2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 13, Number 1

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

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2014

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my great pleasure today to introduce two people from my constituency. The first is a dear friend, a successful businesswoman and an avid volunteer in our community. Would the House please help me welcome Sandra May Lewis from AC&D Insurance.

The second is Lynda Atkinson of the B.C. Agriculture Council, and my high school guidance counsellor.

I did okay, Lynda, so thank you for everything.

B. Routley: We have several groups of grade 11 students from Brentwood College School, certainly up-and-coming, bright minds from the Cowichan Valley, visiting our Legislature today. Their teachers are here — Neil Robinson and Brian Carr. Please join me in making these students feel very welcome to this legislative chamber.

J. Thornthwaite: In the gallery now, I believe, or they're coming very shortly, are some grade 5 students from my riding, from St. Pius X Elementary. I would like the gallery to please make them welcome when they come. You'll see them wandering around getting their photos taken.

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the House today are approximately 40 to 50 hard-working people, who are part of the province's agricultural industry. The B.C. Ag Council is a leading voice for agriculture in British Columbia, representing approximately 14,000 of B.C.'s 20,000 farm families. BCAC members generate 96 percent of B.C. farm-gate receipts in British Columbia.

Among the many faces from the B.C. Agriculture Council with us today are Stan Vander Waal, who is chair, and Garnet Etsell, vice-chair. Ray VanMarrewyk is a greenhouse vegetable producer, and Rhonda Driediger is a past chair.

They are here in Victoria today for a number of meetings with ministers and members of the House, finding ways to continue growing B.C.'s agricultural sector and supporting the more than 61,000 individuals who work in it.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

N. Simons: I'd like to join my colleague the Minister of Agriculture in welcoming the folks from the B.C. Agriculture Council here today. They do an important amount of work on behalf of all of us in this province, and we thank them for that. I'd ask, again, if we could welcome them, on behalf of all of us.

D. Plecas: Today in the gallery we have very respected Abbotsford city councillor Henry Braun and his wonderful wife, Velma. Would the gallery please make them feel welcome.

M. Dalton: I'm happy to introduce some good friends of mine from Maple Ridge — Craig and Linda Rudd. Craig is my riding president, and Linda is also on my board. Craig actually predated all of us here in the Legislature. He was a page some 50 years ago. It's great to have them here.

They're also with Ron and Marilyn Seymour, visiting us from Pender Harbour. Ron and Marilyn have an accounting practice both in Maple Ridge and in New Westminster.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: As part of the agriculture delegation visiting with us — we thank them for their generous hospitality last night, learning all about B.C. agriculture — one of my constituents, the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, David Haywood-Farmer is here, along with the executive director of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, also from the great city of Kamloops, Kevin Boone.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Bing: I have three people to introduce today. Two of them are from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — Ray Biln and Pat Freeman. I also have a young nephew here today, Erik Thordarson from North Vancouver.

Would the House please make them welcome.

[1010]

S. Hamilton: In the precinct today I have a friend, a constituent and a local business person by the name of Dennis Osler. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

M. Hunt: In the precinct today we have 25 students from Sullivan Heights Secondary with two of their teachers. I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M213 — PROVINCIAL
SHIPBUILDING ACT, 2014

C. Trevena presented a bill intituled Provincial Shipbuilding Act, 2014.
[ Page 3840 ]

C. Trevena: I move that a bill intituled the Provincial Shipbuilding Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. Trevena: The idea of nurturing an industry to create jobs and an economic base is not new. In fact, when the federal government announced its $38 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy, the Premier suggested it would lead to a massive growth of work in B.C., including the building of our ferries here. That's what the bill is intended to do — to ensure the building of ferries, SeaBuses and other vessels that are used by and for the public is done here in B.C.

For many decades ferries were built here, with shipyards working as consortia. However, those in the shipbuilding industry say that the RFP requirements issued recently by B.C. Ferries — which could easily be built in B.C. — do not allow those sorts of consortia. However, the Ministry of Transportation is investing in the 80-vehicle Arrow Lake ferry. This new design-build is being paid for by the government. The work is being done in Nakusp, on the shores of the Upper Arrow Lake, without a shipyard and creating hundreds of local jobs.

This act will create jobs. And, to ensure that the skilled workforce grows, it requires apprenticeships be built into any project covered by this law. Modelling has shown that the construction of three ferries in B.C. would result in a provincial GDP of $378½ million, $200 million in consumer spending, more than 1,000 people employed and $100 million in taxes. There's also the multiplier effect that for every 100 jobs created in shipbuilding, 135 additional jobs are created elsewhere.

While five new vessels have been added to the B.C. Ferries fleet over the last decade, none have been built here. The company has instead spent hundreds of millions of dollars for the construction and purchase of ferries in Europe. This not only has an immediate impact at the time of purchase but continued costs of maintenance and parts.

B.C. Ferries will be replacing 26 ferries over the next 15 years, with expenditures around $2½ billion. This level of investment could have a huge impact on jobs and an evolution of a skilled workforce in the province. To not ensure that this build is done in B.C. is simply shortsighted. I'd hope that with the government's avowed commitment to jobs, and jobs in shipbuilding, we can work together to get this bill enacted.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M213, Provincial Shipbuilding Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ARROW LAKES HISTORICAL SOCIETY
LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES BUILDING

K. Conroy: On Saturday, April 5, the Arrow Lakes Historical Society held the grand opening of the new archives building. This project took five years and a lot of determination from a very tenacious groups of citizens.

The concept of building a two-storey addition for an archives office onto the existing Centennial Building, the community library, was an inspiration of the late Milton Parent, archivist of the historical society and writer of seven books on the history of the area. His wife, Rosemary, the society president, said when he came upstairs one night with a suggestion, she groaned, as she knew who would have to do all the paperwork. But do it they did.

Many groups helped over the following years with funding, but the support given by the Columbia Basin Trust and the Halcyon Home foundation started the building. The federal government also contributed a grant to go toward the hydraulic lift. This benefits the many seniors who can now visit the library and the archives. Most of the remaining funds were obtained from citizens of Nakusp.

Also, when Milton sadly passed away, the family turned a very sad occasion into a positive one, as donations in lieu of flowers netted over $10,000 in Milton's memory.

The archives feature binders filled with information gathered from the newspapers about anyone who lived in the Nakusp area and histories of businesses, churches, social clubs and more, from Arrowhead to Edgewood. The very first newspaper in Nakusp is framed on the wall. The big news on October 5, 1893, was the arrival of an 85-tonne train engine at the Nakusp wharf and the start of construction of a roundhouse and rail line in town.

[1015]

A 700-pound cabinet containing historical maps of the area, a collection of historical books donated by Edna Daney and over 10,000 pictures, most of which are digitized, is also part of the archives. The prize of the archives collection, though, is the 500 interviews that Milton conducted with pioneer residents of the area. The entire archives are an amazing collection of the history of the area, one the community of Nakusp can be incredibly proud of.

SPECIALTY VEHICLE ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

D. Barnett: Collector cars and vehicles are the classics. Their sleek exteriors and innovative designs have stood the test of time and turned heads whenever they
[ Page 3841 ]
hit the road. They represent the golden age of the automobile industry in North America, where quality craftsmanship mattered.

This is why I'm happy to speak to the House today on the Specialty Vehicle Council of B.C. and the great work they do to promote this unique hobby across B.C. For over 30 years volunteers with the SVABC have been integral in organizing events and representing motor enthusiasts and collector car owners throughout our province.

Their gatherings and shows bring car enthusiasts together — including yours truly, as I own a '36 Ford with a collector plate. Many other members of this chamber own classic automobiles as well.

More than 50 clubs are represented, and hundreds of members work every day to further protect and expand the vintage cars to collector plate status. For only $10 a year, members enjoy a collective voice as one collector car community and assistance in receiving collector plate status for their vintage automobile.

It should be noted that, because of their hard work, July 12, 2014, and the month of July have been declared Collector Car Day and Month in B.C. What ideal timing for this proclamation. The summer is perfect to cruise in a vintage car or attend a classic vehicle show in communities large and small across our province.

Join me in congratulating the specialty car association for all of their hard work and continued success.

DIAMOND DRILLING AND
DRILLER CERTIFICATION

D. Donaldson: I've seen them working on top of glaciers, working literally hanging off the sides of mountains, and even underground. It's tough work in harsh conditions with long hours, with downtime often spent in wall tents. They're diamond drillers extracting core samples from deep in the ground for mineral exploration.

A Smithers resident has pioneered a new system that makes their work safer and improves environmental and quality performance. As Harvey Tremblay, founder and president of Hy-Tech Drilling, built up his company into a global player in the past 23 years, he saw the sector becoming more complex, with no standard system in place for drilling contractors to fulfil client and regulatory requirements and for improving health and safety and environmental and quality performance.

As Harvey said: "It takes a system to manage that, not just memory and good luck." The result is the driller excellence certification, or DEC, now available through the Canadian Diamond Drilling Association. DEC helps companies demonstrate to clients and regulators that they have a health and safety, environmental and quality management system in place — something that is important, given that diamond drilling can have a high injury rate and increasing levels of public and First Nations scrutiny on environmental standards.

Hy-Tech Drilling became the first drilling company in Canada to obtain driller excellence certification. There are now four more drilling companies on DEC, as the drilling association says, and nine more in the process of certification.

DEC is rigorous. Stats must be reported to the drilling association every month, but contractors are finding the system actually makes them money. Talks are underway to have DEC companies get rate reductions from workers compensation and for ways for provincial government exploration permit issuers to recognize DEC as a positive designation.

I congratulate Harvey Tremblay and Hy-Tech for spearheading this initiative. It's a great example of being proactive when it comes to safety, quality control, taking environmental regulations seriously and building First Nation relationships. It's a positive step in the field of social licence.

COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP BY YOUTH

R. Lee: I stand in the House today to recognize some of the best and brightest community leaders in Burnaby. These Burnaby leaders spend countless hours volunteering at recreation centres, leading anti-bullying campaigns and supporting service clubs, environmental groups and cultural organizations.

[1020]

What do these community leaders all have in common? They are all youth. Burnaby recently celebrated our province's Youth Week, where 26 of Burnaby's young people were recognized with youth citizenship awards from the city's Youth Voice committee.

Youth leadership can be found in many student councils, sports clubs, summer camps, scouts, cadets and youth parliaments in Burnaby. Many organizations, such as the Burnaby Neighbourhood House, SUCCESS, CCM Youth Centre, St. John Ambulance and air cadets, recognize the importance of youth leadership training by offering leadership programs.

It's wonderful to see how many parents are supportive in helping their children assume more of a leadership role. In fact, because of their youth involvement, I've seen so many of their families and friends come out to volunteer their own time and participate in some of these great activities themselves.

A few examples of this are youth releasing salmon fry in Stoney Creek recently with their parents; youth singing in Michael J. Fox Theatre with their whole families; youth in sports not only bringing their mothers to practise with them but also cultivating a group of enthusiastic fans and volunteers; families celebrating together at the Burnaby Minor Hockey Association's volunteer appreciation and awards banquet. And the list goes on and on.

Today I would like the House to join me in recognizing
[ Page 3842 ]
the success of our young people in our communities and in applauding their parents for supporting them.

DON CUNNINGS

S. Robinson: I rise in the House today to acknowledge Coquitlam's latest honour bestowed upon Don Cunnings. Don already has a Coquitlam city soccer field named after him as well as numerous awards for his volunteerism and accomplishments, including the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012.

But last week Coquitlam council saw fit to award Don with the Freedom of the City, the city's highest honour which is reserved for individuals who have made an outstanding long-term contribution to their community. And Don Cunnings is just that man.

He worked for the city of Coquitlam from 1955 until 1994. That's 39 years. He served as the city's first director of parks and leisure services and has continued to stay tied to the community. He's a man of many stories and a keeper of many photographs, and has become a de facto historian to those interested in understanding how city decisions were made over time.

As a man with great vision, Don was instrumental in making the city's Town Centre Park the jewel that it is. Don also helped to establish the very first Coquitlam Search and Rescue team in 1973.

This House needs to know, however, that Don Cunnings's efforts stretch beyond Coquitlam's borders. He helped to found the B.C. recreation association, and he has served on boards for the Canadian association of physical and health education, and the Douglas College board.

Don joins the ranks of Fern Bouvier, Dorothy Fleming, Rene Gamache, Jean Lambert, Eunice Parker, Rev. John Davies, Larry Fleming, Dr. J. Crosby Johnston, Bob McNary and Leonore Peyton. All 11 of the Freedom of the City recipients have demonstrated extraordinary leadership, commitment and vision, and Coquitlam has certainly been blessed with their efforts.

VANCOUVER FOUNDATION Vital Signs
REPORT AND SOCIAL ISOLATION ISSUE

G. Hogg: In the summer of 2011 the Vancouver Foundation, as part of a Vital Signs initiative, set out to find what issues the people of Metro Vancouver cared most about. They expected that people would choose poverty or homelessness or any of the social ills that dominate our headlines. But what they learned was a surprise.

The greatest concern was a growing sense of isolation and disconnection. People said they increasingly live in silos separated by ethnicity, culture, language, income and even geography. They lamented a deepening civic malaise that was resulting in more people retreating from community activities. They said that this corrosion of caring and social isolation hurts them personally and hurts their communities.

They then asked the very hard question: "How can we begin to tackle complex issues such as poverty and homelessness if people are disconnected, isolated and indifferent? How can we care about our community issues if caring and concern stop at the front door?"

[1025]

Isolation has a profound impact on health and on many social ills. Friendship is critical to our well-being. Next to personal relationships, our communities play the most important role in our day-to-day lives. Little happens when people stay at home and aren't interested or engaged in what happens around them.

Many governments are asking how they can support economic growth and development in a broader context, a context that addresses the issues of isolation and disconnection. May we, as we plan for the future of the people of this province, use this knowledge as a reference point for our policy development, as a reference point for a better future for all British Columbians.

Oral Questions

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM
AND EMPLOYMENT OF B.C. WORKERS

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition. [Applause.]

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker and colleagues, I suppose, on this cheery Tuesday morning — not so cheery, though, for over 142,000 unemployed British Columbians. Last week it was 142,000. We have new information, of course, from Stats Canada: 2,000 more people from British Columbia have been added to the unemployment rolls. Many more thousands of British Columbians are leaving the province to find work elsewhere.

Yet the minister continues to support a temporary foreign worker program that has demonstrated without any doubt that it's not meeting the needs of the labour market force here, nor is it meeting the broader needs of British Columbians. The majority of British Columbians want the program fixed, but yet the minister continues to say that they're working on it. We've had a jobs plan in place for three years. Three years we've had a jobs plan that does not address the question of temporary foreign workers.

My question is: why don't we get on that? Why don't we start working on fixing a program that clearly isn't working?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the jobs numbers did come out, which are provided by Stats Canada. They come out
[ Page 3843 ]
at the beginning of each month, and there is always volatility. They fluctuate up and down. While the past Leader of the Opposition is laughing, I noticed that in fact the past Leader of the Opposition didn't stand up in the House last month and congratulate British Columbia for leading the country in job creation.

Any time there is a fluctuation in job numbers, we're concerned about that. We've been clear. The member opposite suggests that we look at the temporary foreign worker program. That's exactly what we're doing.

We've been clear with British Columbians. Almost a year ago we laid out our jobs plan for British Columbians, and in fact they were clear. They supported a plan that looked at long-term growth, looked at supporting industry and investment, saying yes to projects in British Columbia. We're going to keep doing just that.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND INTERNATIONAL
EXPERIENCE CANADA PROGRAM

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

J. Horgan: One of those programs that the government said yes to, HD Mining, is relying exclusively on temporary foreign workers. At the same time, miners, operating engineers and steelworkers are being laid off right next door. We're bringing in temporary foreign workers when domestic workers have just been laid off. That's what you put forward.

As we look at the end of the university and college season, I think I'd like to focus, if I could, on youth unemployment. Now, 41,000 young people in British Columbia are out of work, and that number is going to go up as more and more students come into the job market. Yet the minister continues to say that the reason we have temporary foreign workers in the youth sector is because of our reciprocal program. It's called — and the minister might pull out her note on this — international experience Canada.

The minister last week said this was a program for young people. Well, it's 18 to 35. This is a program that has proliferated over the past ten years. In 2004 there were 23,000 foreign students coming here and 20,000 going away. That's almost reciprocal. I can understand why the minister ten years ago would have had that view. But what about today? Today there are 58,000 foreign workers coming in and 17,000 going out — not so reciprocal.

[1030]

In fact, we've got 41,000 young people out of work today, and you continue to support a program that's bringing young people from somewhere else into Canada to take those jobs. And it's worse. Not only does it drive down wages when we bring in these foreign workers; they have open-ended permits. It's not specifically for a skill. It's not specifically for anything. It's a two-year work permit, a "get out of jail free" card, while we have citizens here out of work.

Will the minister stop the rhetoric and actually fix the broken program today?

Hon. S. Bond: It's always good to look at both sides of the story, so let's talk about youth unemployment in British Columbia, because it's a concern to all of us. In fact, that's why, just two weeks ago, we laid out a ten-year skills-training plan to ensure that youth in our province can start, right in kindergarten, moving their way through the system, to ensure that they have the training that they need for the jobs of the future. The reception to that plan has been nothing but positive.

Let's talk about the number in the province. Of course we're concerned about youth employment, but let's actually look at the statistic. Today in British Columbia the youth unemployment rate is 11.4 percent. That is far too high. While the member opposite reacts to that, perhaps he'd like to react when we look at the fact that since the jobs plan, the youth unemployment rate has dropped by 5 percent.

While the member opposite was actually…. I know he's uncomfortable about the 1990s, but it is part of his history. The youth unemployment rate hit a 25-year high of 20.1 percent.

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

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM
AND EMPLOYMENT OF B.C. WORKERS

J. Horgan: I know that young people out of work today are just delighted to hear the minister talking about things that happened before they were born. I think the 41,000 unemployed young people in British Columbia today would prefer to have a government that focused on — I don't know — today.

The jobs plan was announced three years ago. The Premier said we're going to be No. 1. Well, yeah, get on it. We're No. 8. Three years — we're No. 8, Minister. We're No. 8 in the country. The Premier promised we'd be debt-free, and we'd be No. 1 in private sector job growth. We're No. 8.

At the same time that we sit at No. 8, we have 41,000 young people out of work and a program that's taking jobs away from them right now. So 144,000 people out of work; 136,000 have stopped looking for work; 62,000 people are underemployed and they want a different job.

Will the minister agree with me that the temporary foreign worker program is bad for the unemployed, it's bad for small businesses, it's bad for migration, and it's bad for B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: As of Friday, the unemployment rate in
[ Page 3844 ]
British Columbia was 5.8 percent. We're the first to admit that there is more work to be done, but I am hardly going to sit and take advice from the Leader of the Opposition. When we look back…. Yeah, they're all going to groan. Let's actually take a look at some of the headlines during the time when the member opposite was the architect of some of the economic strategies — the architect.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1035]

Hon. S. Bond: "Jobless Rate Hits Four-Year High: Bucking the National Trend, B.C. Unemployment Rate Rises to 9.7 percent." That was in 1998. But let's not stop there. Let's roll forward to 2013. If they don't like the 1990s, let's talk about 2013. Here's a headline.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

Hon. S. Bond: Here's a headline from 2013: "NDP's Election Platform Comes Up Empty on Jobs." That's the members opposite's plan.

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM
AND PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

M. Elmore: British Columbians are looking for jobs today, while this government does nothing to fix the broken temporary foreign worker program in British Columbia. When discussing temporary foreign workers in the House yesterday, the minister said: "We have a role to play in ensuring, when employers do behave badly, that that should certainly be the last time that they are able to bring workers into our country."

We've heard many stories in the last month of employers behaving more than badly. We've heard of workers being denied overtime pay, refused holidays, required to rent from their employers and threatened with death when they complain.

Can the minister tell this House whether the province has ensured that any of the employers responsible for these activities have been barred from bringing in more temporary foreign workers, and if so, how many?

Hon. S. Bond: Any time an employer in British Columbia chooses to abuse a worker, whether a temporary foreign worker or not, of course, there should be sanctions. There should be serious consequences.

But we should be clear to the member opposite that this is a federal program, the temporary foreign worker program. We have had significant discussions with the federal government, and we support their position of strong sanctions and, in fact, blacklisting of employers who abuse temporary foreign workers in this province.

But we have asked continuously…. The members on the opposite side of the House, who stand here and outside this House every single day, have yet to actually suggest that there is a legitimate need, after all other circumstances have been looked at, for temporary foreign workers in British Columbia. At the end of a rigorous process….

I see the members opposite shaking their heads. Perhaps they'd like to speak to some northern mayors. Perhaps they'd like to speak to people who have gone through the process. We are saying this. There should not be abuse of the program, but as the last resort, there may be legitimate needs for temporary foreign workers in British Columbia only after a rigorous process and with employers who pay attention to the rules.

Madame Speaker: The members are reminded that the Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

M. Elmore: I think the response from the minister can be characterized as pathetic — pathetically laying down. It is the provincial jurisdiction, the provincial responsibility, to uphold labour standards in this province and protect workers.

Temporary foreign workers are some of the most vulnerable workers in the province. They know they can be sent back on a whim, so they are reluctant to make any waves.

Yet because the Liberal government cut employment standards staff by 50 percent, these workers are expected to self-report problems to the very employers who can fire them and send them back home. And when employers break the law in how they treat workers, the penalties are minimal.

When asked, the minister responds that she's looking at it, just as she says she's looking at having employers register with the province when they want to hire temporary foreign workers, just as she says she's considering publishing the names of employers who are found guilty of violating employment standards.

[1040]

The minister has had many months to look at this. How long must workers in B.C. wait to have real protection of their rights in the workplace?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite…. I know that she knows that temporary foreign workers in British Columbia are covered, as any other worker is, by employment standards and regulation. Employers are held accountable for their treatment of employees in British Columbia. But you know, Madame Speaker, it is time that we actually have an informed discussion about whether or not, ever, there is a circumstance in this province where temporary foreign workers may be required.
[ Page 3845 ]

In fact, some very good work has been done recently by the Liquefied Natural Gas Working Group, which included, I might point out to the member opposite, members of the trade union movement in British Columbia. Their recommendation coming out of that working group was not: "Ban all temporary foreign workers." We've yet to hear a specific answer about when it is appropriate from the members opposite.

In fact, what they said was to develop a protocol for the use of temporary foreign workers in British Columbia as a way to ensure economic development is not impeded by the shortages but conducted in a way to maximize British Columbians' and Canadians' job access.

For a party that says they want to suddenly talk about the economy, the reality is that in certain circumstances, after a rigorous process, there will occasionally be a need for temporary foreign workers in British Columbia.

INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM ISSUES

C. James: The integrated case management system crashed nearly two weeks ago, and it's still not fully working. B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth said the $182 million program has been "a colossal failure."

The Liberal government was warned repeatedly about problems in this system. Problems have existed since they first brought the system in.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How much did this crisis cost, and who is going to pay for it? Will it be the service provider, or will taxpayers be on the hook for a system that doesn't work and the cost of fixing that broken system?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The issues that have risen in the past few days with the information management system have continued in that we now have a system where all the clients have been served for the past few days with a system that works for 1,900 users, and the extra capacity is being served on a read-only basis.

The question the member opposite poses…. It has effectively been stabilized. We are not happy with this situation. We are working on it. The clientele are being served, and once we have the system completely solved, we will report back to this House.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: If the minister was on top of this file, he would know these challenges, as he calls them, have existed for years since this system was brought in.

Let's take a look at what we have. We have a system that cost $182 million, and it still doesn't work. We have a government that tried to hide the problem. We have clients, children and families who are struggling. Staff are frustrated, and the government seems no closer to finding the cause of this crash than it did almost two weeks ago. We've heard no assurances that this system might not crash next week or the week after that or the week after that.

Again, to the minister: as minister, you are accountable for this mess. When will the B.C. Liberals get to the bottom of this and fix it for good?

[1045]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the key point here is that we are concerned about serving those in need. The clientele who need these services are being served. The concern that the member opposite raises is about back office systems, where we are working on a permanent fix.

Our concern is that the needy folks out there in the communities get the services they need, and that is exactly what is happening.

I've described the current status of the system. We have the team assembled here in Victoria. They're working basically full time on this, around the clock, to identify what the glitch was.

I am not satisfied with the current state of affairs, but the clientele are being served, and that is the top priority.

CONTRACTS FOR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

G. Heyman: It's interesting to hear the minister claim that he's not satisfied, because just last Monday the Minister of Citizens' Services claimed: "We have 99.9 percent uptime of our systems. We have robust, reliable systems. Our data are protected and safe, and the services available to British Columbians are on 100 percent of the time."

Two days later, after he claimed the ICM system was fixed, the system crashed yet again with no fix in sight. Front-line workers can't do their jobs, child safety is seriously compromised, delays put families at risk, and ad hoc measures threaten the privacy of personal information. In the face of all of this chaos, does the minister still claim, as he did last week, that: "We intend to continue this enviable record of deployment of top-end IT?"

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It's always helpful when we're examining how to optimize government programs that the members opposite can get even the basic facts straight.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Without dissecting the numerous errors made in the statement by the member opposite….
[ Page 3846 ]

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The ICM system has been operational 99.72 percent of the time until last Wednesday. We're now working to fix the glitch. We're not satisfied with the way work is going, but the clientele are being served.

The member opposite says that people are at risk. Perhaps he can elaborate how they're at risk when the system is working for 1,900 users and everyone else has read-only access. It works. We need to make it work perfectly. That's the task.

The member says that front-line workers don't have access to information. That's just plain wrong. They do. Nineteen hundred of them have access right now.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: Well, let's get some facts straight: $182 million in the failed integrated case management system; $100 million for e-health; $190 million on B.C. student information systems, with $90 million of that to replace the original failed version; serious security concerns and breaches with JUSTIN; and $324 million on the Maximus health records contract, supposedly necessary to save the cost of replacing aging computer systems but which the Auditor General just last year pointed out has still not been completed — $800 million and counting for poor spending decisions and failed contract compliance.

Is this the minister's criteria for "robust, reliable systems"?

[1050]

Can the minister tell British Columbians what sanctions and penalties have been imposed to protect taxpayers from underperforming IT contractors?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, coming from a party that resists change vigorously, that maintains an economic policy that's 40 years out of date, that likes the idea of aging computer systems, we are proud to say that we are bringing our systems into the modern era. Work needs to be done. It's always an ongoing project. We endeavour to make our systems totally reliable. We work with the contractors. We outsource what we need to because our goal is to make sure that British Columbians get the services they need, and that's exactly what is happening right now.

GOVERNMENT MEETINGS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF
BUS SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

J. Rice: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice why the Transportation Minister said "there have been a tremendous number of discussions and meetings that have been held" about a shuttle bus along the Highway of Tears. I asked because the mayor of Prince Rupert said: "I don't know who they've been talking to, but they haven't been talking to the mayor of Prince Rupert." I asked because Chief Terry Teegee, of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, and the Bulkley-Nechako regional district chair also said they have not been approached by the B.C. Liberals. Ditto with the elected officials in Terrace, Smithers, Vanderhoof, Houston, Fraser Lake and Telkwa.

If the B.C. Liberals haven't been meeting with First Nations leaders and mayors about the shuttle bus, can the Minister of Justice explain who they have been meeting with?

Hon. S. Anton: The commission of inquiry into the missing women identified the need for safer transportation options along Highway 16 and all northern highways, with an emphasis on safety, and that's why there need to be two different ways of approaching this. One is through the transportation services, and the other is through other safety features along the highway, and government has been working on both of those.

We invest $4½ million annually in public transportation options. That includes the Northern Health Bus, which takes people to medical appointments and which apparently was something that they did not know about — the members opposite — when they were up there. That is a very important service.

There are local transportation services run by B.C. Transit, which are available to other communities when they wish to partner with B.C. Transit. But more important than that, we are addressing safety for citizens along the highway. That is why the Carrier-Sekani were given a grant of $100,000 to conduct public safety workshops along the highway. That was one of the groups that was just identified.

That is why we have invested $7 million with Telus on improved cell phone coverage, and that is why policing has been so significantly improved on all highways in British Columbia and, in particular, on northern highways.

GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

M. Karagianis: Well, the Justice Minister has once again demonstrated how completely out of touch she is with the communities along Highway 16.

We have seen six domestic violence deaths in the last six weeks and still no real action from this government on a way to fix the problem. There are nine jurisdictions in Canada that have domestic family courts. B.C. has zero. The children's representative says: "It certainly shatters any illusion we have that we're providing safety on the ground for women."

We know this government isn't putting any new money into protection for women, and there won't be any addi-
[ Page 3847 ]
tional money until 2015. I think it's pretty evident that families and women in danger cannot wait till 2015 for this government to get on top of this file.

[1055]

So I will ask the Justice Minister: what actions is she taking now, and what actions is she going to take to ensure that women are safe in this province from domestic violence?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We've spoken about this numerous times because it's a really important issue in British Columbia. It's an issue that isn't going away and that, clearly, is a priority for all of us — to keep vulnerable women and children safe in British Columbia. Domestic violence is a despicable act, and in order to change that, we have to change the attitudes of society that perpetuate the ability of perpetrators to commit this and not fear that there will be retribution.

We have made it a priority. That's why we put the provincial office of domestic violence in place as a coordinating office — not a service provider but a coordinating office — to determine and to best ensure that all of our services and supports across government, across ministries and integrating with our partners are working together.

There is always more to do. That's why we've put forward our three-year plan for domestic violence, which focuses on four areas that the community, through consultation, has identified as areas of most need. We will add $5.5 million over the next two years to those targeted areas, and that's in addition to the $70 million we spend annually on services and supports to women and victims of violence.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In this House I call continued second reading of Bill 24, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

M. Karagianis: I'm very happy to resume the debate here on Bill 24 and voice my opposition for the changes that this government wants to make to the agricultural land reserve and Agricultural Land Commission.

Yesterday, in my remarks, I talked about what good public policy had been put in place by the very visionary, previous NDP government in the 1970s, who took this move to protect agricultural land and how, in fact, other jurisdictions around the world have taken steps, as well — from Hawaii to California to other jurisdictions — to protect their agricultural land.

In the face of climate change, in the face of continued pressure from development, we see other jurisdictions taking steps, while here in British Columbia, after 40 years of an extremely effective policy being put in place, we see a government that is trying to tear it down.

In Bill 24 the two very contentious pieces of this bill that are objectionable are: one, the downgrading of the protection of the agricultural land reserve into two zones, which I think jeopardizes very dramatically the effectiveness of the agricultural land reserve, and secondly, the shift in how the agricultural land reserve will operate under a new regional-based commission or regional-based bodies. I'll talk a little bit more about that.

I do want to reference something that was written here yesterday in the Times Colonist, where there is a great editorial that starts off saying: "While the UN Food and Agriculture Organization is urgently encouraging countries throughout the world to protect their agricultural lands, the B.C. Liberal government's Bill 24 would reduce ours."

What is actually happening with this bill is, rather than taking us forward into the future, it is taking us backwards into the past, into, in fact, a regressive past that we moved away from, because we did have the vision and the courage to enact protections for the agricultural land all across this province.

[1100]

Experts are speaking out everywhere you go — against Bill 24 and against this rash move by the government to try and undo the effectiveness of the land reserve and undo the effectiveness of an independent commission.

Now, I referenced yesterday in my opening comments some remarks here which I think are very germane to this issue. This is from Dr. Lenore Newman, who is the Canada Research Chair in Food Security and the Environment and a professor at University of the Fraser Valley.

She talks about how the current attack on the agricultural land reserve could not be more poorly timed than it has been, because of climate change and other things that are occurring elsewhere around the world, and why every single acre of agricultural land that we have now is so precious to us.

I'm just going to read a couple of excerpts from a report that she did, a blog piece that she did, which she calls "Changes to the ALR: an exercise in bad timing."

"Agriculture in California is in trouble. Nearly 95 percent of the state is in a severe drought condition, and 71 percent is an extreme and exceptional drought condition. Farmers are leaving fields unplanted, as there simply isn't enough water to raise a crop."
[ Page 3848 ]

She goes on to say: "This is a huge problem, and Canada is also at risk." This will directly affect us — things that are happening in California. "We import somewhere around $2.8 billion worth of California produce each year. Much of that goes to British Columbia."

We currently, in British Columbia, produce only 45 percent of our own food, and the rest comes from elsewhere. Right away you can see how dependent we are on things that happen outside of our jurisdiction — decisions that are made outside of our jurisdiction on protecting agricultural land, decisions that are made and circumstances beyond our control, like climate change. And what we see is this extreme multi-year drought in California.

Dr. Newman goes on to say: "Today’s changes to the agricultural land reserve will do little raise this number." Firstly, 95 percent of our farmland "has seen its protection downgraded at the stroke of a pen, leaving only half a percent of the province's land under the strongest category of protection. From now on, industrial uses will be accepted on the bulk of our farmland, ending 40 years of excellent planning."

That is a direct result of the shift to two zones and downgrading the larger zone, which includes grasslands and feed lands around the province.

She goes on to say here: "For the class 1 portion of the reserve in the south, one can hardly call the status quo an improvement. True improvement would involve stopping speculators from purchasing agricultural land reserve land and then immediately applying for exclusion." There are currently 900 exclusions under consideration on this prime zone, and that number is climbing.

Well, that should send alarm bells through every member of this Legislature and, certainly, people all across the province. We have already seen historically, before the agricultural land reserve was put in place, massive development, of an unprecedented amount, that took over lots of prime farmland that we will never get back. We continue to see that onslaught occurring even now, further diminishing these rich arable lands that we have in the southern part of the province and in the Fraser Valley.

Dr. Newman goes on to say, with regard to the other zone, which encompasses a large area of grasslands throughout the province: "The strange thing about this indifference or outright hostility to farmland is that the world market is giving strong signals that we are entering a period of dire food shortage."

That comes directly out of experiences that we can see at hand right now south of us in California, circumstances that will dramatically affect our food security here and that in fact already have affected food security across this province.

[1105]

Farm trusts are rapidly buying up farmland around the globe, often returning as much as 20 percent on their investment. In fact, more progressive societies than what we are currently looking at with this bill, in Bill 24, and this particular government right now, the B.C. Liberal government…. More progressive actions are taking place everywhere else in the world to acquire and protect farmland.

This onslaught is not just ours alone. This has happened as industrialization has taken over many arable parts of the globe. But certainly, we have a chance — we have an opportunity right now — to halt the regressive actions that are taking place under Bill 24.

I want to just talk a little bit more here about what I consider very irresponsible changes that the government is going to be embarking on. This issue around the shifting to two zones. I believe that this…. It doesn't take a lot of imagination. You'd have to be incredibly naive not to see that this immediately means that applications for exclusions from the ALR will continue at a dramatic rate and, in fact, that they are more likely to succeed than ever before.

We've already seen a massive loss, even over the 40 years of the land reserve, because of this proliferation of selling off of land reserves and then, piece by piece, taking it out of the reserve.

But certainly, changing the two zones and then the accompanying piece — the shift in how the Land Commission will operate — will make it much more easy for the land reserve to be eroded and to be taken apart.

The decision here within Bill 24 that talks about how the commission will operate. Instead of a commission that has been very reliable and has done a fantastic job of standing up against the push for development and for industrialization of these lands, this is going to be disbanded, and we will have regional panels that will make these decisions.

In fact, when that method was tried before, it was seen to be not effective. This is one of the major jeopardies. These two zones, in accompaniment with the idea of six regional panels, which, again, will become highly politicized…. These will be appointees of the current government — so immediately, highly politicized positions. I think this signals very clearly to all of us that there is going to be a massive shift in the philosophy around the land reserve and around how we protect it. I think we're going to move away from protection, and we are going to move very aggressively into dismantling the land reserve piece by piece.

I think the independent body, the Agricultural Land Commission, has been a very pivotal piece of the whole story of how the land reserve has survived for so long. As soon as we take away that, we immediately open it up to all kinds of exploitation.

I'd say that there a whole number of reasons to vote no to Bill 24, but most particularly, I think that the current B.C. Liberal government has not been particularly hesitant in showing their desire to continue to kind of erode the land reserve. They've been slowly trying to whittle
[ Page 3849 ]
away at it. They have had several attempts to try and destroy the land reserve.

I think that this latest foray signals that they've become emboldened in their attitudes about this, and certainly, the minister responsible has been pretty fearless in saying, "We're going there, and there's nothing you can do to halt it," despite the fact that experts and citizens across this province are crying out against this bill.

I think that it's also very disingenuous of the government to proceed with this as if they have a mandate to do this when, in fact, a year ago we went through an election process where this was not mentioned. I suspect it was very purposely not mentioned. If the citizens of British Columbia knew that one of the undertakings of the B.C. Liberal government was going to be to begin to rip apart the land reserve, at a time when we need it more than ever — when other jurisdictions are moving towards this kind of model, we're going to go backwards and take it apart — I suspect that would have a significant influence on voters' minds.

[1110]

I think now when I talk with people in my community, when I read the letters and things that have been sent to me, it's very clear that citizens are very upset at Bill 24 and what they consider to be an onslaught against them that the government is doing by stealth, because none of this was discussed a year ago during the election process.

We have canvassed numerous times in this House the lack of consultation around this as well. We didn't talk about it during the last election process, when it would have been appropriate to do so, so I would argue the government doesn't have a mandate to do this.

Secondly, as has occurred on many occasions in many circumstances with this government around their responsibilities to the citizens of British Columbia, no consultation has taken place. When we've questioned the government in the House on this, eventually, after a great deal of pressure under question, the recent minister has kind of reluctantly admitted he's read a lot of letters.

Well, we get cc'd on the same letters that the government does, so we have seen the huge volume of outcry from citizens against Bill 24. The government has got to be hearing the same thing that we've heard. Will they wilfully dismiss that? Will they ignore that and overrule that?

Perhaps, but I think the more egregious action here is that they have not gone out and met with communities and met in person around this province with the people who are going to be most affected. I don't see how you can undertake something as dramatic as this shift on the agricultural land reserve without having that face-to-face engagement with citizens across this province.

I would urge the government to, at the very least, halt the process and go have a talk with British Columbians. You didn't talk with them a year ago when you had the opportunity to do that. You don't have the mandate now to take apart something as fundamental as the land reserve. You certainly, at this point, cannot avoid your responsibilities to the citizens of British Columbia.

The common wealth of British Columbians is at risk. All of us have a stake in food security. All of us have a stake in the preservation of farmland. Whether it's farmland in the north that we don't get to see producing acres and acres of carrots like we do in the Lower Mainland or whether it is, as the Minister for Core Review says, that they're "just growing hay," all of these things are intrinsic parts of the food network. Each and every piece of this helps feed British Columbia.

If we are only producing 45 percent of our food now, if our food security is in jeopardy because of climate change and drought in other parts of the continent, we will become more and more reliant on food that comes a long, long way at a time when we actually know that there is a move towards more local food, more local access, more organic food.

Restaurants are asking for this. Citizens are asking for this. People want to feed their families with local food. We want to support local farmers. We want to support local small business. We do not want to erode all of that. Yet Bill 24, in fact, jeopardizes all of those things.

It's interesting that the B.C. Liberal government, in fact, has done the least to support agricultural programs and business. One of the first actions of the B.C. Liberal government, when they got elected, was to do away with the Buy B.C. program, an enormously successful campaign that raised awareness about eating local food, buying local food. One of the most successful campaigns ever undertaken in this province around food security, and the government did away with it.

Since then they have consistently underfunded agricultural programs. I think that we have the worst record in the country on that — again, demonstrating kind of a predetermined attitude towards the land reserve and towards the idea of agricultural production in the province. I think we belittle it. I think the government has continually belittled the importance of it.

I've heard the arguments from members of the other side of the House that farmers need to branch out and have some opportunities to create other business opportunities in order to sustain a living there. Well, I think that needs to be the problem that we look at: why farmers are not able to have a sustainable living and have a profitable family-supporting living out of the industry.

[1115]

It happens elsewhere in the world. Why would British Columbians be unique? Why would we be unique in saying: "Well, our famers can't support themselves, so therefore, we should start to erode the farmland and let industrial activity takes place."

The whole genesis of the agricultural land reserve comes from that kind of backward thinking — that we somehow, by using up, paving over and industrializing
[ Page 3850 ]
farmland, are progressing. Well, we're not progressing at all. Each and every step that we take away from protecting farmland puts us in a more vulnerable position.

We are going to see things like the California drought affect us in all kinds of ways. Most importantly, we are going to see food become more expensive. We're going to see food shipped further and therefore be less nutritional at a time when we've seen growing poverty in this province. That means more marginalization for families who can't afford to feed their families these kinds of nutritional foods because it becomes more expensive.

We're going to see that immediately. It's going to hit us in our pocketbooks. It's going to hit us on our kitchen tables and dinner tables in the coming months as we see the results of what's happening in California. That's coupled with this erosion of the importance and protective rights of the agricultural land reserve.

As Dr. Newman said, this is an exercise in really bad timing. We need to be going further to put more effort into securing and preserving every single acre of farmland that we have from one end of the province to the other. The government, if they want to undertake something that is meaningful for British Columbians, should be looking at ways to make it more sustainable for farmers to grow and to feed British Columbians. We should be making sure we're putting more effort into agricultural programs and supports rather than less.

I can't entertain any idea of how anyone would support Bill 24. I can't understand how members on either side of the House would support this bill. It is going in the opposite direction to what we need. We should be strengthening the land reserve. We should be strengthening the independent Agricultural Land Commission so that it has the kind of teeth that it needs to protect from even the encroachment that's being undertaken right now in the Lower Mainland.

This is the very antithesis of everything that we should be doing, and I will not be supporting Bill 24. I will continue to fight it as vociferously as I can.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Hope needs to make an introduction.

L. Throness: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Introductions by Members

L. Throness: It's my privilege today to introduce some people from my riding who are from Rosedale, an agricultural area in my riding. They're just coming in. Teacher Ron Neels has brought his grade 11 classroom from Mount Cheam Christian School to tour around Victoria today. I want the House to know they got up at four in the morning to be here, so they deserve a very special welcome from this House. Could we welcome them.

Debate Continued

A. Dix: I rise to oppose Bill 24 at second reading. I think there are debates, and then there are debates in the Legislature. There are pieces of legislation, and there are pieces of legislation that have significant effect.

Everybody, I think, who lives in British Columbia knows, but it bears repeating, that the 1973 act that brought into place the agricultural land reserve was one of the most significant pieces of legislation this Legislature has passed. In fact, our province is different today in very significant ways, generational ways, because we passed at that time the agricultural land reserve. These are, I think, fundamental questions that were raised at the time and answered.

I think what it says is that is the difference…. The difference between the act that brought in the agricultural land reserve and this act, which in my view, downgrades the agricultural land reserve, is the difference between optimism and pessimism

[1120]

Many of the tensions facing agricultural industries now were faced by agricultural industries then. I remember reading something recently — I searched it out this morning — written by Gary Runka, who isn't with us anymore but whose legacy lives on with us through the commission, through the legislation, through the land reserve, through the fact that agriculture continues to play a significant role in our society.

Gary at the time was talking about some of the reasons why we needed an agricultural land reserve, why we needed to protect agricultural land in a society that was tending to push those values, to push that land into other uses. He argued about the challenges of food security at that time, in 1973, and the fact that we were losing agricultural land at an alarming rate and the recognition at the time that local governments were proving "unable or unwilling to hold the line against rezoning agricultural lands to supposedly 'higher and better uses.'"

The Legislature passed that legislation, and we proceeded to protect agricultural lands from one government to another government to another government. What that piece of legislation said was that we didn't have to simply concede to the forces of history, that we could take steps in this Legislature to protect our food security and ensure that we had a thriving agricultural industry into the future. I don't think anyone could dispute — no one in this Legislature could dispute — the long-term and positive impact of what happened there.

Well, this legislation is similar, and it is, given what the Minister of Agriculture said as recently as a few weeks ago, why we should not be proceeding with this piece of legislation now. This piece of legislation, Bill 24, will significantly affect the future of our province. Decisions
[ Page 3851 ]
made as a result of this legislation that we're debating here and now and rushing through so that the government can get it through in May, decisions that we make now, will fundamentally affect our province, its economy and the land base for generations into the future.

This is a significant debate. I think that when you consider that, when you consider the debate and the comments made by members on both sides of the House, the comments made by people in agricultural industries — even some of those who favour the legislation — there needs to be more time to review it.

I think what that tells us at the beginning is that we should not be passing this legislation now, that this legislation does not make sense now. It threatens something that is important now.

If in 1973 one could imagine the significance of and the need to protect agricultural land, the need to support agricultural industries, the need to have a land reserve and a land commission in place to do that, then imagine what we should reflect on in the age of climate change, in the age when we're going to be dealing with these issues in the future, when agricultural land, if anything, is more significant and more threatened today than it was then.

This is not the time to proceed. It's time to follow the path that the Minister of Agriculture in his first days — you know, before he was brought into line — was putting forward. I think those were reasonable comments. I think they're comments we should pursue now.

One of the things that tells you when a bill is bad is when there's a debate in principle, as there has been in this House, and you hear members on the government side say things about the bill that are completely contrary to what the bill, in fact, does. Speeches on the government side say how they support agriculture, when it downgrades agriculture. It downgrades it, as a point of fact. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of debate. But it absolutely does, in word and letter and intent. That's what it does.

They use words such as "modernization." The best was from the Minister Responsible for Core Review, who made it some sort of figment of democracy.

He said a couple of things about it. He said the ALR was created 40 years ago and that anyone who suggests that something created 40 years ago can't be improved is a reactionary. Well, it's very thoughtful thinking, because anybody who believes that something that was created 40 years ago can't be hurt and weakened is a…. Well, you can fill in the blanks, hon. Speaker.

[1125]

The fact is that he goes on to say that it's the belief of this government that any public agency using tax dollars — in other words, money that people out there in the province send us — must be open, at least, to occasional scrutiny by the democratically elected government. He makes a political case for political interference.

Fair enough, except for this. We can speculate psychologically as to why the government may seek to say one thing, to talk about transparency when they're making it less transparent, to talk about the importance of public debate when they're denying public debate. That's one set of things one could talk about.

One could talk about the psychological impact. Clearly, they know what they're doing, which is what they wanted to do last fall, which is to devalue agriculture and to raise up other elements of economic development. It was in the cabinet document. I know the Minister of Health doesn't like us to see that, but on that occasion some light was shone on their world. That is precisely what the intent was.

Here, I think, it's fair to say that the members on this side of the House have been vastly too generous to the government in terms of their discussion of the democratic aspects of this bill. We had an election a year ago. Government had been in office for 12 years. They'd actually conducted several changes in the agricultural land reserve.

There was 2002. There was 2004. There was 2010. They had cut the budget of the Agricultural Land Commission significantly over the course of that period and negatively affected the agricultural land reserve. But in the election campaign, as many of the people on this side of the House have suggested, the government said nothing about this.

This was, in fact, a strong argument. The government had been proceeding on a policy that they had said they weren't changing, and immediately after the election they proposed change. It's not surprising that they would do that, since most people in British Columbia disagree with the government on this question.

But in fact, the government did speak on this question during the election campaign, just as they answered questionnaires about the HST. You remember that discussion? People will be familiar with what the government did on that question.

The government was asked in Country Life in B.C. to answer the following question: "Will it work with the Agricultural Land Commission to ensure that agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not get used for port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development?" What do you think was the answer to that question, since the government and the Minister of Health have brought forward a bill that, in fact, devalues in 90 percent of the reserve the value of agriculture and raises up other values?

What was their answer? Did they say: "We are going to change the agricultural land reserve, we're going to create two zones, and we're going to enhance cronyism in the appointment of commissioners"? Did they say any of that? Did they say what they were going to do? No.

What was their answer to that question? Their answer was yes — the opposite of what they did. They said they were going to protect agricultural values, and they down-
[ Page 3852 ]
graded agricultural values. They said they were going to work with the commission.

Oh, they go on to say other things: "Continue with the East Kootenay boundary review." What happened to that? They ended the East Kootenay.

Right here is a signature proposal the Minister of Health put forward a couple of months later — not so signature. What did they say? "Work more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land and encourage farming."

They put forward this legislation, and the consultation that the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture talked about took place between cabinet ministers. That's their idea of consultation. I guess that keeps things all together in the room.

They did the opposite of that. They didn't tell the truth about it in the election campaign. Let's be clear. They said exactly the opposite.

What else did they say here in their response to this Country Life in B.C. questionnaire? They said they were going to strengthen the ALC by giving it greater ability to focus on preserving farmland and increasing enforcement. Actually, they did the opposite of that in 90 percent of the ALR — the opposite of it.

[1130]

That is the purpose of creating two zones. It's not me that said it. It's members on that side that said it. It's the Minister Responsible for Core Review that said it. That is precisely the purpose of the legislation. It's not any other purpose.

You have to ask yourself when you bring in legislation: what problem were they trying to solve? The problem they were trying to solve is that they think that the removal of 85 percent of applications in the Kootenay region isn't enough, that we need to enhance other values, that we need to have more removal applications. We send a message that there should be more real estate and less agriculture.

That is, at its core, what it's doing — exactly the opposite. What is listed off here was the agenda of Mr. Bullock, the chair of the commission. What they told the voters was the agenda of Mr. Bullock, the chair of the commission. Everything about this bill runs contrary to what he said, to what he recommended, to what he proposed. What they said to the voters is: "The direction Mr. Bullock is taking with the commission is the agenda we're taking."

It's no surprise why they did that. They knew that would be the popular thing to say. Now, it would have been nice if they'd waited days after the election to completely contradict it, to go in the exact opposite direction.

For the Minister Responsible for Core Review to say that this is an example of democracy because a couple of cabinet committees debated these questions, is, I think, to say the least, absurd. It is beyond absurd. It's a cynical situation.

What they're really saying is the people of British Columbia can't be trusted with this debate. Well, the people of British Columbia know what they support in this debate. They support the Agricultural Land Commission. They support the agricultural land reserve.

Now, what are the principles of the bill? I think it's important to reflect on this. The Minister Responsible for Core Review and, of course, the Minister of Agriculture have talked about things like modernization. They suggested that even though, as a government, they, themselves, have acted before to undermine the commission, nothing has changed in 40 years, that they have the right to act, that that in itself is a defence of a bill that has no purpose other than to downgrade the value of the agricultural land reserve and to make other changes to politicize the process.

The first of those changes, of course, is the change they make in the purposes of the commission in 90 percent of ALR land — 90 percent of that land. Whether it's the first version or the second version, they've decided that the purposes of the commission that have stood us in good place, and that they didn't have the jam in the election campaign to talk about, should be changed in 90 percent of the ALR. That is precisely what they propose to do, by ordering the ALR.

The best part is the third part: to consider values other than its principal goal and its principal responsibility of preserving agricultural land and supporting agriculture. They're economic, cultural, social, regional and community planning. My favourite, (d), is the one that they can decide without any public debate: "other prescribed considerations."

What they've done is taken an act…. Mr. Bullock and others have said this well, that the purposes of the commission have been changed, and agriculture has been downgraded. That's what it says on the face of it. There is no other intent. The government can defend that, but they cannot say that their purpose is any other than to downgrade the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. That is the purpose of this in 90 percent of ALR land.

They have not made the case. The minister didn't make the case that the current mandate of the commission is negatively affecting anything. They can't make that case. They can't make the case, and they haven't made the case publicly that any such thing is happening.

What they want to do is make agricultural land more vulnerable to development in spite of the fact that everyone, even in some of their speeches, acknowledges that the need for agricultural land would be greater. This is pessimism. What they're really saying is they don't believe in agriculture anymore. It's the exact opposite of what the government said in 1973. They don't believe in it anymore.

[1135]

"We have to give people more options to get out of it," they say, "especially those who bought the land the day
[ Page 3853 ]
before" — you know, long-term farmers. That's what they're proposing, and that is, of course, frequently, as the former Minister of Agriculture had to acknowledge in estimates with my colleague there, the Agriculture critic from Powell River–Sunshine Coast — acknowledged just recently that the main challenges for exclusions from the agricultural land reserve come from people who aren't farmers.

All of those speeches where they talk about how they care about farmers and they're downgrading agriculture for the good of farmers — "Oh, it's really for your own good" — run contrary to what we know to be true. They are going to create havoc in the real estate market. That is what they're proposing to do at the expense of agriculture, at the expense of jobs, at the expense of this industry in British Columbia. It is the wrong path, and they know it's the wrong path.

What else do they do? We've talked about one principle of this bill, which is to downgrade agriculture. The more they argue that it doesn't do that, the more we know that that's precisely what it does. That's what it does in the letter of the law: downgrades agriculture. What value does this bill support second? The longtime value of cronyism on the government side.

Now, this piece of legislation…. I have read what the members on the government side have said about this piece of legislation. Whenever they get to this part, they gloss over it. They talk about modernization. They attach themselves remora-like to catchwords. The fact of the matter is that one of the pieces of this legislation, one of the proposals in this legislation — talking about its principle here — is that now, when people are appointed to the commission, other than the chair, by definition the government has to consult with the chair.

In not one of their speeches have they mentioned that they were removing this provision. They talk about modernization and transparency — right? It's not a question of him having a veto. They don't even want to talk to him. They want to put in place their appointees to make their political judgments in the six regions and the two zones without even talking to the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission.

This provision is only about cronyism — not mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture doesn't mention it in his speech because he's justifiably embarrassed. The Minister for Core Review doesn't mention it in his speech because he has people in mind. All of the other government members — they don't mention it in their speeches because they are embarrassed too. The only purpose of this change means they have not made the case, not a single case, of what they're trying to fix here.

Is there some problem that consulting with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission about appointments to the Agricultural Land Commission…? Is there some problem with that? Has there been some impediment to that? Does that stop the government doing what it does? Does it stop the commission doing what it does? No. The only thing they are getting out of the way here is an impediment to cronyism on the Liberal side — one small impediment. They have to talk to the chair of the commission. Oh, that's what they want to get at here — get that out of the way. That's the first thing.

Then we go on, and this is so much about the chair of the commission, who basically wrote the Liberal platform on the agricultural land reserve and now is persona non grata, apparently. The chair of the commission did a report in 2010, and what did the report say? That the regional panels don't work. They increased costs at the commission. That's what he concluded. That's what the Auditor General concluded. They concluded that they increased administrative costs dramatically at the commission. They were inefficient, and they didn't work.

What did the government do? They went into the election saying that they agreed with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. After the election they fundamentally changed that by saying: "He doesn't have a choice anymore. We're creating two zones and six commissions. That's what we are going to do here. We're going to take away…."

The chair of the commission was talking about precisely this government structure that we're talking about: "The government structure has given rise to six regional commissions with little evidence that the panels maintain any provincial focus on the agricultural land preservation program."

[1140]

The standing chair of the commission says they shouldn't do this. They don't say they're going to do it before the election campaign. They changed to make it easier to appoint cronies to the commission, and then they proposed this change.

I think you can see, hon. Speaker, that the principle here is cronyism and political control. I agree, believe it or not, with the Minister for Core Review. Of course, the government has the right to set political direction, but they surely don't want the right to be politically interfering in individual land use decisions. They don't want that right.

Beyond that question is a further provision of the legislation. Again, the government has not made the case. They just glide over it. They say, "This is modernization and transparency," where the government decides by regulation. The Standing Committee on Agriculture isn't sitting. They decide by regulation to send directions to the commission.

Let's see. They're fundamentally undermining the principles of the commission in 90 percent of the ALR. They're changing the appointment process to make it more political. They're bringing in a panel system rejected by the chair of the commission, which is more expensive, less efficient and less transparent. And now they
[ Page 3854 ]
also want to give direction to this independent commission in this way.

I suppose one might say that's as the Minister Responsible for Core Review says. It's just that the democratically elected minister is giving direction to the commission, telling it what to do. Isn't that a good thing?

Well, they could debate that. They could defend that, but they never do. They do it in law, but they don't defend it in word. They don't say it to the voters before the election campaign. In fact, they do absolutely the opposite of that.

How can we have any faith in a government that said before the election campaign, in letter and word, that they were going to follow the path of Mr. Bullock and then after the election tore it apart brick by brick? How can anyone have any faith when they say: "We're not going to misuse our direct regulatory powers and our appointment powers"?

We don't. That is the purpose of this legislation. Cronyism, politicization and the downgrading of agriculture — those are three good reasons to be against this bill.

The government's world here is so pessimistic that we should acknowledge there is another approach. It's so pessimistic. I can't imagine, because I know the Minister of Agriculture, that he could put his name to something so pessimistic as this, as spending legislative time to take away his duty to consult the chair of the ALC. That's really what we go into politics for? I don't think so, and I don't think it's why he went into politics.

Let's talk about something more optimistic — how we can build on what was created in 1973 and what has been built by farmers across this country since we had agriculture in British Columbia. Why not bring in changes that speak to the good, that speak to the hopeful — not that we have to sell off and downgrade agricultural land and exclude agricultural land — and that give hope to agriculture?

In British Columbia there is another bill in the Legislature, one that I put into the Legislature on behalf of my colleagues — the B.C. Local Food Act — which proposes the opposite of what the government is doing. They downgrade agriculture. One, we say that government should be using local products when it buys products in British Columbia. They say that the government doesn't have a role to promote British Columbia products to British Columbians. We say we need to reinstate Buy B.C.

Thirdly, they say that the decisions — because there's something of the night about this legislation — made about the future of agricultural land in B.C. should be made in the dark, in the cabinet room amongst cronies of the government. We say there should be a standing committee of the Legislature that works together, both sides, to uplift agriculture, to set higher standards, to increase production and to support farmers in British Columbia. And they should do it in the light of day every year in this place.

That, I think, is the direction we should be going with — promoting agriculture in B.C., not downgrading it. Now, there's a choice. It's the choice that two ministers across the way put out consecutively in two days. It was about this legislation that will change British Columbia. One way or another, it will change British Columbia.

[1145]

The current Minister of Agriculture said it very clearly. After meeting with the B.C. Agriculture Council, he said: "The opportunity is everything from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill."

Removing the bill. Waiting to hear from people. Waiting, as the B.C. Cattlemen's Association asked the government on May 7, until people in the industry were heard from. People in the industry — we've heard from them, and the minister has heard from them — are overwhelmingly opposed to a piece of legislation that ignored the industry and that was a debate amongst cabinet ministers as to what they could get away with.

That's what the Minister of Agriculture said. Then there was what the Minister for Core Review said virtually the next day. "Am I open to changes to the legislation?" he says, because he really only gets the questions he wants when he asks them himself. "That's really up to cabinet and caucus, but I can tell you that government is not interested" — not interested — "in fundamentally changing or delaying the bill. The bill will pass."

Given what we've heard, given the centrality of the ALR to our history, given the dynamic of climate change, given the importance of agricultural industries, we can do better than this. I ask members on both sides of the House to oppose this bill and go back to the drawing board.

J. Shin: It is with a pronounced sense of responsibility that I take my place in the House today to speak to Bill 24 on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed.

Last month, when the government introduced this bill, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, e-mails, phone calls and letters started flooding into my office. Be it from the very few in vague approval of the bill or the countless many in fierce opposition to the bill, what actually struck me most was the vast range of British Columbians that this particular issue engaged. The farmers, consumers, businesses, organizations, municipalities and even academia came out voicing their concerns.

I was equally stirred by the sheer passion which their concerns were expressed and the quality of the evidence and the expertise from which their opinions were formed. Now, I'm sure all the Members of the Legislative Assembly have heard the same, but I do want to share just a few for the public record so that, if not all, at least some of these voices are brought to the attention of this House — even with all the indications, as it seems right now, that they will fall on deaf ears, as will my voice here likewise.
[ Page 3855 ]

The first one is from an outraged young farmer in Rossland."The ALR and farm status being all the government has ever done for us, now you would like to start eroding them too. Shame on you. You risk the future of all of our children for your political gain and the financial greed in the minority you serve in the name of democracy. Shame on you."

Here is another one, this time from a concerned consumer in my constituency.

"I just read about this bill being introduced that will break apart the ALR. This is very disturbing to me, as many people who live in the Lower Mainland have total respect and support for our local farms. To dismantle the ALR is absolutely not what the people want or need. More than ever, we need to keep the ALR and think about food security locally to sustain ourselves now and into the future."

Here is yet another one, which is a perspective from a farmland owner in rural B.C. who is a personal friend of mine. This one is interesting. He says:

"If taking my land off the reserve was an option, I would have kicked out my tenant farmer and sold the lot for the right price, even if it would get concrete poured over it and turned into a Wal-Mart parking lot.

"So if anything, I think it's a good thing that the ALR keeps me from making that bad choice that I know I will make for my own personal gains, even at the expense of our society. If they open that door for people to sell off their reserve land, you can bet that people like me will do it."

[1150]

The next one is one from a local organization in Burnaby.

"While Burnaby currently has 43 farms within its boundaries, we recognize that food security for our residents is dependent on the preservation of farmland and the encouragement of farming throughout the province. Accordingly, we at Burnaby Food First urge that Bill 24, 2014, be withdrawn; that the Agricultural Land Commission continue as a provincewide independent quasi-judicial body; and that the agricultural land reserve be maintained as one zone for the entire province."

This is something that resonates with me. There's a letter from 100 academics, biologists, naturalists at B.C. universities and research centres. Agricultural lands produce not just crops but "contain wetlands, streams, ponds, riparian areas, woodlands, hedgerows and uncultivated grasslands either adjacent to or integral to farm operations…. We call upon the government of British Columbia to include scientifically derived information…."

From my fellow colleagues in the city of Burnaby, representing over 220,000 residents, a resolution was passed on April 14 "in opposition to the proposed alterations to the ALR."

So there you have it. Needless to say, many people and groups from all walks of life in and out of my community all across B.C. have something to say about the ALR and about this Bill 24.

What is this ALR? I had to study this. The agricultural land reserve — is this some left-wing conspiracy? Why was it established 40-some years ago by the B.C. NDP Dave Barrett government? What does this recent Liberal Bill 24 propose to change? And perhaps, more frankly, who and how does this bill intend to benefit?

Beyond the concerns of those that I just quoted in the beginning, beyond the opposition that my colleagues are voicing on this side of the House and, of course, my briefing notes, I had to discover this for myself. I had to hear it for myself from the people. I had to learn for myself from the facts so that I could get some legitimate answers to these questions, besides all the rhetoric that I hear on both sides. That's something I think I would do, and I think a lot of members try to, at least, before they speak yea or nay to any legislation.

The first thing I did was I turned to the history of this ALR, which was conceived a decade before I was born. For those of us tuning into Hansard for this debate — and we had a gallery full of students — who may be unfamiliar with this agricultural land reserve, the ALR is a collection of land in our province lawfully protected for agricultural use only.

It's a good thing too. I don't think anybody can argue that. Everyone would agree that there are no ifs and buts about it, because we can all recognize that only a small fraction of British Columbia's land is considered arable — about 47,000 square kilometres — and even a smaller proportion is actually considered top-quality soil.

Natural history does show that British Columbians settled near these prime soils on the valley bottoms or the river deltas, but during the post-war years — and this is going back many, many years for someone of my age — the rapid housing and industrial expansion in the B.C. communities even then prompted justifiable concern about the loss of these valuable farmlands. It was estimated that between 40 to 60 square kilometres of arable B.C. soil were lost every year for non-farming purposes.

Numbers like that just go in one ear and come out the other. So 40 to 60 square kilometres — what does that even look like? That's the size of 8,000 to 12,000 football fields. That's 8,000 to 12,000 football fields of our farmlands disappearing every year, and it continued that way until the ALR put a stop to it.

If that doesn't make your heart drop, I don't know what else will. It's a scary thought when you see numbers of that scale. As the youngest women in this chamber, I'm only starting to grasp the concept that there really is no ceiling to the greed of humans. History saw back in those times, in the '50s and the '60s, that we were losing our best farmland at a furious, insatiable pace and in places like Richmond and in Delta, where the best of the world's arable land lies.

[1155]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Dave Barrett, our 26th Premier of this province, recognized that something had to be done. He understood that only 6 percent of B.C. was arable land. The rest is rocks
[ Page 3856 ]
and trees. It registered with him that we needed to protect that 6 percent upon which we could grow food and livestock. The only way to do so was, literally, to take out that stick, draw the lines and keep it out of the reach of the worst of us.

So in came in the agricultural land reserve, as I find, with an announcement that came in 1972 by the then Agriculture Minister that this legislation would stop the rezoning of agricultural land for non-farming purposes. The minister made it loud and clear at that time that no one should invest in agricultural land if they didn't intend on using it for agricultural purposes.

Not surprisingly, when that announcement went out many farmers were outraged, because they saw that this was an end to their private use of the land. For many, it was their only retirement plan, and they wanted to be able to sell their properties to urban developers, who would offer higher prices.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate, and I will reserve my place.

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 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

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

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $19,107,000.

The Chair: Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review, do you have an opening statement, or would you like to make introductions?

[1105]

Hon. B. Bennett: I don't have a formal opening statement for any parts of the ministry and core review. I'd like to allow the opposition as much time as possible to ask their questions, and I'll do my best to give concise answers.

I would like to take the opportunity to introduce the folks who are with me: on my right, my deputy minister David Nikolejsin; and on my left, the assistant deputy minister responsible for this side of the ministry, Les MacLaren; behind me, Frank Wszelaki, who is the president and CEO of Columbia Power Corporation; David de Git, director of finance for Columbia Power Corporation; and the inimitable Audrey Repin, director of stakeholder and external relations.

So thank you, and we'll get started.

K. Conroy: I want to thank the minister, as we are fairly constricted with the amount of time. I'm going to be fairly quick on asking, as we're going to be going through the Columbia Power Corp, Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia River treaty over a period of two hours. I believe that's what we've been allotted, which is not a lot of time.

I'm looking at Columbia Power Corp first. I just want to say off the bat how impressed I am with the work that's been done on the Waneta project. It's incredible. The cooperation between all of the entities is great. It's just wonderful to see an on-time project. I really enjoyed going and touring, and thanks to the Columbia Power Corp and the people working there who are doing such a great job on that.

I wanted to put that on the record. Thank you to the staff for that.

Going through the budget and the report, it's talking about the Columbia Power Corp's dividends to the province — that it's going to remain at $2 million a year until the joint development model with B.C. Hydro is finalized. I'm wondering: what does that entail?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member knows probably better than anybody that CPC is basically on its last project in terms of the projects that were set out in front of the organization when it was created. The Waneta expansion project is the last on the list. When reference is made to new project development and the future of CPC, that reference is there because CPC is and has been working closely with B.C. Hydro to try to develop some projects that CPC could be involved in going forward.

They've been very successful in the projects that they've been involved in over the past 20 years, and government would like to allow them the opportunity to continue to be involved in hydroelectric projects going forward in the basin — perhaps even outside the basin, but for now, in the basin. That's what that discussion is about.

I don't think there's any particular relationship between the $2 million annual dividend and that discus-
[ Page 3857 ]
sion. But the member can inquire further, and I'll try to provide more information.

K. Conroy: In the report it actually says that CPC will continue to pay $2 million to the province until the joint development model with B.C. Hydro is finished. There is obviously some correlation between the two. I'm wondering if that means that CPC is going to stay doing what it's doing, or are they only going to be doing projects with B.C. Hydro?

[1110]

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that the $2 million annual dividend is and has been provisional. It's in place. Certainly, the shareholder hasn't asked for anything different. There are these discussions happening between B.C. Hydro and CPC about what's next — what projects B.C. Hydro has on the books that CPC could do, could manage.

When there is an agreement between B.C. Hydro and CPC about what the next project or projects will be and when they have the commercial terms agreed to between the two corporations, it is possible that the dividend arrangement will be changed. It might not be a $2-million-a-year dividend. It will likely reflect the commercial terms between B.C. Hydro and CPC, but we don't really know until there is some kind of legal arrangement and all the terms have been settled between B.C. Hydro and CPC what the dividend would look like.

K. Conroy: So future projects that we talked about last estimates were Elko, Spillimacheen and Duncan. Are they still on the books? Are these still projects that are potentially being looked at by the Columbia Power Corp? To add to that, is the Columbia Power Corp only going to be able to do projects in cooperation with B.C. Hydro, or will they be able to do projects on their own?

Hon. B. Bennett: The shareholder has not restricted CPC from involving themselves in projects that are not related to B.C. Hydro. CPC by itself has chosen to talk to B.C. Hydro about the list of projects that the member just mentioned, and they are still on the list. I would say that the Elko project is at the top of the list right now. That's where the discussion is at between CPC and B.C. Hydro.

They're not done, but they've spent a lot of time and energy on that discussion. CPC could develop projects with other partners or alone. As I say, there's currently no prohibition against them developing projects that are not related to B.C. Hydro.

K. Conroy: Is it going to be the policy of Columbia Power Corp, then, to follow in the local-hire procedure if Elko goes ahead, or the other ones, and utilize the same hiring procedures that they have with the existing projects they've done on the past three projects?

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that CPC can commit to focusing a lot of effort on hiring local people, local talent. They cannot guarantee that the B.C. Hydro subsidiary would be utilized for future projects. The member knows that they're the kind of corporation that is rooted in the Columbia Basin and will, I think, go out of their way to utilize local people, local talent.

[1115]

K. Conroy: One of the other questions I had around the budget was on what's called in the budget the restructuring of the Power Corp's capitalization, taking a portion of the government's direct investment and returning that to the government. My understanding is the government took $300 million from the Columbia Power Corp that went into the government coffers, so to speak. They're saying that's a repayment on the debt.

What it looks like, from the perspective of people in the region, is that government is going to the Crown corporation and taking $300 million. It's going to the government's books, and now it's not on the books of the Columbia Power Corp. I mean, it is a Crown corporation, so I get that. Now there's a $15 million interest payment that has to be paid by the power corporation, and in the past the payment was much less than $15 million, I'll tell you that. It was less.

I'm just worried that…. When we look at what's happened to other Crown corporations in the province — B.C. Hydro, ICBC — the government has taken money from those corporations, and it's been detrimental to those corporations. Is this the same direction that we're going in with the government taking money from the power corp? I'm just wondering how this is going to benefit the power corp in the long run.

I understand full well why it benefits the government. I'm really concerned about the long-term viability of the power corporation if the government is going to continue to remove assets in this manner.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct. There was a one-time $280 million dividend being paid to the provincial government. The member is also correct about it being a total of $300 million. The other $20 million was repayment to one of Columbia Basin Trust's subsidiaries, CBT Energy. That loan needed to be paid off at some point. It's now paid off.

The $280 million is a one-time dividend payment to the provincial government. It is a repayment of the initial investment from the people of the province. The initial investment was $250 million. The extra $30 million could be considered to be a modest return on that investment. That's certainly, I think, a justifiable position for the province to take.

Having said that, I think it's also important to mention that when the discussions took place between CPC and the province, there was considerable discussion about
[ Page 3858 ]
ensuring that taking this dividend would not in any way undermine CPC fiscally or would not undermine CPC's capacity to go forward with other projects in the future.

K. Conroy: That is a concern. If it was done this year, is it going to continue to be seen as a potential cash cow for the government that there are funds here that can be accessed by a government that's in debt? That is a concern.

It's a concern because people are, of course, looking at the Columbia Power Corp to move forward with other projects in the region, and will that stymie the ability to look at other projects without having to go to find partners? Will they be able to do any of the projects on their own?

I know that there is potential even for some projects to be done with local government and some local initiatives. Will those still be able to happen if the Power Corp doesn't have the finances to be able to invest in these projects with local government?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my advice that there is no obstruction to CPC moving forward with the project or projects that they will ultimately be involved in with B.C. Hydro or with other partners or on their own as a result of this dividend. This dividend was taken, as I said, as a repayment on the original investment by the people of the province. It is a public corporation.

[1120]

The $280 million that flows to the province will be used for such things as new schools, hospitals, clinics and other things that are, I think, important to all British Columbians. It's an eminently reasonable thing to do, and it has not in any way hamstrung CPC.

K. Conroy: I hope that the future will show that. I think that's a considerable investment from the people of the basin, $280 million back towards the people of the province. Once again the people of the Kootenays are contributing significantly to the people of the province, as we have done since the whole issue with the Columbia River treaty was started.

One of the reasons why the Columbia Power Corp and Columbia Basin Trust were formed back in the '90s was to repay back to the people of the Kootenays and the basin what they had lost. I know that the minister is well aware of this, coming from the Kootenays. It's just that once again the people of the basin are contributing, and I hope that there isn't going to be any detrimental effect to the power corp in such a large sum coming out at once — that it didn't come out over a number of years; it came out on one lump sum.

I'm hoping that we won't be going through estimates this time next year, expressing concern about anything happening with Columbia Power Corp. I'm wondering how the core review is going to affect Columbia Power Corp.

Hon. B. Bennett: I really do share the member's point of view about how important this corporation is to the people in the Columbia Basin. Look at the projects that CPC has been involved in: the Brilliant dam and generating station, the Arrow Lakes generating station, the Brilliant expansion generating station and now, of course, the Waneta expansion. Look at the boat launches that the CPC has been involved with and the many other ways that they have shared with the people of the Columbia Basin the earnings that they have made over the years.

I've said this before and will say it again here today: it has been a very successful enterprise. Certainly, government has no intention of undermining the future of CPC. It is a good organization that does good work, can bring projects in on time, on budget. It is, I think, an important example for other large corporations to have operating.

Certainly the taking of the dividend was no intention to undermine the work of CPC. I wanted to say that but, by doing so, forgot the question.

A Voice: Core review.

Hon. B. Bennett: Core review. The only interaction between core review and CPC was the item that we just discussed: that is, the capital restructure, the dividend. It was a core review idea to look at all of the Crown corporations, and CPC was one of those Crowns that we looked at. We looked at their balance sheet. We saw an opportunity for the public to be repaid without undermining CPC, so that's where that idea came from.

K. Conroy: Just a segue into what the minister has been saying around community sponsorship. I know that the projects that the Columbia Power Corp has been engaged in, like the boat launches, have been huge in the area. The people of the region are very happy with them, for the most part. There are a few things that are getting cleaned up, but the staff has been doing an excellent job of working with the communities to ensure that those boat launches will be exactly what everybody in the region wants.

That's great. It's been a long time coming. B.C. Hydro had been promising them for years, and I was really happy to see that the Columbia Power Corp was able to take over and do that work. It's a long, long time coming. I know there are other things on the books that potentially could be done, and I'm really happy with the work that the people in the region do.

One of the worries is the community sponsorship. I know it's budgeted for, and it's budgeted right through $85 million or $95 million. Or $85,000 or $95,000. The people of the region probably wish it was "million," but we'll keep bidding on it. I just want to make sure that that money is solid, that it's going to stay there.

[1125]

I know there are so many organizations in the region
[ Page 3859 ]
that value the contribution from the Columbia Power Corp and depend on it, in some cases. It's made a huge difference in the lives of people in the region. I just want to make sure — I want it on the record — that that will not be jeopardized in any way, shape or form.

Hon. B. Bennett: CPC intends to carry on with the community investments that they've made at the same, or approximately the same, level in the future. That's what I'm advised by CPC. The shareholder does not interfere at that level of operations.

I guess we'll have an opportunity to talk about Columbia Basin Trust, which receives the other half of the power income. Of course, they are investing a tremendous amount in our region.

Sometimes I think that the four members from the Kootenay region should probably talk less about all the benefits we get from CBT and CPC, just in case colleagues happen to notice.

K. Conroy: Then when that happens, we lose $280 million.

I think I actually heard the minister say that something good had come out of the '90s, when he referred to the CBT and CPC. I just want to put it the record, because that's a good thing. That's a very good thing. I want to thank the minister for that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I've said it before.

K. Conroy: He's said it before, and he's saying it again.

Because we have so short a time, I want to move on to the Columbia Basin Trust so that we can make sure we get through all the questions that we have.

So thank you to the staff for coming all this way.

Hon. B. Bennett: I just wanted to introduce Neil Muth, who is the president and CEO of Columbia Basin Trust and who will guide us in our responses to the member of the opposition.

K. Conroy: Before anybody leaves from CPC, I'm going to be asking for — if we could get it in writing; I don't want a verbal response — the staffing component of both CBT and CPC. I'll just put that on the record.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: The staff and wages and who works there — just detail.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member has asked, I think, for a list of people who work at CPC and CBT. I don't know whether we can publish salaries or not. If we can, we will.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Executive compensation. We'll provide that to the member in due course.

K. Conroy: The Columbia Basin Trust. I'm really happy that Neil Muth is here.

Both the staff from the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation are a huge part of our communities and work really well with people throughout the region. We hear about it all the time. I mean, people are so thrilled with the Columbia Basin Trust. It doesn't matter where you go in the region. They're similar to the Columbia Power Corp. People in the region are benefiting from the organization. It's a wonderful legacy of what had turned out to not be such a great legacy from the Columbia River treaty years ago. This is a good thing.

I know that the Columbia Basin Trust began discussions with the province to develop a memorandum of understanding to better clarify the Columbia Basin Trust level of autonomy as a regional-based entity and its accountability to the province. I just wonder what the status of those discussions are.

[1130]

Hon. B. Bennett: The status of the MOU development is that we've made some progress. There's been a lot of discussion between the ministry and CBT, back and forth with ideas and so forth. We will finalize an MOU, if that's what the member's question is about. We'll finalize an MOU that will recognize and acknowledge the distinctive nature of Columbia Basin Trust in the B.C. government.

It is not a standard Crown agency. It is different. It was created for a very specific purpose. It is of a regional nature. It's got its own legislation. The MOU will acknowledge all of those things, but we don't have it done yet.

K. Conroy: What's the time frame for completing those discussions?

Hon. B. Bennett: Certainly, I would hope to have the MOU signed. I want to be clear that this is not a guarantee, because I don't have full control over the whole process. I have a lot of colleagues, other ministries that had a role in terms of what is in the MOU and what is eventually agreed to.

I am shooting to have it done in 2014. That's my goal. Again, I can't guarantee that, but that is my goal.

K. Conroy: Can the minister share, then, what other ministries are involved in these discussions?

Hon. B. Bennett: Certainly, the Ministry of Finance is involved in anything involving Crown agencies and anything involving accountability between Crown agencies
[ Page 3860 ]
and the Crown. This matter will be subjected to the government's committee process. I'm not 100 percent sure at this point which committees or committee this will go to. I don't have that.

I know this is hard for the opposition to believe, but I don't have the singular power to just unilaterally sign the MOU without taking it to at least one other committee and getting some other perspective on it, which is why it'll take at least a few more months and possibly the rest of the year to get this done.

There are many ministries and many MLAs that sit on these various committees. But in answer to the member's question, certainly the Ministry of Finance has a formal role in this.

K. Conroy: Is there discussion in amongst these discussions — I'm not sure if this is a place where it would happen or not — around the makeup of the board of directors of the Columbia Basin Trust? Will they remain status quo, appointed by government?

Hon. B. Bennett: There is no contemplation of changing the governance that's in place today. The member is correct to suggest that the province has formal responsibility and the right to appoint all 12 board members. However, half of those members are identified by and suggested by the local governments within the Columbia Basin. The province has never, to my knowledge, ever disagreed with a recommendation from a local government on these board members and is unlikely to do that.

[1135]

I think the one piece of our governance of the CBT that I would just mention to the member, in case she's not aware of it, is that the local governments have typically appointed people to the CBT. I slip into that language. They formally don't have the right to appoint people, but in a de facto sense they do. They tell us who they want on the board; they get appointed. Local governments have typically appointed people to the board for very short periods of time — sometimes only a year, often only a year.

What CBT has told us over the years is that that makes it difficult for succession to properly evolve. You need people on a board like this who are there for a few years who can work their way into a position where perhaps they can chair the audit committee or perhaps they can chair the investment committee. When you're only there for a year, it's really difficult to do that.

I think the member was at a meeting last year at UBCM. I have a recollection that we may have discussed this. In any case, we are working with the regional districts. We're not telling them what to do. We're actually asking them to consider an appointments process for their six members on the board that would make it easier for the Columbia Basin Trust to have succession planning and to educate their board members to the point where they can be more useful and take more senior roles.

Currently what's happening, and what's been happening for quite some time now, is that the six provincial appointments are there for, usually, six years minimum. They end up in the senior roles of audit chair and investment chair and chair of the Columbia Basin Trust and so forth because the local government recommendations just aren't there long enough.

Given that this is a non-partisan file, I think, for both myself and the member, to the extent that she can help with this, I'd certainly appreciate it.

K. Conroy: I think myself and the other MLAs from the Kootenays would love to help with it. I know in the past the actual four MLAs from the Kootenays were appointed to the board, and it was up to them to decide if they wanted to sit on the board or choose a replacement to sit on the board. That was an interesting way that it used to be done. Then legislation changed that. That's something to think about. But I'm sure we would be only too happy to provide input into that. I have talked to some people in the regional district around the issue of the board.

Now I'm going to talk about what you've told me not to talk about — the CBT. I'm going to do it anyway. They are forecasting a considerable increase in revenues in the coming years. It's been invested, and the investment numbers are coming back, and it's looking good. The initial forecast that was planned back when the trust first started is coming to fruition. The Columbia Basin Trust is actually going to have considerable dollars to invest back into the basin.

I know there have been discussions with basin residents and regional districts around the basin about the future of this spending and where it's going to go. I'm just wondering what the general conclusion of these discussions has been. Is the trust ready to make recommendations to the basin?

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that the process has started, but only barely started, and that it will continue for most, if not all, of 2014 and potentially even into 2015. It will be a significant engagement on the part of Columbia Basin Trust, given the additional revenue flowing to the trust now from the power projects and given that things change over time.

I think it's fair to say that people's attitudes change about what's most important. On a regular basis, as the member knows, the trust has always gone out to the people of the basin and asked them: "What do you think? How do you think that these revenues should be invested?"

[1140]

CBT has committed to a full consultation process with
[ Page 3861 ]
residents in the basin to discuss how CBT can best focus its efforts on supporting community well-being in the basin. This, of course, is particularly in light of these increased revenues. I think that's probably enough.

K. Conroy: One of the original policies for the trust was that money couldn't be invested in anything that the provincial government should be paying for. I'm wondering if that policy is still going to stay in place.

Hon. B. Bennett: The legislation supporting the creation and operation of CBT states that nothing that the Columbia Basin Trust does or pays for or is involved with relieves the Crown of its obligation to fund all of the things that the Crown ordinarily funds. That's what the legislation, I'm advised, states.

So it's a little bit turned around from what the member asked — the way the member asked the question. I think the gist of it is that government can't expect the trust to fund things that government would and should be funding. That's the result of the legislative provision, as I understand it.

K. Conroy: My understanding from the minister's answer, then, is that that will continue to evolve. That policy will stay in place.

Hon. B. Bennett: The legislation is in place. The government has no intention of changing it.

K. Conroy: I'm also wondering, after going through what the minister said came out of the core review with the Columbia Power Corporation…. Should there be concern, or can the minister address the concern from the region that the government will also look at the funds from the Columbia Basin Trust and decide that some of those funds should come to the government?

I know that it's not the same as the Columbia Power Corp's funding from the ministry, from government. But is there any worry that the government might decide that there are funds here…? We need them, as the minister had said, to build schools, hospitals, etc. Is that a worry that the people of the basin should be concerned about?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that the legislation makes clear that the revenues generated for the trust and by the trust are to be used for the benefit of the people of the Columbia Basin. That's in legislation. So there is that legal protection.

Perhaps more importantly than that, I can tell the member that I have never, in fact, had a discussion in my time as an Energy Minister with any member of government — whether elected or otherwise — that would indicate there is any aspiration to raid Columbia Basin Trust.

[1145]

K. Conroy: We will certainly be happy to see that in print and on the record. It's always a concern in the region, because the trust is doing well. It's been managed well, and it's evolved into what was the original dream of it for the basin and for the residents of the basin. We're hoping that that all stays as status quo, as the minister has said.

I'm wondering: what is the percentage of investment that the investment program is actually investing in the basin?

Hon. B. Bennett: There is really only one exception to the rule that all revenues, assets, owned by Columbia Basin Trust are invested within the basin. That exception, I am advised, applies when the CBT has considerable cash on its hands, as in the millions, and needs to put that cash someplace where it can earn a reasonable return for the residents of the basin.

So there is a small proportion of the total assets and cash of Columbia Basin Trust that does get invested in market securities. Of course, when CBT needs to withdraw cash from that account to make short-term investments or long-term investments, they do that.

I don't have the percentage. Certainly, looking at the total amount invested by CBT, it would appear to be a very small percentage, probably less than 5 percent. It's temporary, and it is only because the best thing for CBT to do on behalf of the residents of the basin is to invest that cash that they have to make sure there's a return.

K. Conroy: Do we know what has been the best investment? What has brought the best return of all the investments in the basin? What's been the best return?

Hon. B. Bennett: Without question, the trust has benefited most from the hydroelectric investments that they've made over the years. Clearly, with the revenues starting to flow to the trust that are in excess of $20 million a year, that is coming from these power investments.

The Chair: Do you have one more question, Member?

K. Conroy: Four in one. I'll ask for this in writing. In the actual budget it shows the incomes from all the different power projects. Then it also shows expenses, and there are significant expenses to the Brilliant Power Corp. expansion in the Arrow Lakes this year, next year and the year after.

I'm just wondering what the expenses — they're significant, in the millions — are for those three projects. If I could get in writing what those are, because I'll take too
[ Page 3862 ]
long, and the Chair will glare at me.

The other thing. I just want to know how the core review is going to affect the CBT.

Hon. B. Bennett: I can confirm for the member that we will acquire the information that she needs from each of the subsidiaries of Columbia Basin Trust — I don't know if subsidiary is even the right word — or the corporations that own, I think, 50 percent of these power generation assets. We'll get either financial statements or at least a written report on what these expenses are so that the member has that.

In terms of what core review is doing or not doing with Columbia Basin Trust, core review has no plans to review Columbia Basin Trust.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 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