contingency plans. Instead of listening, the Liberals waited until a week after the system had crashed to put in place even basic guidelines to child protection workers.

Can the Minister of Children and Families explain why there was no backup plan in place and nothing sent out to front-line staff until a week after the system had been down?

Hon. S. Cadieux: First off, let me just assure the member and the House once again that the priority for the Ministry of Children and Families is always the safety and security of the youth and children that we serve.

That said, I will also reiterate, as has been done already in this House and was done yesterday: ICM has not been operating as expected. We regret this. We certainly regret the challenge that it's causing for our staff and for individuals who are facing delays in responses.

We are working to resolve that as quickly as we can. We appreciate everyone's patience and especially the patience of our staff who are, as a part of our standard oper-
[ Page 3677 ]
ating procedure, using backup systems that are in place in each service delivery area.

[1055]

Yes, an e-mail went out yesterday to clarify and, again, to ensure that staff all were using the same policy across the province. They have the ability to pull case files as necessary. We have the ability provincewide for read-only access of the system so that we have access to the critical information.

Computers are a tool and an important one. But they don't replace the professional staff that we have, nor do they make it impossible for our professional staff to act in the best interest of children, which they continue to do.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The minister says that everything is in place and the staff are fine. Well, let me read you a line from this memo that went out to staff. It says: "Use the MIS" — that's the system — "for history, but that does not include the last three years of history. There's limited available information about families, and so social workers should use caution and contact police to determine if there are safety issues." Contact police — that's the solution.

Unfortunately, this isn't the only example of IT problems with this government. The B.C. Liberals have spent more than half a billion dollars on computer disasters.

Let's look at the list: $100 million for a failed computer system for our schools; another $100 million to replace that failed system; $108 million over budget on the eHealth system; and of course, the crowning achievement of B.C. Liberal technology procurement, the almost $200 million on an integrated case management system that doesn't even serve its purpose.

Can the Minister of Citizens' Services explain how you spend half a billion dollars and still don't have systems that work?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to this series of questions, I just want to reiterate the responses from my colleagues that our primary goal is to make sure that those in need get prompt service. That doesn't necessarily depend on having computer systems. That depends on making sure that the needs of the needy are addressed on a timely basis through backup systems. The business continuity programs in the two ministries affected have been invoked, and they are in service now.

Now, in terms of the systems themselves, overnight the ICM information system was operating normally, and 250 users were on. This morning 1,500 users signed on. It was operating smoothly, and then it began to experience slowdowns. It is still unstable.

This is still unacceptable. We are going to get to the heart of the matter, solve it and fix it. We are sorry for those who've been inconvenienced by this episode. We're going to get to the bottom of it, because the needs of those British Columbians who find themselves in need are our top priority.

RECOVERY HOME
REGISTRATION AND REGULATION

S. Hammell: The Liberal government deregulated the recovery home system in 2002, throwing it into chaos. They have failed ever since to fix the problems they've created. Currently pharmacists dispensing methadone stand to make approximately $20 per day per client. This perverse incentive and the lack of recovery house regulation has left this program wide open to abuse from unscrupulous operators and pharmacists. It's a weak system that allows people to profit from addiction.

This side of the House has proposed the strong regulation of recovery homes as one pillar of a Surrey accord. Will the minister commit to taking this step today?

Hon. T. Lake: Our ministry and this government take its responsibility to protect vulnerable patients very seriously. We also are committed to making sure the taxpayers' money for health care services is used wisely.

[1100]

If there is any information that anyone has about anyone breaking the law, we will take that action seriously. We work with the College of Pharmacists. We have been in contact with the College of Pharmacists. Anyone who takes advantage of vulnerable people and does not follow the rules and regulations of the ministry will be punished as soon as that information is available. We work very hard with the College of Pharmacists to ensure that that is not the case.

We agree that it is heinous to take advantage of vulnerable people. We will continue to work hard so that that does not happen.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: As part of the Surrey accord initiative, my colleagues and I recently held a town hall meeting in Surrey about recovery homes. We heard from people in our communities about the abuse perpetuated by drug houses that masquerade as recovery homes. The operators prey on people who are on the methadone maintenance program, and they damage the reputation and credibility of the recovery home operators who are doing a good job.

If the minister refuses to fully regulate recovery homes, what will he do to address the problem of operators who are abusing the addicted and creating havoc in our neighbourhoods?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member opposite: I agree entire-
[ Page 3678 ]
ly that vultures who prey on vulnerable people need to be caught and need to be punished. That is why we work diligently with all the regulatory colleges to make sure that that does not happen. If the member opposite has specific information that can help to make sure that that is not the case, we will do that.

In terms of recovery homes, we register supportive recovery homes if they offer five hospitality services, and we make sure that they are registered under the assisted living community services act. Others that call themselves recovery homes that don't offer those services are not recovery homes.

There are remedies available to local government. For example, in Abbotsford, the regulations there are very effective. We would love to share that information with other municipalities, and we will work with municipalities to ensure that all of us, working together, will prevent vultures from preying on vulnerable people in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: Major projects come out of the ground only when their foundations are built. Helping build foundation for big projects all around western Canada is my son, whom I'm pleased to introduce in the House for the first time today, Angus Anton.

R. Fleming: Madame Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction as well, or rather, an announcement under introductions, as we do customarily.

Tributes

CHARLIE BUIJERT

R. Fleming: Recently a member of our community passed away, on May 4. It was Mr. Klaas Buijert — or Charlie, as he was known. Charlie was a former leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party, but he lived and worked for many, many decades of his life here in Victoria. He worked at Victoria Press. He held elected office with the International Typographical Union for many years.

This weekend his family and his friends will mourn his loss. A celebration of life will be held on Saturday, May 10, at 11 a.m. at Trinity Presbyterian Church on Tillicum Road. I wanted to bring this to the attention of members of this House in case anybody knows Charlie or his family, and, of course, all members are invited to this service.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General: Receiving Value for Money from Procured Professional and Advisory Services.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs. In this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 24.

[1105]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

M. Mungall: I'll start off by apologizing if I don't get the right terminology. I have not done this before. I'd like to rise on a question of privilege.

Deputy Speaker: The member reserves her right to raise a question of privilege.

M. Mungall: Just to explain, just now the Minister of Social Development said that I never asked him a question about the ICM system in the budget estimates process. I'm looking at the transcript of that very question that I did ask.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

D. Eby: I rise to resume my remarks relating to Bill 24 and why I'll be voting against this bill.

Yesterday I spoke about the importance of farmers markets, the increasing importance of farmers markets to B.C.'s economy and the concern among some that the rapid growth of farmers markets will lead to shortages of vendors, given the apparently insatiable public demand for B.C. products. I was speaking about chef John Bishop, who is in my constituency and talks about the importance of local food to his work, and another chef, a younger chef, Trevor Bird, who just opened a new business in my community, called Fable Restaurant, with his colleague Ron.
[ Page 3679 ]

He said, and this quote summarizes where the public mind is at in terms of local food and the need to protect agricultural land: "The whole concept of Fable," which is his new restaurant, "is knowing where your food comes from in ground-up cooking, getting back to fundamentals and doing everything we can ourselves — not bringing mass-produced food, if you will. It's all very close to home and very intimate." I would say that this understanding of the priority of local food is not unique to my constituency but is consistent among people across the province — their desire in having locally produced food coming from their local farmers.

It's not just the local context that we should be considering when we evaluate this bill weakening protections for agricultural land; it's also the international context. Currently we're facing a situation in which agricultural land around the world is being snapped up by international investors because they understand the scarcity of this resource.

As global food prices rise…. All you need to do is look at the front page of today's Vancouver Sun — it talks about the rising price of grocery food in our province — to understand why it is that international investment funds are snapping up land across the world.

As we use land for things like biofuels, it drives up the cost of the land, makes it less available. As we use agricultural land for basic food staples internationally, for a growing population, that land becomes less and less able to support everybody on the planet.

[1110]

That's the international context. These investment firms are saying: "How can we make money?" This is their purpose, to make money. They're investing in agricultural land because it is increasingly scarce and increasingly more in demand.

I'm going to read from a professor, not from a million miles away but from UNBC. He was the recent winner of CUFA B.C.'s — the Canadian university faculty association — best new professor award. Recently I saw him speak at a dinner I was at. It was remarkable, his presentation. His focus, and research, is this international phenomenon of snapping up agricultural land because it is so highly valuable.

In the introduction to a paper that he wrote with a number of esteemed Canadian authors, he said:

"Over the last few years land-grabbing has become a well-established phenomenon. There are varying estimates of the quantity of lands that have changed hands during recent years, from a low of 45 million hectares to high of 227 million hectares, although how the counting was done in these estimates is not always clear.

"The global land rush is characterized by transnational and domestic corporate investors, governments and local elites taking control over large quantities of land and its minerals and water to produce food, feed, biofuel and other industrial commodities for the international or domestic markets. Such land deals are often associated with very low levels of transparency, consultation and respect for the rights of local communities living off the land.

"In response to concerns over the real and massive experiences of dispossession, violence and social exclusion, land-grabbing has been elevated to an issue of world political significance, around which, local and transnational resistance has swelled and for which new global governance instruments are being created.

"The importance of land-grabbing as a topic in global governance is well established. The salience is confirmed by events in the real world. Land-grabbing is on the agenda at the…G8 and…G20. It's at the core of the World Bank's new global development agenda. Several new global governance instruments have been negotiated to address land-grabbing. Global civil society and transnational social movements are mobilizing around this phenomenon, and investors and corporations are intensifying their acquisitions and global competition for land."

We have a bill coming before us that weakens protections to ensure that B.C. agricultural land is here for future generations at the exact same time internationally as there is overwhelming concern around the scarcity of this land and companies snapping it up in order to make a smart investment in the future that will pay off handsomely for them.

When we think about a young farmer who wants to start out and work in that industry in British Columbia, what do they need? What is the basic thing that they need to get started? It's land. When you're starting as a young farmer, the cost of that land is incredibly important. Internationally, we see in these land grabs, and domestically, we see in speculation related to this bill, which reduces protections for agricultural land, that it is causing the cost of agricultural land for young farmers to go up, making it less possible for the next generation of farmers to start out in British Columbia.

This also excludes local and family farmers and encourages the consolidation of land by huge companies that produce huge-scale food for export and are not particularly concerned about local farmers' markets, which I spent a lot of time yesterday establishing are now worth $170 million a year to B.C.'s economy and to small local producers — the future of food security for our province.

I neglected to mention the name of this professor from UBC, the one who's doing this work on international land grabs. His name is Mathias Margulis. He's a very new professor up at UNBC, a wonderful institution. He released another paper with nine different scholars who specialize in rural development and come from the faculty of agriculture from Alberta, Nova Scotia, Manitoba as well as UNBC. The title of their paper is instructive, when you come to the content of this bill. The title of their paper is Food Sovereignty and Agricultural Land Use Planning: The Need to Integrate Public Priorities Across Jurisdictions.

[1115]

The bill that's in front of this House proposes to create new lines, new divisions, by breaking things up into six regional panels. These people who study protecting agricultural land for a living — they spend their time looking at best practices — released a paper calling for the exact opposite approach: eliminate the boundaries across jurisdictions and make it a simplified, single responsibility, a
[ Page 3680 ]
single point of contact, to deal with balancing the priorities around protecting agricultural land and encouraging development.

They situate their understanding, as well as this international concern around the security and safety of domestic food supply. They say, by way of background: "The recent emergence of food sovereignty as a subject of national policy reflects growing public concerns about the security and safety of the domestic food supply. It also reflects concerns about the right of people to define, protect and regulate domestic agricultural protection and land policies that promote safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable food production that is culturally appropriate."

They quote a group called the National Farmers Union. They argue: "Farmer autonomy and control are fast eroding. As farmers lose that control, they lose the ability to make effective long-term plans. And Canadians lose sovereignty over their territory and their food systems."

This is the context in which these academics are writing about the best way to preserve agricultural land, which, I note, is the complete opposite of what this government proposes in this bill. They look historically: how is B.C. doing? How is Canada doing in preserving farmland? "In spite of efforts over the past 40 years, Canada has experienced a continual loss of prime farmland across the country. Hofmann" — another academic — "observed, for example, that since 1971 urban activities have been responsible for the conversion of 12,000 square kilometres of farmland, one-half of which was classified as prime agricultural land under the Canada land inventory."

I'm sure the members opposite are saying: "Well, in British Columbia we've got the ALR. We're leaders in that." That's certainly true compared to other provinces, and yet here we are trying to weaken that.

I'm distracting myself from the punchline here.

"The issue is especially acute in Ontario, which contains the country's largest supply of prime agricultural lands…but has been documented elsewhere, including Alberta and British Columbia. Across North America the historical decline in the economic and social role of agriculture has been accompanied by a significant reduction in and degradation of the prime agricultural land base. This land base faces growing pressures from urban development and the pursuit of other economic priorities, with few indications that this trend will be significantly curtailed."

In fact, in this House we're seeing few indications that this trend will be curtailed because this government has brought forward a bill that is actually weakening protections for B.C. farmland.

"As well, the rights and capacities of farmers to use agricultural lands are increasingly compromised by neighbouring non-farm uses, such as when residential neighbours file unwarranted nuisance complaints about farm odours and noise or sever residential building lots near agricultural operations."

That was exactly what we heard the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talking about: establishing residential building lots near agricultural operations. Here these people who study these programs say this is something we need to be aware of because it has been an issue in other jurisdictions.

The most important part of this paper is not the history, not the erosion of agricultural land, not food security for the purposes of our House discussion here today, for our debate. The most important part of this paper is when these people — who have spent their lives, who have PhDs studying this issue of what are best practices for protecting farmland — say that the best approach is a unified approach, not a fractured approach, which this bill recommends.

They go through all of this evidence, and then they say…. They identify one of the big problems that has led to this: the fractured nature of different jurisdictions having different pieces of protecting agricultural land and, as a result, the land not being protected at all.

"Consequently, the nationally significant yet localized nature of agricultural land use issues points to the need for coordination among multiple jurisdictions. The issues however are complicated, as difficulties of cohabitation are not just related to scale, the proximity of farm and non-farm uses" — which means farms and people living there who aren't farmers — "but can also be related to the difference in cultural values and to how land and activities, farm and other commercial uses, are managed.

[1120]

"Land protection alone is not adequate over the long term. Better management processes are needed. This means being able to accompany farmers in the development of their activities…and helping non-farm people integrate better into the rural community."

Here's the punch line: "Reconciling competing interests for agricultural lands remains a complicated process that crosses multiple jurisdictions." Yet this bill, instead of fixing that issue, supporting farmers, as these people argue is so integral to making sure they're able to continue as farmers…. These academics say it's already complicated.

This bill wants to establish, now, six different panels to consider this instead of one. It doesn't make any sense. Instead of making life more complicated with different panels with different priorities with different people all across the province, a single panel evaluating proposals on a provincial scale is clearly the right approach.

Now, we heard the Minister for Core Review stand up in this House and tell a story about somebody who wanted to remove land from the agricultural land reserve as the justification for why he is pushing so hard to make sure that this reform goes through. The story, though, that he used to illustrate his argument, was incredibly bizarre, because in that story the person was actually able to remove the land from the ALR. If the statistics tell us anything, that wasn't the exception. It's not the inability to remove land from the ALR that this bill is aiming to address.

Let me give you some statistics from the David Suzuki Foundation. These are dated, but they are important. The first thing, and the government will tell you, is that the ALR's total land base has remained fairly consistent throughout its history. But the way that this happened was to take prime agricultural land out of the agricultur-
[ Page 3681 ]
al land reserve and replace it with low productivity land in northern B.C.

We heard the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin read a letter that called this approach a smokescreen, which I agree with entirely. That letter was a very helpful letter to understand this government's approach to the ALR.

"Its growth, however, occurred mainly through the addition of less productive land in northern B.C. Since the reserve was created, according to the Agricultural Land Commission statistics, the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan have experienced a net loss of more than 35,000 hectares. Ninety percent of the land added to the reserve has been in the north; 72 percent of the land lost has been in the south.

"In the four years" — this is why it's difficult to understand the concern that it's hard to get land out of the agricultural land reserve — "ending in March 2005 the commission's statistics show that it approved the removal of 71.4 percent of the reserves, 7,493 hectares under consideration."

A 71.4 percent approval rate. Land removal rates in the Agricultural Land Commission's regions was highest on Vancouver Island, and 86.8 percent of the requests to remove land were approved. In the Kootenay region 84.5 percent of the requests were approved, and in the Okanagan 81 percent of the requests were approved. Then it looks like for the remaining jurisdictions you had about a 50-50 chance. On the south coast 55.5 percent of the land was removed, in the Interior 52.6 percent and in the north 46.8 percent.

When you have those kinds of statistics when you make an application to the Agricultural Land Commission, you've got somewhere between a 46 and 86 percent chance of success in your application. It's hard to understand this concern that it's difficult to get land out of the agricultural land reserve — that it's time for some sort of dramatic erosion of those standards. How much higher does this government want those numbers to get before it will be satisfied with the ALR's performance?

The opposition here set up a website inviting people to write in letters to us, sharing their concerns about the agricultural land reserve. I see that the green light is on for me, which means that my time here is limited. I hope that I get the opportunity to rise and speak again to this so that I can share some of these stories, the overwhelming number of stories.

[1125]

I know the government has one or two letters — which I heard, actually, from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin — which expressed concern around how the ALR has been operating, but it was hardly a ringing endorsement of the government's approach to the ALR to date.

Interjection.

D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, the member says maybe I should listen, and certainly, it's my hope the government listens to the community when it comes to the ALR.

D. Bing: I'm honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill 24, which will continue to protect agricultural land here in British Columbia.

Agriculture is one of my riding's primary industries, and I'm very aware of how beneficial agriculture can be to a local economy.

British Columbia is a large and diverse province. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulating the use of farmland does not reflect this reality. As someone who has served on council in Pitt Meadows for eight years, who now serves as a provincial representative, I have seen how the agricultural industry impacts the economy of my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

It is one of the main industries and one of the backbones of my riding's economy. Pitt Meadows itself is 80 percent agricultural. We are blessed with a climate that enables a healthy growing season for produce in the Fraser Valley.

The agricultural sector contributes to the culture of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. We celebrate every year in my riding with events such as the Haney Farmers Market in the spring and summer and Country Fest, a 112-year-old annual country fair.

Our government is working to help achieve better results and incomes for farmers in farming communities across the province. This change intends to confirm that the ALC's priority remains preserving farming and ensuring panels make decisions in the best interests of agriculture.

In zone 1, where there are different growth pressures and significant urbanization, it remains status quo. In zone 2, by broadening the decision-making criteria used by the ALC in adjudicating applications, 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 they believe this is appropriate.

The amendment clearly outlines in priority order the criteria the commission must consider in all land use decisions in zone 2 — the north, Interior and Kootenay. This priority list begins with whether the ALC considers a proposal to meet the purposes of the commission — namely, the preservation of 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 the ALC's priority remains preserving farmland and to ensure panels make decisions in the best interests of agriculture.

There are reasons for the two zones. B.C. is a diverse province with land in greater demand due to urbanization in zone 1. If we want to be serious about supporting farmers and supporting agriculture, we need to recognize that British Columbia has regional differences. The ALC's primary concern remains to protect farmland and ensure agricultural land is used for agricultural purposes.

In zone 1 there are clearly development pressures and other demands for that land. That is why we have kept
[ Page 3682 ]
zone 1 status quo. In zone 2 after considering whether the land should be maintained for agricultural purposes, the independent ALC can then look at other factors in descending order of priority before rendering a decision.

There is a need for an open and transparent commission, and that is a good thing for the ALR. Giving farmers more opportunities to grow their businesses is a benefit to them and also a benefit to British Columbians who want access to more locally grown food.

This government recognizes that, for some farmers, making a suitable living on farming alone is a struggle. These proposed changes give them a chance to support their farming lifestyle.

The proposed changes are all about continued protection of farmland while recognizing regional differences and while offering farmers ways to generate incomes that support farming and modernize the commission's operations and enable more efficient land use planning processes.

The Minister of Agriculture has been listening to people. He has responded to people. Consultation has occurred. After reading through letters received and speaking directly with leaders in B.C.'s agricultural sector, it was clear that amendments to the act were required.

[1130]

Yesterday he announced amendments which give the ALC chair the flexibility needed to do the work in making independent land use decisions, and we're making it a lot clearer that the first priority means preserving agricultural land for agricultural purposes.

As we committed when this act was first introduced, we said we were going to be talking with the agricultural sector, the ALC and local government about whether existing regulations need to be updated to help support farmers and their families further.

There are reasons for the government tabling the act in the first place. From time to time we need to look at organizations like the ALC to make sure that as an organization it is serving the people of B.C. in the best way it can. Our focus is on sustaining the farming sector and those who work in this sector. These improvements are focused on protecting farmland, supporting food production and helping farming families to get ahead.

We are also ensuring that the commission has the modern tools necessary to continue making independent land decisions for the next 40 years.

The act also helps agriculture to grow and to support farm families. These changes protect farmland. That is what is vital to the future of farming. By looking at permitted uses for value-added farming activities, we are able to respond to concerns from farmers that current regulations prevent them from growing their agricultural business. If there are ways for farmers to grow their income and support farming operations, we think that it's something worth considering.

Our government recognizes the need to do everything it can to help support farmers to make a living from working their land so that when the time comes, there is another generation ready and willing to get into farming also.

These changes are about giving farmers more opportunities to grow their businesses, and this is of benefit to them. The changes will also be of benefit to British Columbians who want access to more B.C.-grown food. The focus is on sustaining the farming sector and those who work in it. These improvements focus on protecting farmland, supporting food production and helping farming families get ahead.

We are also supporting young farmers through the act. These changes protect farmland, and that's vital to the future of farming. Even in zone 2 the priority list begins with whether the ALC considers the proposal to meet the purposes of the commission — namely, the preservation of agricultural land, encouraging farming and enabling farm use on agricultural land. If the ALC determines that value-added agriculture or other activities are permitted on the land, this can benefit farmers' incomes, no matter the age.

British Columbia Agriculture Council chair Stan Vander Waal states in his latest news release: "BCAC has always been committed to preserving agricultural land, but we are also committed to preserving farmers. If enjoying locally grown and raised goods is truly important to British Columbians, we need to find ways to support economically sustainable farming and attract youth into agriculture."

We hope that all farmers, young and old, will engage, through the Agriculture Council, in consultation on the regulations to define permitted uses.

In closing, 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 those views are clearly written into law. Our changes will give the ALC chair more flexibility in referring applications to the ALC's executive committee, made up of the chair and six regional vice-chairs, for decisions.

Our changes will make the law clearer that farmland preservation is the ALC's first priority and ensure that panels make decisions in the best interests of agriculture.

Our government has introduced this act because we want to support farming families in continuing to produce food on their land. Also, we want the commission to have the modern tools it needs as it goes about its business in supporting agriculture in B.C. for the next 40 years.

Deputy Speaker: The Member for Peace River South, I believe, has a point of….

M. Bernier: I'm just requesting leave from the House to submit a petition, please.
[ Page 3683 ]

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

[1135]

Petitions

M. Bernier: I have a petition here — 322 signatures from the South Peace, from my riding — requesting all hon. members of the House to please pass Bill 24.

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: I rise today to take my spot in second reading of Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. It's an act that will divide the agricultural land reserve into two zones — one zone with the current level of protection, possibly, and zone 2, where the primacy of agricultural use is no longer protected.

I live in zone 2. I eat mostly food produced in zone 2. Most of that food I raise myself. We are not second-class citizens when it comes to agriculture in zone 2.

This bill is an attack on agriculture by this government. It's a blunt tool. It raises red flags. As one farmer in zone 2 in Stikine, said to me and wrote to me, "This bill will lead to a death of our farmlands by a thousand cuts. Once farmland is gone, it is gone forever."

How do we talk about this bill, Bill 24? I think a good way to start is to talk about trust — a matter of trust with this government introducing the bill. They did not talk about Bill 24 and the changes that they wanted to implement before the election, which would have been a prime time to talk about changes of such significance to the province. They didn't talk about Bill 24 or the changes they wanted to bring to the agricultural land reserve when we sat here in July. We all gathered here with time for debate, and no mention of these plans.

They didn't use opportunities in the fall of this year to strike a special committee on this bill, on agriculture, to tour the province, as was done for aquaculture and fish farms. Now, on an ad hoc basis, they're trying to prop up their position on Bill 24 by consulting after the legislation was introduced. Well, where I come from, that's called bass-ackwards.

I oftentimes like to listen to the Minister of Energy and Mines, responsible for the core review, one of the prime proponents of this legislation. He's also the member for Kootenay East. I listened to his comments. I read his comments from a couple days ago, when he spoke to this bill. Sometimes everybody can contribute to this chamber at different times. The member for Kootenay East, the Minister of Energy, had something to contribute that I found interesting.

When he was speaking, he was trying to defend how this government has considered this bill. He mentioned — and this is from the Hansard transcript — that the former Agriculture Minister "took his ideas to a committee that we call the priorities and planning committee, which is chaired by the Premier."

What I learned from that is that the strategy of concealing their intentions from the public about this bill was actually endorsed by the Premier. I find that rather disconcerting. This government says that they're doing this, that they're introducing this bill because they care about farmers.

Well, let's have a look at the record when it comes to agriculture in this province and this government's support for agriculture, or lack of.

We have a government in place here that is worst in Canada for provincial support of agriculture. Only 5 percent of agrifood gross domestic product is supported through this government, while other provinces spend an average of 14 percent of their agrifood gross domestic product on agricultural initiatives and support of agriculture. So it's a funny way of showing you support agriculture, as they say they do in this bill, when you look at that statistic and see that we're one of the worst of provinces in Canada in supporting agriculture.

We also have to look at the track record. That's the only thing you can do. When someone says, "Trust us; we're doing this for the good of somebody else," you say: "Well, let's look at the track record." It's worst in Canada for supporting agriculture, as far as a percentage of spending on gross domestic product from agrifoods.

[1140]

Buy B.C. — this government eliminated the Buy B.C. marketing initiative in 2001, shortly after they became government. Buy B.C. was an incredibly successful marketing initiative. It really promoted food production and sales of food from B.C. producers.

At its peak there were over 1,200 companies and associations using the Buy B.C. logo, and there were 5,000 Buy B.C. products identified at major grocery retailers throughout the province. You can remember that they used to have that little Buy B.C. sticker on fruit from the Okanagan, for instance. You don't see that anymore — eliminated by this government.

They say they support farmers — that this Bill 24 is to support farmers. They're the worst in Canada at supporting farmers as a percentage of the budget, and they've eliminated a very successful marketing program. That's the evidence.

We look, then, to further evidence. What can support this contention that Bill 24 is in support of farmers, which this government maintains? Well, we can look to the Auditor General.

The Auditor General analyzed the activities of the Agricultural Land Commission in 2010 and issued a report. What that report found was that there were unresolved problems, like a lack of compliance and enforcement and a lack of knowledge about ALR boundaries. This was a result of a lack of support by the government
[ Page 3684 ]
for the Agricultural Land Commission. That is what the Auditor General found.

Now, there has been some assertion that things have changed since then. I went and looked up, since 2010…. The Auditor General issued an audit of how the government had performed on some of those recommendations that he put in place in 2010. A couple of years later he did a follow-up, in October 2012.

As far as ensuring that the ALR boundaries were accurate and included land that is both capable and suitable for agricultural use — only partially implemented. The recommendation to seek government support to make changes that would allow it to more effectively preserve agricultural land and encourage farming through the application process — partially implemented.

There have been some assertions by speakers that preceded me that great strides have been made on the Auditor General's report in relation to some of the aspects of Bill 24 that we're discussing here today. Yet we had a situation, a compliance situation, just in the fall that shows how the lack of support, currently, that this government gives to the Agricultural Land Commission is still an issue.

That was when we had the situation in Peace River North, the former Agriculture Minister's constituency. He's still the member for that constituency. The Agricultural Land Commission actually admonished the member for Peace River North for trying to interfere, making inappropriate representations when trying to get 70 acres of farmland removed from the agricultural land reserve for a rodeo ground and parking lot in that member's constituency. As it turns out, the project got built even though the Agricultural Land Commission hasn't approved the removal of the land.

These are the dire circumstances that we're in right now, from a government that says they support farmers. The Agricultural Land Commission chair, Richard Bullock, said at the time that the commission doesn't have the resources to do "everything we're being asked to do," as far as oversight on all the farmland in B.C. That was before this legislation. Things are simply going to get worse under this legislation.

Again, after the Auditor General's report in 2010, Richard Bollock, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, did his own review called the Review of the Agricultural Land Commission: Moving Forward — A Strategic Vision of the Agricultural Land Commission for Future Generations. He did that in 2010. This government sat on the report for a full year before releasing it to the public.

We're actually addressing a matter of trust — trust that they have the best intentions of farmers at heart around Bill 24. They do not consult before introducing it. They don't talk about it before the election, and they sit on the report of the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission for a year.

[1145]

Then, when it did get released, one of the recommendations by Richard Bullock, the chair, was "that the 'encouraging farming' aspect of the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate take greater prominence so that the Agricultural Land Commission can focus its work on farmers, ranchers and the business of farming." This Bill 24 does nothing to address that recommendation, and I would suggest that it actually does the opposite of what the chair was trying to get at in his report from 2010 that was sat on for a year by this government.

I think the matter of trust and the issue of whether this government cares about farmers is really put into question when the evidence that I presented is considered.

The second part of the justification for Bill 24 is that this government says it wants to improve the ALR and that for over 40 years there haven't been changes to the ALR, that it needs improvement and that this is what Bill 24 is all about. Well, they have funny ways of doing improvements. There has been legislation introduced under the 13 years of this government regarding the ALR. It's not true that nothing has been done around the ALR in 40 years. They have introduced changes, and they've been negative changes.

There's something called agreements around uses of farmland. In 2004 the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission…. The agricultural land agreement was signed. That was an opening created by amendments introduced by this government in 2002 that provided the commission the ability to delegate decision-making powers to an authority.

Okay, we can see in some cases that might be a good use of the Agricultural Land Commission's time. Perhaps there were opportunities to do that that made sense. There are a couple of regional districts that actually have entered into these kinds of delegation agreements with the Agricultural Land Commission. In fact, the regional district of East Kootenay is one where the member claims that Bill 24 is the only way to get to addressing some of these issues.

The issues are already there through these delegated agreements, yet the amendments in 2004 opened up the delegated authorities to include the Oil and Gas Commission. Immediately what happened was that exemptions were made from the ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission, application for land less than seven hectares.

As proponents made these applications to the Oil and Gas Commission for land less than seven hectares, there was an exemption that it didn't have to go through the Agricultural Land Commission application. Of course, these were for drilling pads, mainly, in the northeast, and the associated infrastructure roads that lead to these drilling pads for natural gas activities.

I just want to alert the House and members here around seven hectares. I still deal in acres, although I've gotten used to metric in other ways. The hectare is still
[ Page 3685 ]
something I have a bit of difficulty with. Seven hectares is 17 acres. That's a sizeable piece of land.

I'll give you an example. I live in zone 2, which is not a second-class zone. It's not all gravel and rock, as the Minister of Energy and Mines was typifying it. I live in zone 2 on seven acres, and I produce all the food, mostly, that my family and I consume in a year.

I think I'll have to clarify that a little bit. It isn't myself anymore, of course. I'm here most of the time. It's on the shoulders of my wife and my sons, who return now and then to the home, who produce on seven acres enough food not only for our family but, if we are so inclined, food to barter and trade for other types of foods that we don't grow and, if we were inclined and possibly after my stay in this Legislature, for taking to a farmers market and selling at a market garden.

[1150]

We have a large ground garden for root crops. We have a greenhouse. We have animal livestock. We have chickens. We have sheep, turkeys — all on seven acres, all sustainable. So when we talk about exempting seven hectares, 17 acres, you can imagine the loss of farmland that that includes — the loss of not only self-supporting farmland but that could be used for economic purposes as well.

Subsequent to 2004, in 2013 the delegation agreement between the Agricultural Land Commission and the Oil and Gas Commission was updated. Again, this was only possible because in 2002 this government passed amendments to section 26 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act that allowed this to happen.

Now we have exemptions of 20 hectares per quarter section. A proponent can apply to the Oil and Gas Commission, without having to go through the Agricultural Land Commission application process, and apply for a 20-hectare section. That is 99.42 acres. That's a huge amount of land.

I just went through that we are able to support a family of four, with surplus, on seven acres in zone 2 where I live. Now we're talking exemptions of 99.42 acres of land under legislation that this government allowed to happen.

Again, improvements to the ALR? I don't think so under Bill 24. This is the track record of this government when it comes to the history of their performance on protecting farmland.

How does this relate to something that's very important in the northeast? This is where these exemptions took place, the northeast, where one of the main proponents of this bill, the member for Kootenay East, said, "There is tremendous support in the Peace region," tremendous support for Bill 24.

Well, let's look at what the Peace River regional district has sent. They've sent a letter to this government asking that Bill 24 be withdrawn from the Legislative Assembly. How is that tremendous support?

When Karen Goodings, the chair of the regional district of Peace River, was confronted with the Minister of Energy's comments about tremendous support for the bill in the Peace region, she said: "That's not quite true. I think it's inappropriate to slam the fist on the table and say: 'That's the way it is.' Let's talk about that." That's what Karen Goodings said.

They've asked for the bill to be withdrawn from this Legislature. Again, it comes to a matter of trust. This main proponent, this government, through one of its members, a minister at the cabinet table, saying there's tremendous support in the Peace country for this bill, and then the people who actually live there….

I don't doubt that the member for Kootenay East might have some knowledge. I believe he does — on ranchers and farmers in his part of the province, the East Kootenays. But then he starts making these grandiose statements about tremendous support for the bill in the Peace region, and we have the people who actually live there, who represent the people there at the grass roots, saying: "Withdraw this bill from the Legislature."

Again, back to a matter of trust. How can we trust what this government is saying about how great this bill will be for farmers, for agriculture, for the people of the province when the evidence we see is that it's the lowest provincial support for agriculture of any province in the country? They've had a history of enabling the withdrawal of land from the agricultural land reserve through the delegation agreement legislation. Then we have a minister of the Crown saying that there's great support for it in a huge area of the province, when there isn't.

We've got another five minutes before we break, so I'll keep going.

An Hon. Member: You can do it.

D. Donaldson: I can do it. There's lots to say, and I could go on for a long time about this.

The other justification that in the past this government has used for excluding land from the ALR is: "Okay, we'll take a little bit away from here, but we'll add a lot more up there." This is directly relevant to Bill 24.

[1155]

Since 2001 we've seen a net loss of 3,867.9 hectares of land from zone 1, from what they are calling zone 1, the most prime agricultural land in the province — 3,867.9 hectares removed. How did they justify this? Well, this B.C. Liberal government said: "We will add land in zone 2 to the agricultural land reserve." So since 2001 they've added 42,579.9 hectares, taking away some great land and adding some land in another zone.

But we see that in the Peace region this land has been removed now through this delegation agreement, through the Oil and Gas Commission. We see large chunks of land…. I talked about 20 hectares, almost 100 acres, not even needing oversight by the Agricultural Land Commission when a proponent asked for it re-
[ Page 3686 ]
moved.

For all this land that they supposedly justified removing from prime agricultural land, mostly down here in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island, they added land up north and in the Peace River country and other areas in the north, mostly in the north-central area. They justified that, and then they're enabling that land to be removed.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

It's only going to get worse. It's only going to get worse when we look at the legislation in front of us, Bill 24, which enables that kind of action to be taken even further by not making agricultural use in zone 2 the primary concern and the primary criteria that the Agricultural Land Commission should be looking at.

I think what we have here is a lack of trust going into the bill before we even got to this part of the Legislature and before we even got to this point in the legislative process.

With that, hon. Speaker, now that I see you there, I will take your smiling as a hint that I should be suggesting that I adjourn this debate and reserve my spot at the next available time to continue my presentation.

D. Donaldson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND SKILLS TRAINING

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $183,688,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to, for the record, note that the opposition critic is here. We spent some quality time together yesterday. A file was referred to us yesterday and has been given to employment standards and WorkSafeBC, and both agencies have now opened a file. I wanted to pass that on to the member opposite.

L. Popham: It's nice to be here in estimates for Tourism. First of all, I want to congratulate the ministry staff for putting in a lot of hard work over the last year while Destination B.C. was getting up and running. As we know, Destination B.C. was established on November 2, 2012, and according to a ministry press release, it assumed full responsibility for operations on April 1, 2013.

Now, Destination B.C. has been in operation for more than a year. I think that's long enough for there to be some reportables and deliverables, and so I'm looking forward to a really good discussion.

In a 2013-2014 letter of expectation from government to Destination B.C. it says that B.C. "rightly expects openness and transparency from both their government and Crown corporations, and it is incumbent upon both parties to be as open and transparent as possible with citizens." I just note that this line was dropped from the letter of expectation this year, and I'm wondering why.

Hon. S. Bond: Rather than spending what limited time we have together searching for one letter to the next, the letters of expectation are created each year. There is consistency across government in some of the principles that are included. I can assure the member opposite that while the words may not be written in 2014-2015's letter of expectation, there is an expectation that Destination B.C. and any other organization act in an open and transparent way. That's certainly my expectation and the expectation of this government.

L. Popham: Great. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[1115]

The main goal in Destination B.C.'s service plan for 2014-2015–2016-2017 is to "attract visitors to increase tourism industry revenue." I think that, of course, is the right goal. But I was very surprised to see that there's only one performance measurement for this goal — namely, the number of visits to Destination B.C.'s consumer websites. That's on page 19 of the service plan. My question is: why is that the only performance measurement in the service plan?

Hon. S. Bond: I know, after many years of working on service plans in a variety of ministries, it's always difficult to keep the document manageable, highlighting the key deliverables in any ministry, and that is not dissimilar to
[ Page 3687 ]
what we have here. I can assure the member opposite that while there is only one performance measure, one metric, included in the service plan, Destination B.C. has a very sophisticated tracking mechanism — deliverables across a broad number of items.

This would be the general policy direction that we would expect DBC to take. In fact, there are, as I said, a number of metrics internally. A few of those would include things like U.S. overnight stays, Europe overnight customs entries, provincial accommodation average daily room rates, YVR passenger volume, travel parties to visitor centres. So there's a very sophisticated and specific set of measurables that DBC actually measures internally.

L. Popham: Well, I do understand that. But this is the service plan, so it seems that visits to websites has a lot of weight put on it. In my view, maybe something that is more meaningful, as the minister has laid out, would be more appropriate in the service plan. I'm having trouble figuring out how how many people visit a website equates to how many people visit the province.

Hon. S. Bond: I think there are, as we said, a complex set of measurables. We would certainly welcome input as we move ahead with a service plan. They evolve; they change. We're always trying to find the most effective and meaningful measures. So I think the member opposite makes a very relevant point.

As we go through the service plan revision and creation each year, we take into consideration whether or not that particular performance goal is the most efficient and has the best way of measuring the success in the tourism sector. So I appreciate that. I think we certainly do try to convey some of the other measures, like U.S. overnight visits — those kinds of things. Those are very critical to measuring the growth in the tourism sector in the province.

I think those are helpful comments, and as we look at the service plan again and we look to see it evolve, we'll certainly take those into consideration.

L. Popham: That being said, can the minister tell me how many visitors that visit the website do end up in B.C.?

[1120]

Hon. S. Bond: Good discussion behind me, by the way — amazing group of people I should have introduced earlier. Members have been introduced to my team before, but I want to introduce the team that's here to support the tourism discussion.

First and foremost, the new CEO of Destination B.C., Marsha Walden, who is doing just a fantastic job. We're very glad to have her. Grant Mackay is the vice-president. Alex Mackie is the acting CFO. Of course, Kaaren Lewis and Jen Davis are on our ministry team.

There is not a direct correlation between website traffic and the number of visitors. Having said that, internationally website traffic is seen as a very good barometer, a very good indicator of tourism. If we're looking at that as being the definitive way to measure traffic, that would not be the case. Having said that, internationally website traffic is certainly seen as one of the relevant indicators.

L. Popham: I do understand that. With that information, then, how many international visitors do we have because of this website? What's the correlation? How do we know that that's the result?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that Destination B.C. does is measure very specifically those kinds of indicators that the member opposite is interested in. For example, international overnight customs entries are measured. We actually have actuals for 2013 and the percentage of change over 2012 — so very, very specific information.

Obviously, how we collect that, when it's an overnight customs entry…. U.S. overnight customs entries. Asia-Pacific overnight customs entries. Europe overnight customs entries. Provincial accommodation occupancy rates — we look very carefully at our occupancy rates in the province. YVR passenger volume. B.C. Ferries passenger volume. Travel parties to visitor centres. There are very specific performance indicators that Destination B.C. monitors. I'm pleased to say that for most of them, the percentage of change in 2012 was a positive change moving in the right direction in terms of increased growth.

L. Popham: I understand that information. I understand that there are measurements happening. I don't mean to harp on this, but as far as it being the primary mention in the service plan — the number of consumers visiting the website — I still don't understand the correlation. Now, maybe it's, perhaps, that those customers coming to British Columbia are asked how they found out about the destination they're visiting, but it would be just helpful to know.

I think we all know in the field of politics, when we're using social media — something like Facebook or our own websites — the traffic coming to those locations is not necessarily a reflection of our support or non-support.

[1125]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the service plans evolve. I am told, however, that the website traffic measurement was actually in last year's as well.

The primary reason it's there is because, when you look at the world we live in today, one of the significant ways that people choose where they're going to travel is by looking at websites, social media, all of those things.

I'm very pleased to say that in terms of the growth…. People go and look, and they choose. It is a significant
[ Page 3688 ]
part of the marketing that we do at Destination B.C. There were 8.5 million visits to the website, and that was a 16 percent increase in the volume of traffic.

Destination B.C. is very consciously using the website to attract tourists. While we cannot directly link the number of tourists visiting our province to the website, it is a very strong indicator, and a 16 percent increase in traffic will have translated into an increase in tourists.

L. Popham: Let's look at, maybe, a bigger picture benchmark: the total number of visitors to the province. When I look at Stats Canada, overnight visitors, seasonally adjusted, from year 2000, my information says that there were 8.5 million visitors. In 2005 there were 7.2 million visitors. In 2012 I show 6 million visitors. Can the minister confirm that those numbers are correct?

[1130]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, one thing we are learning and we have learned, my colleague and I, is that there are a lot of statistics related to tourism. The member opposite is using Stats Canada. What I can tell the member about the actual number of overnight visitors — this is overnight visitor volume — is the total in…. We certainly don't have data in briefcases that go back to 2000.

What I can tell the member is that when we look at volume — this combines domestic, international, Asia-Pacific and European visitors — the total volume in 2012 was 17.906 million overnight visitors. That would include Canada alone. It does include B.C. numbers. There are 10.469 million overnight visitor nights from B.C., so that would obviously address the number. But internal, domestic, travel is also important to our stats.

Our numbers would tell you that the overnight visitor volume in 2012 was 17.906 million overnight visitors.

L. Popham: I'll agree with the minister. There are a lot of statistics, and it is hard to sort out.

Can the minister tell me, then: is tourism on an incline over the past decade?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it's been a bit of both. Obviously, in some very difficult economic times, when you look back at 2009, we certainly saw a drop in tourism traffic in the province. But we are seeing…. We're talking about revenue. When we look at revenue as a result of visitors to British Columbia, we have seen an increase in 2010 of 4.3 percent, in 2011 of 1.6 percent, in 2012 of 2.5 percent. In 2013 it's still an estimated number, but we believe it will be between 4 and 6 percent.

Last year was a very strong tourism year in the province. We had some spectacular weather. We were very, very encouraged to see the numbers trending.

It is fair to say that, over time, some of the years the percentage of growth has not been as strong as we hoped for or anticipated. But certainly last year was a very good year, and we're hoping that the same outcome will happen this year.

L. Popham: Given that the minister does have a great support team behind her, I'll ask a little bit about the numbers of tourists visiting, drilling down a little bit on the countries that they're coming from.

Can the minister tell me how many tourists visited in 2013 from China?

[1135]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the numbers that we're referring to are overnight visitor stays. I do want to put this in context, because it is important to know that visitors from China in 2013 were up — 203,100 visitors, a 26.1 percent increase.

Now, that is a very large percentage increase, but I think we have to remember that because China has just received destination status recently, we would expect that the numbers on the front end will be higher. We started from a smaller base. But we're very encouraged by the visitors from China, and we expect that increase to continue. We're seeing a great deal of interest in the Asia-Pacific.

I can go on to anticipate what other questions might be asked. The U.S. entries to B.C. increased by 2.1 percent. Again, this just highlights the percentage argument. It increased by 4,647,432.

Visitors from Mexico were up 10.6 percent. Overall, international overnight visitors were up by 4.4 million, or 4.6 percent, in 2013. I'm sure the member would agree that it was a very strong year.

L. Popham: Does the minister have the stats for India?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to make sure that I'm clear on the record, because I'm sure the member opposite caught this, I think, in the way that I referred to the number of visitors. The total numbers that I gave the member previously were that the totals moved up to four million people. We obviously didn't move up four million people in a category.

Just to be clear, visitors from China moved up to 203,000, an increase of 26 percent, and that would be the case in the other numbers I cited as well.

But for India, I can tell the member opposite that the visitor numbers were 49,000, and there was an increase of 7 percent.

L. Popham: There are a lot of numbers, and it's very interesting to look at the percentages of increase. I'm wondering. Is the minister committed at this time to publicly releasing Destination B.C.'s quarterly report on performance indicators once they are submitted?

[1140]

Hon. S. Bond: There is a report that is published. It's called the Tourism Indicators report. That report is published; it is put on the website. Monthly data is also put up — because I know that I get a report, which is also put on the website — about things like international overnight stays, customs entries, those kinds of things.

The information, as Destination B.C. has it, is published in a Tourism Indicators report, and it is published on the website.

L. Popham: That's great. Thank you very much.

I want to get back to the number of visitors we've had over the years. My question is around the 2010 Olympics. In selling the public on the games, the government promised very big benefits as far as tourism goes, and it commissioned a study in 2002 that predicted the games would result in about 1.7 million to 2.7 million additional international visitors between 2008 and 2015. So that's at least 200,000 more visitors per year.

Prior to the Olympics there was significant effort put in by Tourism B.C. to develop a plan to capitalize on increased exposure generated by the Olympics. Indeed, this was touted by the former Premier as one of the main benefits of the Olympics.

I guess I'd like to know…. As far as I know, this report was done by Dr. Peter Williams. I'm wondering if that report has been released.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the 2010 Olympics were an amazing opportunity for British Columbia. You know, I remember looking on the screens of NBC and ABC and seeing that absolutely profoundly beautiful vista of the harbour and the mountains in the background. That is pretty much immeasurable in the world of how you get people to a destination.

I think the most meaningful measure in terms of the benefits of what happened…. Again, I don't think anyone can directly correlate an increase in either revenue or tourism numbers to an event. But we have certainly seen…. In 2009 we saw, partly related I'm sure to the downturn in the economy globally, very difficult times…. We actually saw tourism revenue in the province in 2009 drop by more than 5 percent. So we were headed in a very different direction.

In 2010 alone we saw tourism industry revenue grow to $12.9 billion in our province, which was an increase of over 4 percent. In 2011 that number grew to $13.1 billion, which is a 1½ percent — a bit higher than that — increase.

[1145]

In 2012 the number went up again: $13.5 billion, and that was 2½ percent growth. In 2013, as I said earlier, 4 percent to 6 percent is the estimate there. We're projecting a potential of just over 4 percent for 2014.

Were the Olympics a catalyst? I think they made a pretty profound impact around the world. We certainly have seen tourism revenue, which is generated by more people coming to our province, increase fairly steadily. In 2009, as I said, we actually dropped in revenue by over 5 percent, almost 6 percent.

L. Popham: I guess I'm a little bit stumped regarding the minister's comment that tourism numbers can't necessarily be correlated to a specific event. I'm curious, because we are talking about an event that was specifically designed to attract tourists. There was a considerable amount of effort made to encourage the ongoing efforts of the work that was done during the Olympics.

To think that the Minister of Tourism may be indicating that the Olympics may not have had any effect or that they may have had an effect is concerning. Perhaps it's true.

My question was: where is Dr. Peter Williams's report that laid out a plan where we were able to capitalize on the Olympics, in a way, for many years?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to be very clear on the record. I think the Olympics did an amazing job of showcasing British Columbia, and I think there were benefits. I think those benefits are shown in revenue that, by 2013, is up between 4 to 6 percent. My point was simply that.

I think it would be very simplistic and inaccurate for me to stand here and say that every additional tourist that came to British Columbia was the result of the Olympics. Am I saying it made a difference? Absolutely I am. Not only did it show the beauty and the magnificent province we live in, but it showed around the world that we are a competent, professional, incredible province that did an exceptional job of hosting that event.

I'm simply saying that there are lots of other events that have taken place since 2010, as well, that are spectacular. We've had the Grey Cup…. You name it; we've had it. I don't underestimate the power of the Olympics, and I certainly believe that it was a catalyst. I just want to be accurate in suggesting that there are other things that happen every day in our province that also contribute to that.

I am not familiar…. And I will be candid about that. The team that is here with me today does not have a copy of that report. In fact, some are not even aware of it. We'll rectify that situation over the lunch hour and come back to the member opposite as soon as we can with some sense of where that might be or what happened with that.

With that — the hon. Chair has given me the nudge — I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.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