2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 5

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

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I know we had many guests in the gallery this morning, but there is one particular one that I want to introduce. She was in the gallery and observing the apology. She was here for a meeting with the Minister of Justice, which she is still anticipating will take place.

It is Mayor Jude Schooner, the mayor of Tahsis. There were various references to Nootka Sound and Captain Meares, and that has a strong resonance with their wonderful west coast village of Tahsis.

Mayor Schooner has been a very, very strong advocate for her community. She is here to advocate again and is very much looking forward to a very good, detailed discussion with the Minister of Justice later today. I hope the House will make her very welcome.

D. Bing: I had four guests in the House today. Two of them were my cousins, Beverly Hee from Victoria and my Aunt Nancy from Victoria, and I had two sisters, Dorothy Pridmore and Irene Bing. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General — Disability Assistance: An Audit of Program Access, Integrity and Results.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, and in this chamber, the continued discussion on Motion 19.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 19 — APOLOGY FOR
PAST DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
AGAINST CHINESE CANADIANS

(continued)

J. Yap: It's truly an honour and a privilege to take my place in this debate on a very special motion, a historic motion. It is perhaps an often used cliché that we're making history, that today is a historic day. But it truly is. What we're doing as MLAs in this House here in British Columbia really speaks to how proud we can be as Canadians and as British Columbians.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In a world where racism is still a scourge throughout the world, in society at large, and still faces people on a daily basis, what we're dealing with today with this motion, which has the support and goodwill of every member of this Legislature, is to bring some closure to a period of time in our history — as was said by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, about the first half of the history of British Columbia — when racism was officially sanctioned.

In this House, as we have heard, there were up to 100 pieces of legislation, motions, policies and statements that were racist and, in particular, against one group: Chinese Canadians. It didn't matter that you immigrated here or that you were second generation or third generation. That was a time here in this province, officially sanctioned in this House, where you were singled out because of your heritage.

That has since changed. Our society has changed. Subsequent generations of British Columbians, Canadians, have a very different view of the world, a much more inclusive and diverse view of society, of community and of what it means to be Canadian.

A hundred years ago, being Canadian, the image, the view of Canada, as was said by other speakers, was a Eurocentric view. In fact, the Premier of the day even said that we wanted to keep British Columbia European. Those days are long gone, but they are part of our history.

What this motion will do here in this House, with the support of all members of the Legislature, is officially bring this part of our history to a close and move forward with great hope and optimism for an inclusive, respectful, tolerant, diverse, multicultural society that is British Columbia.

The apology cannot undo the wrongs of the past. We know that. But it has also been said that if we do not learn from history, we can repeat it. Those that do not learn from history can repeat it. The apology and today's motion is just one part, an important part, of bringing some closure but also a new beginning.

I am very pleased that education will be part of this healing process. We will ensure that it will be in the curriculum of British Columbia for our students to learn about our history, this part of our history, so that every British Columbian over time will understand what happened and be in a position to never allow this to happen again.

[1340]

I'm grateful to the Premier and the members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Kingsway
[ Page 4028 ]
for working on this in a collaborative way. To have seen such a great collaboration, a successful consultation that reached out to British Columbians all around our great province, reaching out to the Chinese-Canadian community and getting genuine input into what needs to go into this apology and the subsequent steps to ensure that we do the right thing…. And today we have a chance to make this happen with a vote on this motion.

I support this motion with great enthusiasm and great gratitude that I have the opportunity to be a part of this Legislature that today will take this historic step in officially expressing regret and apology on behalf of all British Columbians to the Chinese-Canadian community.

I want to close with this. There are not many days — I could probably count on one hand, and other speakers before me have reflected on this — that were truly special days, days that when we leave this place, years after being an MLA, we will remember what we did here. This is one of those days for me, personally, as a member that represents a community with a high percentage of Chinese Canadians and as a member who is a Canadian of Chinese descent.

This is a day we can all be proud, as Canadians, as British Columbians, a day when we have put aside our differences on policy and are here to do the right thing. I know that this is special. This is truly special in a world where we see that racism continues.

Here, right now in Victoria, British Columbia, in this House, elected representatives for the people of British Columbia are doing something that is right, doing the right thing, making an official act with this motion, when it passes, to express apology, to express desire for atonement for past historic wrongs and to ensure that future generations learn from this period of our history.

With that, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and look forward to hearing the comments of other members, from both sides of the House.

B. Ralston: It's indeed an honour to join the debate on this historic occasion. I was reflecting with a colleague over the lunch break that this is probably one of the few times here in this House when we've actually genuinely listened to each other, and there may be some lessons there. Because together, when we do listen to each other, we can achieve common purposes that we might not otherwise be able to do.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister of International Trade, who, given the assignment by the Premier, has carried it out very effectively and openly.

I also want to acknowledge the work of perhaps one of the unsung heroes, Dean Sekyer of the ministry staff, who was given the very tough job of organizing the community consultations and preparing the report — under pressure of some really tight deadlines, I think it would be fair to say.

I think it's also appropriate to recognize the eloquent speeches that we've heard thus far, from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the member for Burnaby North, what I expect will be a speech from the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, because I know he participated in one of the community consultations, in Prince George. The story of him and his family is quite a compelling one.

[1345]

I also want to acknowledge the work and the omnipresence of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on this issue, who has worked, together with all members, in bringing this issue forward to the Legislature.

I would just say, on a more personal note, that I thought I understood the history of this province reasonably well. I had a bit of an advantage because my father was born in British Columbia and went to school here in Victoria with Douglas Jung, who went on to be the first Canadian of Chinese descent to become a member of the federal parliament.

He also — my father — became a professor of history, and so part of the dinner table conversation, perhaps not surprisingly, was occasional reflections on the history of British Columbia. I know not everyone has that opportunity.

Even given that background, I did go and listen to many of the community consultations, and I learned things that I didn't know about the history of British Columbia, particularly in Kelowna, which, in my mind, was not particularly a centre that I had known as a centre of Chinese migration historically.

There were some very moving, emotionally touching presentations of letters written by Chinese sojourners, as they were called, who had come to Canada, to British Columbia to work, were not able to bring their relatives and at the end of their lives hired a letter writer to write a letter — the letter was actually never delivered — to their relatives back in China, apologizing for their failure or what they regarded as their failure to bring their family here to Canada.

Those were, obviously, lonely and hard years for those people. The record of what they said is preserved in the museum at Kelowna and is part of the heritage and the history of this province.

Now, I also want to reflect upon the way forward. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in my view, has made a very compelling argument as to why an apology is necessary, was necessary and is now done. But the broader goal is reconciliation, and reconciliation is a more open-ended goal.

The work is not done. I mean, we've come a long way, but our society is hardly blemish-free. Reconciliation only comes about when people understand our common histories, our common values and our different histories and our different values, our common culture and our different culture. That goal of reconciliation is a longer goal, and I hope what this process initiates and continues is a continued journey down that path.
[ Page 4029 ]

The document that has been tabled by the minister and is available for all to see talks about how that legacy might be reflected in the goal of continued reconciliation. Many have spoken about the opportunities in education, how that could be incorporated into the curriculum — awareness, more broadly, of our history. There are various groups that talk about our history, and they probably need more encouragement and more support.

There is some sense — the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has also spoken about this — of the role of the clan associations. In the early days when the largely male population clustered in residentially segregated areas of different cities commonly called Chinatowns, those clan associations provided the social solidarity, the communal support that enabled them to persist and continue in somewhat trying circumstances.

There is a legacy there. I participated in some of the discussions with the minister and her staff, and I hope that that will be something that will be addressed in the future as a part of a legacy of this process going forward.

I join and share with all members of the Legislature what I think is our common goal, our collective goal: a diverse, integrated, successful, harmonious society, reconciled with its past and united to embrace the challenges of the future.

[1350]

A strong, resilient British Columbia is what we all desire and what we wish for, and I think that is the goal and one of the outcomes of this process as we continue on the road towards reconciliation.

D. Bing: This is a joyful day. History is being made here. This is a happy day for Chinese Canadians, for British Columbians and for all people who believe in human rights.

It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. This apology for historical wrongs has been over 100 years in the making, and it's long overdue. While the previous governments that passed these laws and policies acted in a manner that was lawful at the time, British Columbians today consider this racist discrimination intolerable and view it with extreme repugnance.

This House acknowledges that historical racist actions are not befitting of a society where today people of all nations and all cultures are welcomed and accepted. This apology is a chance to acknowledge the Chinese community's perseverance during difficult times, as was demonstrated with grace and dignity throughout our province's history. This apology is an opportunity to recognize the many achievements of Chinese Canadians and to thank them for the significant and substantial contribution that they have made to British Columbia.

On a personal level, this is a very happy day for me and my family. As a third-generation Canadian, this apology has deep meaning and significance to me. If my grandparents were alive, they would be astonished to find their grandson in this city as part of this government and as part of this apology that is really meant for them.

The first Chinese came to B.C. in 1858 via San Francisco. They were coming from the gold fields. They were called the 49ers. They were there for the California gold rush, and when that ran out, they came to B.C. for the Fraser River gold rush. They called this province "Gold Mountain."

A second wave came in the 1880s to help build the railroad. Members of my extended family were amongst them. My grandfather's father and many of my uncles came in the early 1900s, paid the head tax and became the first members of my family to become permanent settlers here in Canada. My grandfather on my father's side settled in Vancouver. My grandfather on my mother's side settled in Victoria.

Growing up, I can recall visiting my grandfather's farm on West Saanich Road near Royal Oak here in Victoria. There they raised 11 children. But their lives were not easy. They experienced firsthand the effects of racism, prejudice and discrimination from the over 100 laws and policies passed by this Legislature.

There was segregation. People were forced to live in ghettos on the outside of town, in what we now call Chinatowns. They were not allowed to use publicly funded schools or hospitals. They had separate cemeteries. They were told where and when they were allowed to work. They were not allowed to vote or be members of professions.

I still recall the story of my aunt Susan, who was told that she was going to be evicted from her apartment because someone had bought her apartment and didn't want anyone Chinese living in it.

It wasn't until the end of the Second World War that attitudes started to change. Many Chinese-Canadian men had enlisted in the military during the war. Two of my half-brothers, Fred Bing and Alan Bing, risked their lives serving in the Canadian military during World War II. After the war, to thank them and other Chinese Canadians who served, the Canadian government repealed their discriminatory legislation and gave Chinese the rights of citizenship in 1947.

In the 1960s, during the civil rights movement in the United States, I recall listening to Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech when he said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character."

"By the content of their character" — these are heartfelt words. These are words as profound today as they were in 1963. Looking different is not a crime. None of us wants to be judged by our age, sex, race or religion. All of us wish to be accepted and judged by the content of our character.

[1355]

That is why this apology is significant not just for
[ Page 4030 ]
Chinese Canadians but for all British Columbians. A formal apology ensures that closure is reached on this dark period in the province's history so that all British Columbians can move forward together with a shared history and a common, prosperous future.

As an aside, I noticed in the paper this morning that Les Leyne of the Victoria Times Colonist, in discussing the role of the media in whipping up hysteria against the Chinese in those days, made an interesting observation. He said: "It is for all of us to remember how the prevailing view of the day doesn't always turn out to be the right one."

In closing, I wish to thank the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the minister responsible for this file. I would like to thank all Members of the Legislative Assembly for your unanimous support for this resolution. I am proud to be a part of this Legislative Assembly, one that recognizes that historical wrongs occurred and has the courage to apologize for our predecessors' historic misdeeds.

Apologies express regrets for actions in the past, but it shouldn't end there. They should also make a difference moving forward. This apology is our way of saying that this province values diversity and respects the contribution of every single citizen. Standing up for human rights and against bullying, racism and discrimination is always the right thing to do. There is still work to do, but today's apology is one more step towards fulfilling Martin Luther King's dream. As I said, this is a very happy day.

S. Chandra Herbert: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I think it's appropriate that today, after the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows' words, I get to introduce the students from two grade 11 classes from King George high school in Vancouver–West End, with their teacher Sherry Preston, because King George high school tries to live the values of reconciliation and diversity and is certainly a shining example of that. Hon. Members, if you could please make my guests in the gallery very welcome.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: I am honoured, indeed, to rise and speak to this motion today. For any of you who are familiar with the history of British Columbia, you will know that Nanaimo is the third-oldest city in the province. As such, it should come as no surprise that by 1884 in this province, Nanaimo had the third-largest Chinatown in British Columbia and indeed, over time, three Chinatowns.

The Chinese Canadians have played an incredible role in the history of my community. It is for that reason that I wish to thank both Andrea and Jennifer in the Legislative Library, who've given me some assistance today, and Pamela Mar, who wrote a wonderful article called "The History of Nanaimo's Three Chinatowns," published in the B.C. Historical News some years ago.

It is consciousness of that history and the history of what brought the Chinese here originally that makes me understand and accept how difficult and awful those circumstances must have been. In the history of my community, I'm going to talk about three events that I think have some significance, certainly to me, in our understanding of how things have changed and how things were.

Hon. Speaker, if you read the annual report of the Minister of Mines in 1887, and you turn to the section marked "Accidents in and about the coal mines for the year ending December 31, 1887," you would find a large section devoted and marked by the date, May 3. It says: "The following persons were injured and killed by the explosion in the No. 1 pit, Nanaimo colliery." That is to say, for those of us in Nanaimo, the No. 1 mine disaster is an incredible part of our history. One hundred and fifty people died in the mine that day.

[1400]

It goes on to list the injured, a few names — names of white people. It then goes on to talk about the killed. Under the section "Killed," it says: "Bodies got out May 3, John Linn, Frederick Mattison, William L. Davis, William L. Cochran, John Smith, Samuel Hudson" — one of the explorers. Then it says: "Chinamen, names unknown, Nos. 3, 71, 72, 73, 77, 83." Then it goes on as the days passed, as they dug the bodies out, and all was the same. At the conclusion of the list of the white people: "Chinamen, names unknown, Nos. 89, 100, 95, 84, 123."

These were human beings. They had come, as the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said so eloquently, to the Gold Mountain, the promise of a better life, but in my community, in my very city, they were simply numbers.

Now, in 1958, and I say this not to draw any sympathy to myself, my father was drowned. He was taking himself and three people who worked with him in a company called K.C. Logging to log land in Bute Inlet. They were all drowned. The newspaper report in the Nanaimo Daily Free Press, when the initial news came out, got my father's name wrong. They said: "Aboard were the barge's owner, Darrell Krog" — my father's name was Douglas; and they got his age wrong — "and Ronald Clark, about 25, both of Hilliers, B.C., as well as an unidentified third crew member and a Chinese cook." A Chinese cook — that was the best description they could give to this person.

Today, by way of my acknowledgment and my personal apology, I want the chamber to know that the name of that man was Jimmy Mow. He was a human being. He
[ Page 4031 ]
deserved to be recognized, and at the time of his death, he hadn't had the vote more than a decade.

The third thing I want to talk about are the deaths in more recent years of two incredible citizens of my community. One is Chuck Wong. He was seen as the historian of Nanaimo's Chinese community. For any of you who have been to Nanaimo, it was the Wong family that ran the famous Diner's Rendezvous — Dining Under the Stars. He was loved, he was respected and he was honoured. When he passed away in this community, everyone knew it — everyone knew it. There were no mistakes in the paper. There was no "a Chinese cook." There was no number. There was honour paid to a citizen.

The second individual is the husband of Pam Mar, who I mentioned. He was born in Union, B.C., which most of us today think of as Cumberland. His father was the Chinese-Christian missionary, the minister there.

Jack Mar was a distinguished physician — again, loved and respected in his community. Where did he get his education? Did he get it at UBC? No. He couldn't, because as a Chinese Canadian, he couldn't attend UBC. But Manitoba took him, and he went on to a very distinguished career as a physician and died just a few weeks, literally, short of his 100th birthday. It's his wife, Pamela, who wrote the wonderful article about the history of Nanaimo's three Chinatowns.

There are others in our community who are alive and doing well. People like Mike Mah, a retired chartered accountant, honoured by the accountants association for all of his community work.

For me, this is a day of great emotion and a day of sadness to reflect on the lives of Chinese Canadians and how they suffered, but it is also a day to recognize that progress has been made. This apology today is a way of acknowledging that.

We have come a long way. We have, I think, to some extent here today recognized something that is a very important part of Chinese culture. We are moving towards a certain harmony.

I want to thank all of the members today for taking the time to speak, to express themselves so eloquently and to honour what, in my community, is a part of my community's history, a part of my community's present and, most importantly, a part of my community's future.

[1405]

I will support this motion, as will every member of this chamber. Thank God that it has finally come that we can all stand in this place. When I heard the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows talk about his family in Royal Oak…. I'm descended from people who came from England who settled the Royal Oak area. That's why it is named Royal Oak.

So here we are, the descendants of those families — mine no doubt composed of racists who would have supported the exclusion of the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows' family. Here we are today in the Legislature being able to express to one another our profound sense of feeling around this important issue. This is a good day for British Columbia.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise with a profound sense of history in this chamber today, with what we have done by bringing this motion forward. I also rise with a profound sense of appreciation for the human side that we see in each other as we're adding our comments to this.

I want to thank the Premier, the minister responsible, the opposition and all of the members of the House for the unanimity that we have in taking this motion forward and passing it and putting another marker in the history of British Columbia that will have a long-lasting impact in the lives of the students that we saw in the gallery just a few minutes ago and all of the other young people throughout our province.

I profoundly believe, in my own life, that intolerance has no place in our society — for whatever reason it might be. We've learned a lot from history. Being an immigrant to Canada…. I came here as a very young person from a country that was the precipitator of injustice, intolerance, genocide and many other things. I came to Canada as a young person who couldn't speak the language, who wore clothes that reflected my heritage. I, in my own small way, was a recipient of some intolerance because of where I came from — not what I personally did, not anything that I had the opportunity to have an impact on because, of course, I was so young when that conflict started and, more importantly, had no impact on anything that went on.

But, in saying that, I clearly recognize there still is intolerance in our own communities at times, in our country and definitely in our world. When you look at what's going on in Nigeria right now with the young ladies that have been kidnapped and you see the kind of challenges that societies are still facing, to suggest that we have come to a place of enlightenment…. I think all of us in this House would like to be able to say that. I think today what we're doing, clearly, as members of this House, of this province, is saying that intolerance is not appropriate.

The apology is being done for wrongs in the past, but more importantly, the apology is saying to each and every one of our citizens, especially our young people, that we have a profound responsibility to stamp out intolerance for any reason in our communities, in our homes, in our schools — whatever those reasons are.

While this is a sincere apology for the wrongs to the Chinese community and the people that helped to build this country, it is a clear, clear message that we need to continue to work to stamp out intolerance, bullying and the lack of compassion that we sometimes see for all of the wrong reasons.

But I rise today, as well, on behalf of this government, the Premier and the minister responsible, to say that through the Ministry of Education, while we have this
[ Page 4032 ]
apology today, we are going to work very hard to ensure that every young person in our education system understands why this apology was done and what created the climate that brought us to the place that we have to make this apology — and that we will develop materials in conjunction with the minister responsible and with the communities.

[1410]

When I say communities, it's not only the Chinese community but the Indo-Canadian community, the Japanese community and any other community that is feeling the effects of intolerance as they have become part of this great province and this great country.

Our ERASE Bullying strategy talks about bullying, and bullying is an example of intolerance. So as we take that forward and as we work with communities throughout this province, at the foundation of that strategy is a recognition of the wrongs that were done to the Chinese community, to the Indo-Canadian community, to the Japanese community — to people from other cultures who have come here. They may have different cultural backgrounds and practices but have every right to live freely without the sense of any discrimination, of any concern that their children will not be treated with the same respect that they expect for everyone else.

We already this week, knowing this apology was going to be happening, have sent out to all superintendents and every school district in the province a list of all of the materials that are already available, in curriculum and through the resource centres, that deal with the head tax issues and many of the other issues.

We know clearly — and we've had some very robust discussions about it — what we need to do to move this forward.

So our commitment to the Chinese community and the other communities in the province is that we are going to work closely with the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism — for all of the communities and the agencies that represent them, to our colleagues in this House — to say we will continue to refine curriculum to lay a solid foundation for every young person so that British Columbia is an example of tolerance and acceptance across every spectrum of society and every lifestyle and every background; that everyone deserves to be respected for being who they are; and that as a province and as a government, as an education system, we are going to make sure that young people are given every opportunity to understand what diversity really means.

It's not a word. It is truly a reflection of values that we all have.

I'm proud to be a part of this House. I will be proud to stand up and vote for this motion. But more importantly, I am proud of what I know we're going to do and continue to do to make young people in this province feel they are welcome and they are an important part of the future. What we do today is just another example of how we can work together.

M. Elmore: It's an honour to rise in the House on this occasion today, a very emotional time and very symbolic. When I was first elected and spent my first day in the chambers…. It truly has a weight, and you can appreciate the significance.

Today I reflected back on the last over 140 years — what it must have been like during the time of that shameful period in our history that we have to accept, when legislators of the day and Premiers of the day passed just a torrential amount of racist legislation directed against Chinese individuals, folks from China, but also people from Japan, people from India and also against indigenous peoples, non-white peoples.

[1415]

Today the significance is that we're able to stand unanimously across the House, all members of the House, and unanimously support the motion to apologize for the more than 100 laws, regulations and policies imposed by past provincial governments that discriminated against people of Chinese descent since 1871. These laws and policies denied British Columbia's Chinese communities basic human rights, including the right to vote, hold public office or own property. They also imposed labour, educational and employment restrictions.

I attended the Vancouver consultation and listened to many accounts and experiences of individuals who either had been directly or had family members impacted by these policies and laws. One thing that was very striking to me was that there was a story about someone who wasn't able to attend school — a young boy. His father went to the school, and he was turned away because there was a sign: "No Chinese admitted." Also, Chinese students were excluded from becoming doctors and lawyers, because people of Chinese descent were not accepted.

I also participated in the centennial to mark the 100 years of the 1907 Vancouver Asian race riots in Vancouver. We saw just a torrent of racist legislation passed here, but it was also reflected throughout our municipalities, cities and other organizations — really an unimaginable atmosphere of racism that our early individuals experienced. One hundred years in Vancouver, as well…. City council and the labour council and other organizations also looked to understand that and apologize for their racist actions.

Certainly, the apology here today is very meaningful. I'd like to appreciate all members for their role and the minister for playing a leading role, as well as the stories from MLAs about their personal histories and their impacted families.

I think it's very accurate to characterize that the apology is a first step, moving forward towards genuine reconciliation and a deep understanding of the history we have here in British Columbia. When I attended high school here I didn't learn about that.
[ Page 4033 ]

I'm heartened to hear of commitments towards ensuring that British Columbians will be educated on our history here, looking at this really shameful, racist history. I just want to also read into the record a shocking quote from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, former Prime Minister of Canada: "The people of Canada want to have a white country." Also our early Premier, Sir Richard McBride: "British Columbia shall be a white man's province." This is our history of racism here in British Columbia.

I think that we need to do more, working with communities to ensure all British Columbians understand that, and that we also take steps to learn those lessons. While particularly labourers from China came in as migrant workers to work as cheap labour in difficult jobs, they were denied the right to citizenship. This is a lesson we have to learn today, where we have tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers coming into British Columbia and Canada. You know, we don't want to see a repeat of this where, in another 100 years, we're apologizing for mistreatment of these temporary foreign workers today.

I think that, going forward, there's certainly more work to be done to ensure that British Columbians understand our history deeply and that we move forward on a foundation of respect and go forward on the principle of respect for human rights and the opportunity for all British Columbians to fulfil their potential.

As well, I appreciate the commitment towards recognizing and preserving historical sites and artifacts as an important priority, to be aware of our history here in British Columbia. I also have been looking forward to taking those tours and visiting those sites. I think that would be a very valuable exercise for British Columbians to truly know our history.

[1420]

Going forward, I'm very pleased to be voting in favour of the motion and appreciate the efforts of everyone involved.

Hon. S. Anton: I rise today as both the Attorney General of British Columbia and as the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview. Today is a historic day in British Columbia, and an important step in righting historical wrongs. The apology motion follows an extensive consultation process led by the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and adopted by the participants, by members from both sides of the House and by the province.

The British Columbia government was determined that the formal apology be done properly, and that meant working with all parties. Government appreciates the input and support of all of the members of the Legislative Assembly for making today a reality — and all those who participated in the consultations. I must say, it was an honour to have so many of the participants with us in this chamber, watching as the apology was made earlier today.

Reaching out and confronting a time of injustice in our collective history is an opportunity to contribute to the healing process and to a just society today. It is time to educate ourselves and all British Columbians about a time that we cannot and should not forget.

Today the roots of multiculturalism run deep in British Columbia. Our diversity is our identity. We need to ensure that it continues to flourish and commit that these past historical wrongs never happen again.

Between 1871 and 1947 past provincial governments introduced more than 100 laws, regulations and policies that discriminated against people of Chinese descent, and we've heard much description of them today. These laws and policies denied the Chinese community's basic human rights, including the right to vote, hold public office or own property. They imposed labour, education and employment restrictions and prevented those of Chinese descent from fully participating in society. They divided families, and they caused pain and hardship to people over many years.

It is troubling to imagine that British Columbia was once a place that discriminated against an individual of any ethnicity. It is only through our awareness of what is right and wrong that we can work towards creating a better and just society for everyone in British Columbia. The apology cannot undo the wrongs, but it ensures that we do not forget, and it ensures that we do not repeat the discriminatory legislation and practices of the past.

Today in every province in Canada, including British Columbia, the role of Attorney General in a free and democratic society is well laid out in law, and it's worth reflecting on that role in the context of today's apology. The office of the Attorney General is one of sensitivity and neutrality in relation to the administration of justice, advising not just cabinet but also Her Majesty through the Lieutenant-Governor and, as such, is responsible for safeguarding the rule of law, protecting society from arbitrary laws or actions, protecting human rights and ensuring that the administration of justice in this province is not brought into disrepute.

While the office of the Attorney General is unique in that it can, at times, be separate and apart from any political role, I also carry these responsibilities through to my role as a cabinet minister, where I'm responsible for ensuring that cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid; ensuring that legislative enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice, fairness, civil rights and consistent with other provincial legislation; and also advising on the constitutionality and legality of legislation.

That is the role of the Attorney General now, and it has been the role in the past as well. I do think that the role is a unique one in ensuring that the apology and the commitments made with this apology do carry forward. I mentioned myself as Attorney General, but it's really the office. It's the holder of this office. The apology
[ Page 4034 ]
is to ensure that this carries forward as time goes on in British Columbia.

The wrongs which we are discussing today do not meet the standards of natural justice, and so it is with pride that I speak to support the historic apology and the progress that has been made to provide fairness and equal treatment to all British Columbians. The apology provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress that has been made in this great province and to challenge ourselves to continue to find opportunities to do better.

Between November 2013 and January 2014, as we know, the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism travelled to communities throughout B.C. as part of the consultation process, to receive input from individuals and organizations for the formal apology. The forums were enlightening. They gave us insight into the deep and lasting sorrow caused by the wrongful provincial government policies, regulations and legislation of the past.

[1425]

They brought into focus the need for a formal apology for historical wrongs and legacy initiatives to give British Columbians a better understanding of the contributions of the Chinese-Canadian community to the culture, history and economic prosperity of our province. The Chinese Historical Wrongs Consultation Final Report and Recommendations is the culmination of the tremendous amount of public input from the process, feedback from community leaders — many of whom were in the gallery today — and discussions amongst all members of the Legislature.

I'll mention two initiatives — in particular, the legislation review. The government will undertake a review of discriminatory legislation identified in the consultation, to ensure that it is all repealed.

And I'll mention another, which is something, I must say, that I'm particularly interested in myself, which are the historical sites, artifacts and commemorations. The report recommends that an inventory be created to identify historical sites and culturally important locations and artifacts. The inventory would include a plan to ensure that Chinese Canadians can honour and preserve their cultural heritage in perpetuity and, indeed, that all of us will appreciate those historic sites.

I'll mention a couple of things here. First of all, I grew up in Duncan, and Duncan had a very historic Chinatown. I regret to say that the Chinatown in Duncan is no longer there because of a provincial government building that was built quite a few decades ago. It was a beautiful Chinatown, and it's gone. In fact, it might have moved up-Island. I think one of my up-Island colleagues will be able to tell us it's in Cumberland or somewhere — some of those buildings. That's an example of a historic site that should never have been moved.

I will mention, as well, that I was very pleased to meet today again a representative of the Chinese Freemasons, who reminded me that the Chinese Freemasons started in Barkerville 151 years ago. So it is sites, it is objects, it is places, and it's institutions, and they are all part of our history.

I would like to acknowledge, as well, the Chinese veterans who were here today, and who really were, I think, extremely impactful in changing the laws in Canada immediately after the war.

I'll just speak for a moment as the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview. My own riding of Vancouver-Fraserview has a very high percentage of people of Chinese heritage. They range from people whose pioneer families have been here for over 100 years to those who arrived just yesterday. I have the good fortune of being in this community constantly, in people's homes, in the community, on the streets, in the recreation rooms at the community centres.

I will say, and I think this is probably true in many communities around British Columbia, that the Chinese-Canadian community in Vancouver-Fraserview is a very engaged community, so much so — I just want to put in a plug for the community in my riding — that they were amongst the principal advocates for the new seniors centre in Killarney which is now going to be built.

It is a community which has always been engaged but has suffered historic wrongs, and that's why it is such a privilege and honour to be here today at this moment when this House has acknowledged those wrongs and apologized for them.

Thanks to the robustness of the consultation process, the Chinese community in Vancouver-Fraserview know about the apology today. They appreciate the apology. They appreciate the importance of the recognition of past injustice and that by acknowledging and apologizing for that injustice, we all collectively help to ensure that it will never happen again.

It is for all citizens, it is for government to always be vigilant to ensure that our society is just and fair. It is by remembering, acknowledging and apologizing for the wrongs of the past that we move forward to a just and secure future.

R. Fleming: As other members have said in this debate…. They've expressed how much pride they have today in being a British Columbian, and I do as well.

As a legislator, I think this is probably one of the best days in my nine years in this place — to have an opportunity for us, collectively as legislators, to be able to attempt to address some of the things in our past and to build a legacy for the future for our province. That doesn't happen every day. I think there are some who have put a lot of work in, and they've been recognized today, about how it is best to confront what is a sad and ugly chapter in our historical past.

[1430]

I just want to say I think they have done a wonderful job in doing that — all of the work that lay behind the
[ Page 4035 ]
motion that was brought before the House today and the work that has yet to be done.

Today's formal apology to the Chinese community for decades of endurance in a racist and discriminatory society is undoubtedly important for that community. But I think it's also important to remember how critical it is for every citizen in British Columbia, in whose name the apology is made.

I feel privileged to have been on the floor of the chamber today to hear what it personally means to MLAs of Chinese descent. My colleague the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was, of course, B.C.'s first-elected Chinese member of this House. I think that after being elected in 1996 I got the sense that some of the things she said today were things that she has wanted to say for an awfully long time, and it was a privilege to be able to hear them.

The Minister of International Trade and for Multiculturalism was able to ensure that we had the apology and the process that we did to be inclusive of views of British Columbians and all members of the House — to get to the point where we are today. The member for Burnaby North shared his story of his life and background earlier today. I feel very proud to serve with those members, in particular, and to be able to say a few words on this day with them.

I was also thinking of Alan Lowe, who was Victoria's first Chinese-Canadian mayor — elected in 1999, if you can believe that; I was privileged to be a member of his council at the time — and what the apology will mean to him and to his family. I know that his family, in his background, suffered greatly from discrimination and the limited economic opportunities that were the reality of British Columbia, unfortunately, not too long ago.

As I was saying, this apology is important for all British Columbians, as to the Chinese community, in particular, to whom it is addressed. But it is also about, in looking at the past and making an apology about the past, looking to the future. Today is a day about deepening our commitment as a province to the promotion of understanding, equality before the law and our foundational commitment to a society based on respect, human rights and social justice.

I think that today's apology should be seen as an affirmation of who we are and how far we have come as a province and a country. We are a well-regarded nation in the world today because we're a multicultural democracy that is successful and prosperous. Often Canadians are called upon to act internationally as honest brokers and advisers, to share our experiences with countries struggling to overcome ethnic, religious and cultural divisions.

I think that is an additionally important reason why, for our friends and admirers in the world, we must do the kinds of things that we are doing today, which is to acknowledge that we are not perfect and that our country's past includes long, disgraceful periods and decades where racism and discrimination were predominant and legally sanctioned.

For my constituents in the Chinese community, whose stories I have been enriched by and who I'm privileged to serve as an MLA, this is a special day for that community. I think this apology means so much to everybody in British Columbia, far and wide.

The connections to this issue, indeed, reach within my family through my brother's marriage. When I look at some of the efforts to address the past, particularly around anti-Chinese discrimination in British Columbia, it is in my own family where my sister-in-law and her family members from Burnaby have an annual pilgrimage to the Chinese Cemetery here in Harling Point.

I think I want to say on the record, although I've said it many times publicly before, the former member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head Ida Chong was instrumental in making Harling Point cemetery one of Canada's most recent national historic sites. That has immense importance as a physical monument and a living place for those who want to remember those who have died, who lived before them, and as an education tool for all kinds of British Columbians to remember the past.

[1435]

It's important for us as MLAs in this chamber, where so many malicious, discriminatory and destructive laws were made, to try and recover the importance of this chamber today, as the modern era strives for the opposite of what was produced in the past here. Today is a day to reaffirm that this chamber is today and forevermore incapable of doing what was done in the past. It exists as a guardian of democracy and equality for all and the freedom of everybody that we serve in our constituencies.

The Leader of the Opposition, I thought, described so well what growing up in British Columbia is like today, his children and young people that he knows who see people, not the colour of the person. We are already benefiting from changes that have happened organically and through the teaching profession in our schools in particular — we heard from the Minister of Education about curriculum changes — to create that kind of understanding. We're benefiting from it already.

I think it's important today that we're also looking for additional benefits and an additional commitment for legacy projects that will help British Columbia further reconcile some of the things that have happened in its past.

Chinese Canadians, Japanese Canadians, Indo-Canadians, aboriginals — all other non-European members of our society lived in a past where racist demagoguery was at the core of social discourse and politics and, as we read in the Times Colonist and were reminded of this morning, in newspapers.

It was a society where, not so long ago, the threat of violence and fear prevailed in people's daily lives who were part of those minority communities that were dis-
[ Page 4036 ]
criminated against — children, grown adults, people fearing for their livelihoods and their jobs. That was part of daily life, where a justice system existed that was also corrupted by racism and discrimination. Today is a time to acknowledge all of that officially and to reaffirm our vow that it will never happen again in British Columbia and in Canada.

It's actually remarkable the degree to which the Chinese-Canadian community persevered, and I'm thinking of Victoria in particular. We have North America's second-oldest Chinatown here, after San Francisco. We have a Chinese community here that can trace their lineage back to the beginning of settlement for that community.

For so many years Chinatown in Victoria — which is now a critical part of its identity — was a place that was neglected, derided and ignored by city hall. It was still a place that was full of life, on the street and in the various benevolent societies and the Chinese service clubs, but it was one that was not officially acknowledged or treated well by city government.

I can remember Jack Layton, when he had become elected as an MP for Toronto-Danforth, visiting Victoria for the first of many times. Upon his return he was really struck by the Gate of Harmonious Interest project, which members will be familiar with, in Chinatown and how that was developed. He wanted to do the same thing in his constituency in Toronto. I promised I would get him information about that project.

It was interesting for me to learn a lot — who was involved and how it came together in 1979 when that project was developed. The provincial government, actually, to their credit, was one of the funders of that project. It was a project that ushered in revitalization and renewal from that community. But even more important, I think, than the revitalization of Chinatown physically was the reconciliation that it brought to the different communities. The spirit of welcoming and acknowledgement that happens in Victoria was important.

I want to say, in having researched and come to appreciate that one project that did produce so much in my city, there were some people involved that I'm thinking about today, in light of the apology. One of them was Mickey Lam, who was an outstanding city planner in Victoria. He was hired in the early '70s, straight from Hong Kong, changed the culture inside Victoria city hall and eventually gained the trust and the respect of everybody in the city and became a legend. That project would not have happened without him.

[1440]

Nor would it have happened without Dr. David Lai, who, of course, has been an incredibly important individual for recovering the history — both the history that is sad and disturbing and the history that is proud and triumphant — of the Chinese community. His involvement was critical in that project. And, at that time, councillor Pam Madoff was equally instrumental.

After that project was completed, Chinatown was revitalized, but physically, it was no longer what it was once dubbed — the Forbidden City in Victoria. Today it is one of the most popular quarters in the city of Victoria.

That is the kind of legacy, even in the absence of an apology back in those days, where we have seen the hard work of communities come together to try and overcome racism. We have torn down the laws that were spoken of earlier today. That's where the civil rights movement in British Columbia began to tear down that legal scaffolding of racism in this province.

The harder struggle, the one with the long shadow behind it, has been around the attitudes that prevailed in our province and that were supported at one time legally. That is something that we need to recommit and rededicate ourselves to eliminating today.

We have come so far. The stories of Chinese-Canadian community members who were here today to witness the motion that we are now debating are so inspiring to all of us, and they have to become better known. That has to be one of the legacies of the debate that we're having today — to ensure that British Columbians wherever they live, beginning in the school system, understand where this province was, understand what its past means, and live as free and equal citizens in a modern society where human rights, equality and justice are the ethos of what we are as a people.

Today's motion supports exactly that direction, and I look forward to working with other members to continue that great work.

Hon. A. Virk: It gives me, indeed, great pleasure to rise today to speak on and add to the wonderful dialogue that's ensued today. I approach it from a deeply personal level. It's said that words are poor vehicles for thought. But perhaps I can stand here as a first-generation immigrant and what it means to me — what the words today mean to me.

I am a first-generation immigrant and a proud Canadian who acknowledges the trials and tribulations and sacrifices of those that came before me. It's as a result of those trials and tribulations and sacrifices that perhaps I stand here in front of you and those much like me that are first- or second-generation immigrants stand here before you. It's because of those sacrifices made by our original pioneers.

I isolate not what background those pioneers may be from. Those pioneers, the first ones that joined the First Nations, indeed were of Chinese origin. Other pioneers, the next generation, came from the South Asian community, and it followed. There were many other individuals who travelled and crossed oceans — whether it's one generation or two or four or eight generations — to build Canada. I look at those pioneers as a homogeneous group that had to fight injustice to allow me to stand here
[ Page 4037 ]
in front of you.

I worked in the lumber mills in northern B.C. as I was going through university, and I spoke to many of these pioneers that had been there in the early years. I heard of how they lived, how they came as single men and left their families behind as they saved enough to bring their families over. The treatment they received — many times excellent treatment. At other times it broke my heart to hear the treatment. This was in the '60s and early '70s that some of these attitudes still prevailed.

We must not be naive that we have wiped out racism and bullying entirely. We must remain absolutely vigilant. But things have changed from the '60s to the '70s to the '80s to the '90s to now.

[1445]

As I went through university, I searched my own soul. As I studied the internment of the Japanese, I studied the relationship with the first Chinese Canadians and what happened in this Legislature.

As I studied the relationship of different ethnic groups and their interaction with government, it defined me as well. As I strove to define myself as a first-generation immigrant in Canada — "how do I define myself?" — I looked back upon the experience of the pioneers from various groups. I think in many ways I chose a path to have "Canada" tattooed on my shoulder, by virtue of the badge that I wore on my shoulder for a quarter-century, to define who I was. What better way to be a Canadian than to serve in an institution for a quarter-century that said "Canada" or "Canadian" on my shoulder? That was a result of my learning from the original pioneers.

As I look back at some of the attitudes and walk these hallowed halls, and I look at the pictures of the legislators in these early years that we speak about, I wonder what was going through their minds. I wonder what thoughts were in their heads as they passed those 100 laws and legislations in this House and what attitudes and thoughts prevailed in their minds as those laws were passed and by what process and what enlightenment those thoughts slowly moved away from their minds, and the next generation changed. That's the thought process that I think of.

This announcement today accentuates that there is no room for bullying, there is no room for racism, there's no room for bigotry, and there's no room for bias anywhere, whether that's anywhere in society — in our schools, in our post-secondary institutions, in our workplaces. This is a message, in many ways, that British Columbia is sending to the rest of Canada as well — that there's no room for that kind of behaviour anywhere.

Yet we still must remain vigilant. There continue to be, at irregular and small intervals, small incidences, but they're becoming less and less frequent. It's by activities such as today's that there's a secondary message that gets sent out — that even those small and irregular incidences are not acceptable. They are not acceptable, and we shall scream at the top of every mountain: "They are not acceptable!" This is a strong message sent by British Columbia not to all British Columbians but to all Canadians that we stand united collectively to say no to that.

I'm particularly brought to tears at times when I see the veterans and see the medals across their chests, those who chose: "We're going to fight for a country. We're going to choose to put our lives at risk. We're going to dodge bullets, but I do not have the right to vote, and I'm not considered a citizen of that country." That brings a great deal of heartache to somebody like me that served in uniform. I saw some individuals standing here in the House today wearing rows of medals, and there were many, many, many like them from different communities.

I look back at families of interned Japanese, and many of them wanted to serve this country as well. That gave me a great deal of resolve — that individuals choose not to look back. They choose: "How can I be part of the solution?" These individuals that served chose to be part of the solution.

We collectively, both sides of the House, chose to be part of this solution today. We chose to say that this is not acceptable. We chose to say that those deeds, as we look over our shoulders, and those laws that were passed in this Legislative Assembly, those 100 or 100-plus laws from 1871 to 1947 that denied the most basic of rights of suffrage, to public office, of property, of restrictions…. As we look back over our shoulders, a message as we look forward to the youth that we're going to teach next…. Those are intolerable. As I see education put those principles in education so our youth look at that and say, "This is what our past is," they are indeed colour-blind as we move forward.

[1450]

I feel a lot of pride, a lot of kinship in the fact that an entire group of Canadians had to go through this — but the fact that we stood together shoulder to shoulder in a non-partisan way to say, "No. No more," and acknowledge the wrongs of the past. This is indeed a proud day for me and a proud day for this location.

D. Donaldson: It's an honour and a privilege to rise in support of Motion 19 before us, an apology for the historical wrongs perpetuated by B.C. against people of Chinese descent. I want to acknowledge those who were in the gallery and are now visiting the Legislature to witness the apology. It lends a high degree of honour to this historic occasion.

I also want to acknowledge that when we debate in this Legislature — when we pass laws and when we make important statements like the motion today — we are meeting on the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations and the Lekwungen people.

Coming from the north and from, primarily, a First Nations constituency, it's important to recognize how
[ Page 4038 ]
intertwined those of Chinese and aboriginal descent are when it comes to the racist history of this province. The law, for instance, depriving non-whites of voting provincially in 1871 applied to Chinese, First Nations and other people of colour.

It was after World War II, in 1947, when Chinese Canadians finally acquired the right to vote provincially. Two years later the same law finally applied to First Nations in the province.

Communities across the north and through the central Interior would not be what they are without the contribution of those of Chinese ancestry, despite the discrimination they faced. All of us living in B.C. owe a debt of gratitude for the wealth in B.C. we enjoy today to Chinese who worked on infrastructure and resource extraction activities that built the province.

The Canadian National Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway in the north both depended on Chinese labour — paid less than European-descent workers and employed to do the most dangerous work, often involving dynamite. I've walked through the Spiral Tunnels on the CPR line when I worked in the B.C. Rockies, and I know this is where Chinese workers lost their lives when they were purposely chosen for the dangerous tasks over their white counterparts because they were seen as less than equal.

The wealth of the gold rushes in this province would not have been possible without the hard work of Chinese immigrants. The lower Fraser in 1858, the Cariboo and Barkerville in 1865, the Omineca in 1869, the Klondike in 1896 — this is what created B.C. Despite the racism faced by Chinese workers, they established businesses that supported these gold rushes as well as mining the claims.

In the North Pacific Cannery, starting in 1888, and other canneries on the north coast, Chinese workers were on the cannery line and valued as tinsmiths in making cans in these plants.

So despite the racism, the history of the contribution…. It continues to be strong all across the north, in all communities.

Living in and representing the communities I do, I understand and witness daily the impacts of colonialism, of colonial attitudes, discriminatory laws and institutional racism that result in the oppression and injustices we are addressing in this apology today. The apology is important in recognizing our past but also gives hope to the future for all experiencing racial oppression in this province.

The legacy is now to move ahead with reconciliation, to act honourably. This is a good day in the Legislature, a moment to be proud. I thank all members on both sides of the House for the work we have done, resulting in today's historic, momentous occasion.

J. Tegart: It is a great honour to rise on behalf of my constituents of Fraser-Nicola to support this motion regarding an official apology to the Chinese community in British Columbia.

[1455]

The history of British Columbia has been written by many people that came to seek opportunity and a better life, and the Chinese community was no exception. This is true in all corners of our province, from Vancouver Island to the 60th parallel.

I can tell you, as a young person growing up in Ashcroft, the Chinese community made a huge difference in our community. We have a long history with the Chinese community. We have two railways, we had lots of farming, and we had a cannery.

Ashcroft had a thriving Chinatown when I moved there in 1962 — some of the little Chinese stores where we went to buy candied ginger and where the Chinese were probably the most thriving business people in our starving community. Unfortunately, part of our history is that we lost much of Chinatown to fire, and Ashcroft was famous for burning down our main street.

In Ashcroft there's a Chinese graveyard, with many of the railway workers interred there. Today the local Rotary Club has taken on the maintenance and upkeep of the cemetery in recognition of the importance of the Chinese community to Ashcroft and the surrounding area.

Through history, we know that the provincial government has not always treated the Chinese community with the respect it deserves. Historically, B.C.'s Chinese community was forbidden to own property. They were denied the right to vote. They were denied the opportunity to participate in nearly every aspect of civic life. Hon. Speaker, I join this House in apologizing for the historic wrongs and injustices towards the Chinese community, particularly in my community.

Despite untold hardships, the Chinese community has always made and continues to make substantial contributions to our province's culture, history and economic prosperity. In the 1800s, during the Fraser Valley and Cariboo gold rushes, many people of Chinese descent settled in the creek valleys and mountains of the B.C. interior.

Members of the Chinese community were pioneers in the Fraser-Nicola, performing the difficult work as labourers, miners, ranch hands, merchants, restaurant owners and railway workers. Many settled in Interior communities like Lillooet and Ashcroft, establishing some of the oldest Chinese communities and Chinatowns in B.C. and contributing for many years to the prosperity of our area.

Today we acknowledge the deep wrongs, and we give thanks for the many contributions. Ensuring a fair and just society means people of all nations and cultures are welcomed. I hope today's event will help the youth of today and the youth of the future remember the historic wrongs that have occurred in our province. I want
[ Page 4039 ]
to thank all members of this House for sharing their thoughts and experiences. I've learned so much today.

I feel honoured to be a member of the Legislature, and I'm proud to be present today. It truly is a great day in British Columbia.

H. Bains: It is indeed a proud day for me personally, a proud day for this House, and certainly it is a proud day for our province. I just go back and reflect back into the history, as we are doing through all these speeches.

[1500]

There are many of us here in this House that have personal stories to tell. When I was first elected, we were all brought in one by one, we were sworn in, and then we were assigned our seats, our chairs, here. The day we came in for the first day to open this Legislature, I saw my name, and part of the history went through my mind. There were days in this House that someone sat in the same chair and argued a point that people who look like me and other people who are of different colour should not be allowed to come to Canada, never mind be in this House.

How far we have come. Today not only myself but other people from different communities make this group; we are part of a group that helps make laws. What a change. But between that, there are 140 years of history, 140 years of struggle.

As we travel around the world, our government officials and all of us, we proudly say how proud we are to have the best province in the world to live in, to raise our families, to work. We proudly say that for good reasons. But who brought us here? It just didn't happen by accident.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Many people, generations of people, came before us. Part of those generations of people we are talking about today, who made contributions to make us what we are today, were not treated as equal human beings — people who built our railways, people who developed our forestry, people who developed our mining and all aspects of our lives. There's a big portion of that population who were treated as second-, third-, fourth-class citizens. They were not even considered people at some times. You've heard stories, Mr. Speaker.

When I was in my previous life with the union movement, I came across many documents, official documents, where the organizations and the institutions would have different rates for different people. Today you go into a factory or a mill or a sawmill or a logging camp and you see a rate based on the job you do. In those days the rates were based on what you looked like.

In the forest industry I came across this document under the heading of…. I believe it was called, British Columbia Lumber Manufacturers Association. It was going early '40s. There are rates: whites, $1.65 a day; Japanese, $1.55 a day; Chinamen, $1.45 a day — doing the same work.

Many of the laws and the legislation that we talked about are…. Some are quite known to people, like Komagata Maru. A few years ago we were involved in apologizing for that wrong.

We had not the right to vote, South Asians — well, they called them Hindus at that time; that's the official word used in that piece of legislation — Japanese, Chinese and aboriginals.

There were many others like I just mentioned — the rates on the job. Many cities had covenants in their city bylaws where people who looked different were not allowed to purchase properties. It went on, although it wasn't practised.

In 1972, when Dave Barrett one time…. We were talking about these things, and he pulled me aside and said: "You know, son, there's one area that you probably don't remember." He said: "In 1972, when we first got elected, it was brought to our attention." So 1972 was the year; I was already here for a year.

[1505]

He said the covenants in the cities still existed, the language was still there, where certain parts of the city would not allow different kinds of people to purchase properties. He said that was one of the first things that they did under the order-in-council — require all cities to remove all that language. This is 1972.

The member for Surrey-Tynehead just spoke. I was here in the '70s and '80s. There were establishments where you could not go for a beer without getting beat up.

All of that you would think is history and that it's past. I hope it is. Today I must say that I feel proud and honoured that those who came before us, who suffered through all of those legislative discriminations and societal discriminations, work hard to continue to bring change to make the province and the country better than what they inherited.

Today I'm proud that I'm part of that group, in the same House where the laws were made to take our right to vote, not to allow us to purchase properties in certain areas, not to practise our professions until 1947. I'm proud to be part of that group. We are turning the corner. We are starting a process. It's not complete. It's the start of a process of reconciliation.

The only way to do that is to recognize the wrongs and genuinely, sincerely apologize for that and set aside some legacy initiatives so that coming generations read about this, understand about these wrongs and, going forward, will understand that they will not let that happen ever again.

I just want to say that we cannot, just by passing this resolution, which we will…. I'm proud to be part of that and commit, going forward, to making sure that none of this happens ever again. But there are some practical
[ Page 4040 ]
steps that we must continue to take. We cannot be complacent that all is well after today. Donald Sterlings of the world live on both sides of the world still. We still have them here today.

If we are serious, and I know we are serious, then any time someone stands up and blames immigration and immigrants for our problems, blames multiculturalism for our problems, we need to stand up with one voice, condemn them, nip them in the bud as soon as they start.

The only way to send a message that we actually are serious, which we say we are today, is that we will not allow these people to continue to blame and pick people for their own problems. At best, that will be divisive, which is not what we want as a society going forward. The worst-case scenario — that certainly is discriminatory.

I'm proud that I'm part of the process we started when the Komagata Maru apology was unanimously passed here, and unanimously, this motion will be passed today to right the wrong of what our Chinese brothers and sisters went through. But looking forward, we need to continue to educate, make ourselves aware, our coming generations aware.

[1510]

As the minister has said, part of the curriculum should include our past history. If we neglect to understand our past history, we will repeat it, and that's not what we want.

I can say that there is a small segment of our society still out there, but the majority — I would say 99 percent — of the people here in B.C.… With the diversity that we have, the understanding that we have and the sharing of our cultural and religious values that we all bring here, we learn from each other. We continue to build a better province, a better province than the province that we inherited from the people before us. We need to allow our children, through knowledge, through understanding, to continue to build an even better British Columbia for their children and their children.

With that, it is a privilege and it is my honour to be part of the group that is starting a process to right the wrongs of the past and moving forward and finding unity in diversity.

M. Morris: I'm very proud as well to be standing in this House today speaking in favour of Motion 19. My family's interaction with the Chinese community goes back a long way. My grandfather developed one of the first pharmacies in Quesnel in the Cariboo in 1910-1911. He did a lot of work in Barkerville and worked with the Chinese community in Barkerville at that time.

The Chinese lived under some very adverse conditions because of the Cariboo gold rush — in building the Cariboo Trail, in building the community around Barkerville, in mining in some very extreme conditions and working in some very harsh environments up at that particular time. That didn't change very quickly.

Through the early part of the 1900s, when my family was involved there, my uncle — who was born in Quesnel in about 1910 — used to talk about some of the medical epidemics that happened in the community back in the '20s and '30s. My aunt was a nurse that spent a lot of time out there, as well, working with the communities, trying to make them healthy again. So there were a lot of interactions.

I was always impressed, even as a small child living in Quesnel before Barkerville became a historic park — the resiliency of the Chinese community that we even see in Quesnel today that developed the businesses that are well-established pioneer families in the Cariboo and have left a legacy there. I think the Chinese legacy in Barkerville is well known throughout British Columbia and the world. I'm very proud to see that, although the conditions that developed that legacy are a little bit difficult to speak about sometimes.

There were a lot of things that British Columbia, Canada and the world, quite frankly, have done. Some of the laws that we've enacted and passed over the decades and the centuries don't live up to today's standards. Thank goodness, we've changed.

I was part of an organization, the RCMP. I spent 32 years with the RCMP. If you look at the history of the RCMP, back to the time it was first formed, in rolling out the laws and the legislation that Canada and various provinces passed, there are some things, some of those laws, that are still very much abhorred today. You know, people wish those things had never happened.

One of those things was the removal of the Inuit in the Arctic into different communities to try and resolve some of those issues there. The RCMP were involved in the residential school issues in trying to bring aboriginal children into the residential schools.

We were also involved in Japanese internment during the Second World War. In fact, my parents, back at the beginning of the Second World War, ended up moving down to Hope and were hired by government to transport the Japanese internment prisoners to Tashme, which is now known as Sunshine Valley, I believe, on the highway between Hope and Manning Park. So my parents were involved. All of us have a history with those kinds of connections over the years.

My own personal thoughts at this time: it's been a very emotional day for me to see this take place. It's something that's been a long time coming. I think we can all be very proud in this House of what we've seen here today in trying to make British Columbia a much better place.

[1515]

We can't change what's happened in the past, but we can sure as heck learn from what's happened in the past and make the future brighter for all British Columbians, no matter what your ethnicity is, where you come from or what you believe.

I'm very proud to support this, and I'm very proud to see the unanimity between everybody in this House here
[ Page 4041 ]
in pulling this together.

R. Chouhan: I, along with my colleagues from both sides of the House, stand today to support Motion 19. It makes me very proud when I hear the sentiments expressed by the members of this House in talking about the past wrongs.

I came to this country in January of 1973. I came with the feeling that I was moving to a country which was so well advanced, so educated and which provided so many opportunities for everybody. But when I arrived here, I immediately sensed that the past of this country was not forgotten. People of colour were still not treated with respect and equality.

Because of some of the incidents that occurred at that time, some of us got together, and we formed an organization called the B.C. Organization to Fight Racism. I'm a founding member of that. I remember, as a member of that organization, meeting with many of the victims of racism, visiting them and learning from their experience, understanding what went wrong.

Then in the mid-'70s, in 1975, in south Moberly Park in South Vancouver there was a young student from the South Asian community walking through that park by himself. He was stopped by a group of racist people at that time, and he was beaten to death. It made you wonder. Canada should have learned its lessons from the past mistakes. But obviously, it had not happened — at least, not until then.

Members of the Chinese community had been here for so long, had contributed so much to our country in all sectors, yet they were still suffering the pain and the hardship that their predecessors, their ancestors suffered. They continued to suffer that because the past was not recognized.

I want to say thank you to the Minister of International Trade and to members from both sides for their participation to make sure that today we stand together to say no to what has happened in the past.

In what we are saying today, we are not only talking about the past, but we are talking to make sure that our future is brighter. With this apology that we are extending unanimously in this House today, we are sending a message to all British Columbians, to all Canadians and, especially, the next generation, so that they understand that what happened in the past should not ever happen again. That's what we are doing today.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Education's commitment that curriculum will be developed, that education materials will be developed and that it would be sent out to all schools and everywhere, wherever it would be needed, so that people understand what happened and what should not have happened.

Much has been said today by my colleagues in this House. I just want to be here to say that I'm very happy, I'm very proud to be here at this historic moment, as my colleague from Surrey-Newton said. When we were first elected in 2005 I came to this House with the same feelings he had gone through.

[1520]

Thinking of the past, what would they have thought when they passed those kinds of policies and laws to stop us people of colour coming to Canada? Today when I sit in that Speaker's chair, it makes me wonder what we can do together, what we can achieve together if we work together.

I want to say thank you to each and every one of my colleagues. I want to say thank you to the Chinese community, all of our friends who came here today and were part of this historical moment. Let's continue to work together and make sure this kind of ugly chapter is never repeated in our history.

Hon. S. Bond: I, too, want to begin with a series of thank-yous, most particularly to the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, who has, since her arrival in this House, had a passion and a drive to ensure that we arrived where we did today.

She worked in collaboration with and was supported by members in this House, people who have for many years wanted to find us at a place where today we could see a gallery full of British Columbians and Canadians who have waited so long to hear those incredibly important and profound words: the words that say that we are sorry.

As a 13-year member of this Legislature, there are moments in this chamber that are more memorable than others. Some moments, candidly, are some that we would probably rather forget. But today is not one of them. I'm sure that in the memories of everyone in this House, it will be a day that we will remember for all of the right reasons. There was something very powerful about looking at the faces in the gallery today and the sense of unanimity in this House about an issue that it's hard to not be emotional about.

I consider myself a very, very proud Canadian. Yet I have at times grappled with some of our historic behaviour. Today is a poignant example of one of our darker moments. The Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 and then the subsequent Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, called the Chinese Exclusion Act, effectively closed off Chinese immigration to Canada. Ironically, it was established on July 1, 1923 — Canada Day, Confederation Day.

How could this egregious act happen in our beloved Canada? It is reported that Chinese Canadians referred to Dominion Day as humiliation day. British Columbia played a role, a significant role, in the disenfranchisement of Chinese individuals and families, leading to their separation — separation of families, husbands from wives, parents from children, despair. In this very chamber, where you've heard today how all of us feel profoundly honoured to have a place to sit, joining a relatively small
[ Page 4042 ]
group of British Columbians given that honour….

In this very chamber more than 100 laws, policies and regulations endorsed and, in fact, made systemic discrimination legal in our beautiful province, our beloved country. Unthinkable but true.

[1525]

In the book The Jade Peony by Wayson Choy, Chinese Canadians are urged to go to Gold Mountain, get rich so they could send home dollars to support their families. Yet — this is a quote from Wayson Choy — this is actually what happened: "Poverty-stricken bachelor men were left alone in Gold Mountain, with only a few dollars left to send back to China every month and never enough dollars to buy passage home. Dozens went mad. Many killed themselves. The Chinatown Chinese called July 1, the day celebrating the birth of Canada, the day of shame."

How do we deal with what was a dark moment not only in our country but, certainly, in our province? It starts with recognition of the wrong. It continues with a genuine and humble apology, and it's followed up by action, by education.

We need to teach our young people. We need to tell them this story. For me personally, as I looked up in the gallery, though we were surrounded by literally dozens and dozens of Chinese Canadians, it was the opportunity to see children in the gallery that gives us hope.

I was thinking about what I will do after today. How will I be different? What will I contribute to this discussion? Here's what I thought of. I actually am blessed to have two grandsons, Caleb and Cooper. They're four and two. Here's what I want to say to Caleb and Cooper today:

"Dear Caleb and Cooper,

"I hope you're having a wonderful day. I miss you very much and can hardly wait to see you. It's hard to believe how quickly you are growing up, but I am very proud of the little men that you are.

"I have watched your mom and dad teach you, correct you and love you. But I've also seen them patiently and consistently help you to learn about the need to recognize and admit when you've done something wrong, something hurtful, something unkind. Learning to say 'I'm sorry' is an important value.

"Well, today your grandma and her colleagues had to do just that. You see, many years ago, long, long before you were born, elected officials — yes, just like your grandma — made decisions. They decided that some people — in this case, members of the Chinese community — shouldn't have the same basic rights as other Canadians, as the rights that you have.

"They couldn't vote. They couldn't hold office. They couldn't own property — and a long list of other things. It seems incomprehensible to me today that anyone could consciously and repeatedly treat a group of people this way simply because they were of Chinese descent — unbelievable, but regrettably and painfully true.

"Caleb and Cooper, today we did the right thing. We said we were profoundly sorry for the acts of the past.

"As I watch you play and learn, I see you look beyond race, beyond the colour of skin, religion, ability or disability. You just see people. Today we did that too.

"The British Columbia I want for you is inclusive and welcoming, celebrating our diversity. Today we took a step closer to being that British Columbia.

"I know how much you love stories. We read them together all the time. The story of our province's treatment of Chinese Canadians is anything but funny or written in rhyme, but it is a story we must share. It gives us a chance to learn from the past and to ensure that we don't repeat the same mistakes all over again.

"The next time I hear your mom and dad remind you both to take responsibility, do the right thing and say you're sorry, my mind will return to this powerful day in the Legislature, where every single member of this House stood together and did just that.

"Thank you, Caleb and Cooper, for being colour-blind. I have every single hope and confidence that the children of your generation will learn from our mistakes and make our province and country a place of tolerance, refuge and acceptance.

"Love,

"Grandma."

[1530]

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm very pleased to stand to speak on this historic motion of apology "for more than a hundred laws, regulations, and policies that were imposed by past provincial governments that discriminated against people of Chinese descent since 1871, when British Columbia joined Confederation, to 1947" — discriminatory measures that were unanimously supported in this very room, measures and a history of discrimination that we will now all repudiate in this chamber. It's a history that can be repudiated, but it's a history that cannot be changed.

I think the lesson from that period, for now, is that we have to remember that those attitudes that allowed those laws and allowed that discrimination were the norm. We believe that we are better. We are better. But I think we have to remember our past, and it was the norm of the past. That hostility and racism was so widespread and so accepted, so average. And there were everyday people, who were not all bad people, who supported those attitudes.

To me, that goes to the possibilities of human nature, both good and bad. If we can improve, as we have, we are nevertheless always vulnerable to also becoming less human and less inclusive. Racism is always a possibility and always exists in some form or other for all of us.

That dark possibility of human nature is always there. That is why it is so critical we take these steps as a society that voices its commitment, that voices its apology. Freedom and equality are ever fragile, so all of us have to
[ Page 4043 ]
remember to reinforce it on days like today.

I'm very pleased that part of the delegation here today was James Wang. James is a member of my community of Burnaby. He's a relatively recent immigrant to British Columbia. He and his family are part of the more than 40 percent of my community who are Chinese. He is also the first mainland Chinese-Canadian recent immigrant to be elected to public office.

I asked James today what this meant to him as a relatively new immigrant. He said it was very important and very positive for him, being part of the larger Chinese community, part of a community that had experienced a very long legacy and climate of hate and discrimination. He stressed as a school trustee the importance of education, of reinforcing the values that we have talked about today through education in our schools.

I was also really pleased that Ling Chu of SUCCESS was here today. She said one of the problems for her husband's family, who experienced the laws and discrimination, was their feeling that they weren't worthy of being treated fairly, as equals. She said that that goes deeper and causes more lasting damage, which can last for generations.

Finally, as part of my personal apology, I want to thank and apologize to the veterans, some of whom were here today, who were willing to give their lives for a country that often treated them so poorly.

I add my apology to all of those in this House that we will unanimously bring today. With that, I will take my seat.

Hon. D. McRae: Today I rise in this chamber to speak as the MLA for the Comox Valley, as a citizen of British Columbia and as an educator. One thing I am proud to say in this chamber is that I had the opportunity to teach for 15 years at G.P. Vanier in the Comox Valley — a great school. We have many, many great schools across the province. I had the opportunity to teach socials 11, and a core part of that course addressed the inequities or the racism in British Columbia's past.

I was always pleased when I would teach these aspects that many of the students were unaware of and could not believe that this was part of our history, because they've grown up in a world where, for most of them, it's never been an aspect of their life. When you talk about the Asiatic Exclusion League, Komagata Maru, the Chinese head tax, it is history to them but one that they are not usually exposed to before they come into the education system.

[1535]

When they sit there, sometimes their mouths hang open, believe it or not, because they cannot believe that politicians of days before thought that this was right. As a teacher and as an adult, I'm glad the young people are incredulous. They think that this is wrong. They know it is wrong. They want to learn more, and they want to understand that those things should never happen again.

That's why we teach history in British Columbia and why we teach history around the world. We want to celebrate past successes and greatness, but we also want to recognize that history is full of imperfections and mistakes. We want to make sure young people understand that as they go forward, they can always leave the world in a better place.

The other thing is that when I stand in this chamber, I represent the Comox Valley — the village of Cumberland, the town of Comox, the city of Courtenay and the regional district. For a person just idly coming through the Comox Valley, you may often, on face value, say: "How is this story really important to your community?" I think it's important to all our communities.

I think an average visitor to our community may not realize just how important the Chinese history is to the Comox Valley. In this chamber many of my colleagues have talked about the history. We talk about the railway ending in 1885 and the injustices that started after that. Well, in 1888 many of those men who worked on the railway started looking for employment in the Comox Valley, in the coal mines.

The Union Colliery Co. said, "Yes, you can come to our community and work," and they gave them land. But the thing is that they gave them swampy land in the south part of town. They weren't allowed to live with the rest of the village of Cumberland. They were given some of the worst land in the area, but they came, and they persevered.

They worked in the mines. They worked supporting the community. They had businesses. At its peak, there were 1,500 residents of Chinese descent in the Comox Valley in the village of Cumberland, and over 50 businesses. The average person doesn't realize that, because today, of those 50 buildings, one remains.

In 1922 there was a major explosion in Cumberland. Chinese workers were prohibited from working in the mines. Around that same time, the coal industry was declining as well. Of course, the laws that we've talked about in this chamber were passed, and the numbers of Chinese residents in the village decreased. Furthermore, in 1935 a major fire hit the Chinatown in Cumberland and destroyed most of the buildings. By 1968 those that remained were deemed a hazard, and they were destroyed, leaving just one.

Just last weekend my family and I decided to go walking there. The village of Cumberland recognizes the importance of the Chinese community, and, recognizing the past to our community, they have created a park. It's called Coal Creek Historic Park. The one building is still there, the trails are there, the pictures are there for people to see, but there are no people. One of the reasons there are no people in this area is because of the actions of government.

It is important that our young people understand that
[ Page 4044 ]
government can do great things. In the past government has done bad things as well. It doesn't go away, but it is so important to stand in chambers like this and recognize injustices, apologize and go forward in society.

British Columbia is an amazing province. It is a province for all British Columbians. It will be a province for future generations they'll be proud of, but let's not hide our past. I'm proud as a history teacher and as a resident of the Comox Valley to stand in the chamber and recognize that the past wasn't perfect. We will make restitution as we go forward and apologize, and all our children will grow up in a better life.

J. Darcy: It's a great honour to rise today, together with my colleagues on both sides of the House, on this historic occasion and on this very, very moving day, especially when the galleries were filled by members of the Chinese-Canadian community. It was especially moving to hear the speeches on both sides of this House by those MLAs of Chinese and South Asian descent, and by all the members in this room who have spoken.

Like others who have spoken before me, I want to take it back home to my own community. I was reminded when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was speaking earlier. She mentioned a former Premier, Richard McBride.

[1540]

An elementary school in my community is called Richard McBride. There are probably many of them across the province. I spoke in a classroom in grade 5 in that school a few months ago about what we do in this Legislature, what the job of an MLA is. I tried my best to describe it. It was difficult.

Then I decided to talk to them about the apology that we were discussing towards Chinese Canadians. Now, this was as multicultural a group of students as you would see in any classroom, and they kind of stared at me, many of them. Many of them were from families of Chinese descent. They stared at me. They didn't really, many of them, understand what I was talking about when I asked them what racism was.

Interestingly, even though most of the children in the classroom were of Asian descent and many of them of Chinese-Canadian descent, it was a young boy whose father was African American who said: "I know what that is. My father told me that he was treated differently because of the colour of his skin."

I tried to engage them more, and I said: "What do you do if you've done something wrong?" All the hands went up. "Well, you apologize." "That's right. And then what do you do next?" "Well, you never, ever do it again." "How do you know what it is you shouldn't do again?" One girl said: "I'd go and talk to the person I hurt and try and understand how it was that I hurt them."

I thought that was so profound, because that really is what we're talking about today. It's about really, fully appreciating that history of racism and discrimination in such a way that we make sure we never do it again, and that's by taking action, going forward.

I also want to bring it home to my community of New Westminster more broadly because of what we've talked about in this House today — about how the racist laws and discrimination that were acted upon and promulgated in this House also permeated our whole society. The city of New Westminster is referred to in many of those historic documents.

Bill Chu, the founder of Canadians for Reconciliation, came to our city council in 2009 and said: "New Westminster has a whole lot of things on its books that you ought to look at." Then my city council embarked on a process of reconciliation with the Chinese-Canadian community about both understanding our history as well as talking about what it is we need to do, going forward, so that we never, ever do it again.

Chinese Canadians settled in New Westminster as early as 1867, when we were the capital of British Columbia. By the turn of the century there were about 1,680 persons of Chinese descent in our community. But as early as 1874 you can begin to see — on the books of our city council — bylaws, regulations and motions that were every bit as racist and discriminatory towards Chinese Canadians as anything passed in this House. In fact, many of them urged this Legislature to act and urged the federal government to act.

A Chinese road tax, 1878; a bylaw in 1879 restricting the number of Chinese and others residing in one house; a specific motion brought forward about a Chinese person who had leprosy. In 1884: "All contracts let by this council for street-making" shall have a clause in them "prohibiting the employment of Chinese labour of any kind."

One prohibits processions with Chinese banners and music. Another calls on the CPR, with respect to the extension of the railway to our community, that every possible precaution be taken "to exclude Chinese labour from being in any capacity employed" or in any way connected and calling attention to the fact that "cheap Mongolian labour has already been too heavily felt by the whole population of British Columbia."

[1545]

These motions go on. Others talk about leprosy, one saying that the chairman of the board of health be authorized to have a building erected for the use of Chinese patients with smallpox on the same lot and with a good fence dividing it from the hospital used by whites. Another is about a cemetery, again separating whites from Chinese people who were to be buried there. Subsequently, there are motions about a Chinese hospital that at one point agreed that a Chinese hospital could be established and then later put very severe restrictions on it.

I mentioned a cemetery which features very prominently in our history as a city because it is the site of
[ Page 4045 ]
a graveyard, actually, without markings for individual graves for First Nations people and Chinese Canadians — and a different cemetery for white people. Later the place where the Chinese were buried was ordered to be dug up or to be abandoned.

This continues. There are motions…. I say this as someone who has spent her life in the trade union movement. A union coming forward and saying that there was an Oriental working in Neilson's foundry on city work and then subsequently an investigation where the owner of the company, the founder, was very quick to say that yes, he was employing Orientals but he could certainly dispense with their use.

I could go on. I'm very proud that my city council undertook to dig up that history so that the people of our community could understand it fully and could then embark on a process of reconciliation within our own community, just as we're doing on a provincewide basis.

I want to underline what some of my colleagues have said earlier — that an apology is just the beginning. It is, indeed, a historic step and a very emotional and powerful day in this House, but it is significant when it is the beginning of a true process of reconciliation, and that includes education, as we've talked about.

I had the honour at lunch, at the reception, to speak to a Dr. Henry Yu, who says that when he engages in education in his classes, he has pictures of…. You know, it's the picture we've all seen of where the last spike was driven, which is all middle-aged and older white men in suits with lots of moustaches and beards — and no pictures, of course, of the Chinese-Canadian labourers who built that railroad, who did the most dangerous work. One labourer was killed for every mile of rail that was laid.

He said what he tries to do…. I raise this as just one example, because it would be such a powerful way in our education system not just to add more facts and figures. To show students and show future generations in a very visual way, he presents a photo instead that has, yes, those people at Craigellachie where the Last Spike was driven but also has inserted pictures of Chinese labourers who may have been involved in building that railroad.

It's about a whole lot of things. It's about education. It's about our employment policies. It's about having employment programs where, indeed, if we bring people from other countries, it shouldn't be to treat them as cheap labour but should instead be a step. It should be about a path to citizenship. When we embrace a wide range of those policies, we will really have learned the lessons from our history to make sure that in British Columbia we never, ever do it again.

S. Hamilton: I'm honoured to speak on behalf of my constituents in Delta North to support this motion. It is an historic day for all British Columbians. I hope that many years from now people will be able to look back at this day and appreciate the importance of this apology.

We can look back at our own past and shake our heads at what passed as acceptable behaviour. Previous speakers have noticed the number of laws and regulations that were created a century ago, rules created with the intent of discriminating against people of Chinese descent.

Canadians have learned the value and benefit of tolerance, and these days we actually celebrate our differences, a far cry from what happened many years ago. British Columbia is a province that was built by people with diverse cultural backgrounds. Our Legislature reflects that now, even if it didn't in the past.

[1550]

Our cities and towns were built by individuals and communities who came from across the globe. Many came from China to try and build a better life in Canada. But look what they found. Look what they had to endure, but endure they did. Despite some of the most abhorrent laws that made immigration so difficult, many Chinese still settled in British Columbia. Those settlers created tight-knit communities that looked out for each other and worked hard to become important connections to their regional economies.

We look back now and see these qualities: community-minded, hard-working, a strong sense of culture. These are values we see in early Chinese communities, and those same values continue to exist today. And aren't these the same values we see in all Canadians?

I'm proud of this government for making a formal apology for historic wrongdoings, and I'm thankful it was done properly, sincerely and in a way that everyone, regardless of their politics, can support.

It's not easy admitting to wrongdoing, especially to the type of intolerance that was officially accepted and even entrenched in laws for far too long. We should never forget the dark times, but we should also celebrate where we are today. While we deserve to pride ourselves for being a tolerant people, we can never rest on our laurels. We need to move forward and ensure that our children and our grandchildren understand the value of our province's Chinese pioneers.

There's strength in diversity, and we are stronger today because of our ancestors' differences. They shaped who we are now and give us the Canadian identity that is truly unique in the world. Our government believes in ensuring all British Columbians, as well as new immigrants, have the information to understand our multicultural history. British Columbia has always been a multicultural place, despite attempts to force it to be otherwise.

I hope this apology will help heal any lingering wounds. The Chinese community in British Columbia is a vital part of our fabric, the fabric of our society, and we're thankful for all the contributions this community has made to this province.

V. Huntington: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this momentous apology for historic wrongs.
[ Page 4046 ]

Firstly, I want to thank the Minister of International Trade and for Multiculturalism for her genuinely non-partisan approach to this important moment in B.C. history. I'd also like to thank the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for her dedicated and thoughtful contribution to the process.

Delta, like so many other communities, had a sizeable Chinatown. Over 350 souls lived in Ladner, having made their way to the Fraser River delta after the gold rush panned out. These men — for most of them were men — lived in a cluster of homes and businesses just down the river from Ladner village. They were cannery workers, washermen, store owners and farmers. They worked hard, lived hard, did good and did bad things — just like all of us.

There are many sad stories that can be told, but there are also many stories of great perseverance and achievement. The families Lowe and Chung remain well known in Delta and carry that memory of a once bustling Chinatown on the banks of the Fraser River.

That entire community burned to the ground in 1929, and most of its citizens dispersed to other areas of Vancouver. Perhaps one day the legacy fund will give us the opportunity to search for the memories and the remaining history that rumour says may lie with the benevolent societies.

I know that the people of South Delta — indeed, all of Delta — join me in saluting this recognition of a community that endured a sad and unfortunate past. Their future, thankfully, will be much brighter.

Hon. T. Lake: It is indeed an honour and a privilege to be a member of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia today, a very historic day as we acknowledge and recognize the historic wrongs that have been committed in the province of British Columbia and apologize to the people of British Columbia, specifically to the people of Chinese descent whose descendants were treated disrespectfully by our predecessors.

I come from the city of Kamloops, and I saw in the gallery today a colleague of mine whom I sat with on city council from 2002 to 2005: Joe Leong. Joe has been working with the Kamloops Chinese Cultural Association for many years. He and his wife, Maley, were here today, and I'm thankful that they were here on this historic day.

[1555]

Joe has spent much of his life working to acknowledge and to ensure that the people of Kamloops and British Columbia understand the contribution that Canadians of Chinese origin have made to our community, specifically around the building of the railways.

In Kamloops we are at the junction of the CPR and the CN Rail, and of course, we know, from all of the members that have spoken today, the great contribution that those of Chinese origin made to creating Canada through their work on the railways of our great country.

We also know the terrible conditions under which they were forced to work, over 600 that died in the construction of the transcontinental railway. The section between Yale and Kamloops was one of the most difficult, one of the most expensive and one of the most dangerous stretches, so there were many Chinese workers on the railway who lost their lives in that section.

At that time, there was no place to bury the Chinese workers in the city's cemetery. It was simply not allowed, so a local rancher dedicated some of his land so that Chinese ranch hands who worked with him would have a place to rest when their lives came to an end. This is the Chinese heritage cemetery, which is the last vestige, really, of the pioneer Chinese community in Kamloops.

The Kamloops Chinese Cultural Association takes responsibility and looks after that heritage cemetery and ensures that the people of Kamloops understand the heritage and the history of the people who worked in ranching and on the railway. Their lives are commemorated there today.

I want to take a moment to thank Joe Leong and the members of the Kamloops Chinese Cultural Association for ensuring that the contributions of those of Chinese descent made to the city of Kamloops….

While the Chinese community in Kamloops is relatively small, it is mighty. In fact, the first mayor of Chinese descent in North America was Peter Wing, who was the mayor of Kamloops for three terms starting in 1966. He received the Order of Canada and the Order of B.C. and was an outstanding leader of our city.

Not only was he the first mayor of Chinese descent in North America; he was the actually the first native-born son to be the mayor of Kamloops. His family came to Kamloops from a Cantonese province. He was born in Kamloops in 1914 and went on to become one of our greatest leaders, which exemplifies the contribution that immigrants of all countries make to our great country.

I'm an immigrant. I came from England in 1967 when I was ten years old. It was relatively easy for an immigrant from England to make their way in Canada. We looked the same; we sounded the same. We were easily assimilated.

Other young children who came from other countries didn't have it so easy, because they were a little bit different. Maybe they had different coloured skin or they spoke different languages. I saw those children ostracized in many instances because of the inherent fear, I believe, of things that are different from us.

That is the only explanation I can find to explain the terrible things that were done to people of Chinese descent in British Columbia in this Legislature in the past: the fear. The fear of the unknown. The fear of something happening that will displace or upset the comfort and the expectations of the people living here.

I think that is a basic human trait. It's not a nice trait, but I think it is part of our nature.
[ Page 4047 ]

[1600]

It is also part of our nature to recognize when we do things that are disrespectful, that are inherently wrong. So today has been a very important day for us to look back and to say that we should not wilt in the face of fear. When things change, we should embrace change. We should not fear change and create terrible laws to hold people down and to fan the flames of fear in others, which is what I believe we have done in the past.

Many today have spoken about how our children today are colour-blind. I have three beautiful daughters, and I'm proud to say that I find that is the case as well. They have friends of all ethnicities, and they don't think anything of that. It doesn't even register on their radar. So we're very hopeful in the province of British Columbia.

I think this is a lesson for us. As we worry about fear and fear of change, we have to remember, when we're dealing with things today, when we're dealing with First Nations issues today, that there are some people in our province who fear that things may change, that balances shift. So I think today is a lesson for us for today and for the future in the way we deal respectfully with each other, as we ensure that we apply fairness, love and honesty to our decision-making.

I want to thank the Premier of our great province. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition. I want to thank all of the members of this is House, particularly the Minister of International Trade and for Multiculturalism, for the work they have done to bring us to this day today. It is a remarkable day in this Legislature and the province of British Columbia, and I'm proud to be an MLA in this House today.

N. Simons: I'm honoured today to be in this House on this historic occasion. I want to start by thanking my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I'd like to thank the Minister of International Trade and for Multiculturalism and all of my colleagues from both sides of the House who have spoken, sometimes quite personally, about what this apology means. I'd just like to say I'm speaking on behalf of the entire population of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who I believe are with me in saying that I fully embrace the motion that has been put forward.

I hope that this is an opportunity for our province to recognize that we have quite a bit of power in this place, and we need to make sure that we steward it well, based on our knowledge and based on our understanding of our place in this world.

My hope is that through this effort today, through the recognition of historic wrongs, that will stop us from ever thinking about people in ways that devalue them — that we constantly work at focusing on our strengths and how we share so much in common. I think we need to make sure that the legacy projects speak clearly about our past in a way that we recognize that we have a lot to learn.

I also hope that every opportunity exists for us as community members and as people from diverse backgrounds to come together through the arts — through music, though dance, through theatre and through opera — and through sport and through cultural activities. When the weaving of those fabrics takes place, the fabric becomes stronger, and the possibility of actions such as those taken over so many years by people in this Legislature are less likely to occur.

I fundamentally believe that is the purpose of an apology — to acknowledge the wrong is done and to hope, and to express the hope, that together we can prevent things like that from happening again. So thank you to all of those who were involved in such a dedicated way to make sure that we can come here as British Columbians, as people who share values, to say that we won't let that happen again.

[1605]

S. Gibson: It's a great honour for me to speak today at this auspicious moment, this auspicious day here in our Legislature, and to rise on behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford-Mission to support this motion regarding an official apology to the Chinese community of British Columbia.

The Chinese community has made untold contributions to the whole province — and, especially, my riding of Abbotsford-Mission in many areas — in farming, rail, community life in general. It's very important to acknowledge that.

The community has always been an integral part of our culture, our history and our prosperity of this province. We acknowledge that today, and the earlier speakers have, I think, expressed that very well, articulated that. However, as we know today, there's a dark side to the story. The Chinese communities had to overcome many historic wrongs and barriers, including systematic discrimination — a word that we can hardly imagine using in modern life here in British Columbia today.

From Confederation to the end of the Second World War, past provincial governments introduced more than 100 laws — it's hard to believe — regulations and policies that discriminated specifically against people of Chinese descent. These laws and policies denied the Chinese community's fundamental rights and privileges and full participation in modern civil society.

It's troubling to imagine that this province — which is known today for diversity, respect and inclusiveness — was once a place that discriminated against any individual of any ethnicity. In particular, of course, today we're focusing on the Chinese community and the tragedy that represents.

Today, through our awareness of what is now right and wrong, we can work towards creating a better and more just place to live for our families, to create the prosperous and welcoming community that we all value. Today
[ Page 4048 ]
inclusiveness, respect and understanding for others are basic values of our modern, multicultural society. Recently, the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism travelled to communities throughout our province — thank you for doing that — as a part of the consultation process.

Today this government is allocating $1 million for legacy initiatives and taking action on those suggested initiatives, including updating B.C.'s education curriculum to include information on the historic wrongs, so that young people can grow up with an appreciation of that; increasing public awareness and education in general; identifying historic sites, culturally important locations and artifacts that'll be an important part of the motifs of that era; and reviewing discriminatory legislation to ensure they've all been repealed, now and forever.

It was my privilege just a few weeks ago this past month to visit China and just travel around and see the work ethic, the enterprise, the pride in culture. Much of that — probably all of that — has now moved to our country and, particularly, our province. We're so thankful for that and for the privilege of having our Chinese folks coming here, being fully involved. And we see, of course, many representatives here in our House today standing up for their communities and being good, responsible representatives. It's a wonderful thing.

On behalf of the people of the Abbotsford-Mission riding I'm honoured to represent here in this House, I want to say that I thank everyone involved in the consultation process and to say that we're not going to forget. We're going to move on, but we're going to build on the tragedy and the mistakes that were made in the past. I'm very excited to support this resolution today and encouraged that there will be unanimity in this House today.

A. Weaver: It's a privilege to stand and offer my comments on what can only be described as one of the most important debates of this session. There's no question that this apology is long overdue, and I thank the government, the official opposition and the many British Columbians who worked hard to bring it before us today. It's a very important step forward.

[1610]

The Chinese community has been a formative and essential part of our province since the 1850s. Right here in Victoria we are the proud home of the oldest Chinatown in Canada and the second-oldest in North America. Many of you will also know the historic Chinese Cemetery in the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head at Harling Point, a resting place and memorial site of honour for the pioneers of Chinese ancestry in our province.

The riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head was represented for 17 years by third-generation Chinese Canadian Ida Chong, who was here on the floor of the House this morning. Like so many other people of Chinese descent, Ida's family lived through the systemic discrimination we are apologizing for today.

Ida's grandfather was born in China and came to Canada in 1892. Her father, born in Cumberland in 1917, married her mother, Yokee Yee, who in turn came to Canada from China in 1952.

Ida went to Victoria's Chinese Public School until her family moved to the Mount Tolmie area of my riding. Her father, Peter Chong, was active in the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association and the Lung Kong Association.

Yet the unfortunate reality is that the history of relations between the Chinese-Canadian community and the B.C. provincial government is replete with government-imposed discrimination, hardship and injustice for this community. The moving story that the member for Burnaby North conveyed this morning is an example of how people of Chinese descent were affected.

That so many Chinese Canadians endured decades of discrimination at the hands of our provincial government and yet remain proud British Columbians today is a testament to the perseverance, grace and dignity of the Chinese-Canadian community.

That government after government could impose what amounted to more than 100 laws, regulations and policies with the express purpose of discriminating against a group of British Columbians should serve as a sober reminder to us all that with the power that is bestowed upon government to promote prosperity and opportunity comes the responsibility to protect against injustice.

Perhaps most telling is that one of the first acts of the British Columbia Legislature after our province joined Confederation in 1871 was to deny Chinese men the right to vote while at the same time expanding the right to vote for those of European descent.

It was in this backdrop that we saw the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association form in 1884 to protect the rights and safety of Chinese immigrants. The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association has advocated for the rights of Chinese Canadians for decades and continues to promote Chinese culture and language in Victoria today.

Earlier today a group of grade 5 students from Campus View Elementary School visited the Legislature. They were here in the gallery in the morning session. I know the family of one of those students very well. His name is Matthew Pang. His sister and my daughter were best of friends when my daughter was in elementary school.

What was interesting is that Matthew's grandfather — and Matthew had no idea about this when he showed up at the Legislature today — still has a certificate stating that he paid the Chinese head tax upon his arrival in British Columbia. Matthew had just done a presentation on that in his class a few weeks before.

Matthew is not alone. Many residents in Oak Bay–Gordon Head and throughout our province still hold evidence of the discrimination they endured at the hands of our government.
[ Page 4049 ]

While Matthew may be too young to have directly experienced those injustices, he, like so many other young Chinese Canadians, is a part of a future forged by those who did experience them and who persevered beyond them. I feel honoured to represent a riding that is home to such a strong Chinese-Canadian community, and I would like to thank all Chinese Canadians for their indispensable contributions to our communities, our province and our country.

M. Dalton: It's an honour to witness and participate in this momentous occasion as the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. This official apology for historical wrongs towards our people of Chinese ancestry is of profound significance to British Columbia's Chinese community and to all British Columbians.

In 1970 my parents purchased property on Vancouver Island, near Cumberland. The first time I visited the area as a youth, I saw a number of decrepit, ramshackle buildings that are no longer there. My father told me that this was where the Chinese workers lived when they laboured in the nearby coal mine. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head just mentioned that Ida Chong's father had been there, or grandfather.

[1615]

As an elementary school student, I had no idea how instrumental the Chinese were in the building of our province and our country. We all benefit today from the efforts, the sweat and the loss of many lives of our early Chinese people. Yet we turned our hearts against them, and our predecessors here in this building and in this Legislature passed and imposed harsh laws against them that impacted their health, their prosperity and their families.

The member for Burnaby North earlier movingly shared how he never saw his grandfather until 1971 due to the impact of these laws. I'm sorry about this. We on both sides of the House are sorry for this, hence the official apology.

This apology is not just to the descendants of the original Chinese immigrants but also to those who have moved here in more recent years, because the hundreds of thousands of Chinese British Columbians need to know that their presence in British Columbia is celebrated and that they are an integral and valued part of our province economically, culturally, socially and spiritually. We are better, we are stronger, we are more prosperous, and we are a more vibrant society because of them.

As a former classroom teacher, I'm pleased about the public education and general awareness initiatives that will proceed out of this apology. I am glad that the Minister of Education will be implementing curriculum changes that ensure that our young British Columbians understand the contribution of our Chinese people and the historical mistreatment of our Legislature towards them.

I believe that this official apology is essential for the process of healing of our past wrongs. I look forward to voting in support of this motion, along with all members of this House.

S. Simpson: It's a privilege for me to stand on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Hastings and to join in this debate around this apology. First of all, I know that all of my constituents in Vancouver-Hastings would be proud of this day, particularly the 40 percent of my constituents who are of Chinese descent. It's a very important day for a whole range of reasons that many, many members on both sides have talked about. It's an important day, and I think we need to recognize a number of aspects of this.

The first thing that I'd like to do is say a very sincere thank-you to the leaders on both the government side and the opposition side who worked together, along with the independent members, to ensure that this was a collaborative effort. It truly was an initiative of the Legislature. It wasn't an initiative of one side or the other side. It truly was an initiative of the Legislature, led by the Premier in the motion that she put forward earlier today. I believe it was one that, as many people have said, demonstrated that when there was such an obvious wrong that needed to be righted, it really wasn't difficult for us to come together and to speak with one voice in this case, in the sense of the apology.

What we know, of course, is the history — and it is a terrible stain on this province — of what occurred, the history of discrimination and the institutionalized discrimination that came through this place and the people who sat in this House before us.

Just quoting briefly from a passage from the motion moved today by the Premier, it said that almost more than 100 pieces of legislation and regulations came through this House. As the motion said: "These laws and policies denied British Columbia's Chinese communities' basic human rights, including but not limited to, the right to vote, hold public office, or own property; imposed labour, educational and employment restrictions; subjected them to health and housing segregation, and prevented them from fully participating in society."

We also know that this Legislature at that time was one of the most enthusiastic advocates of the federal initiative around the head tax, which charged Chinese citizens looking to come to this country a fee to come, a head tax. Then, of course, is the exclusion act, which essentially closed the door for almost a quarter of a century on people coming from China to Canada, to British Columbia.

[1620]

It was a very sad time, but today we've taken a very significant step together. We've taken a very significant step in collaboration, also, with all of those people who were in this place with us today, of Chinese descent, all of those people who have worked so hard to build their
[ Page 4050 ]
lives and build our lives in this province.

I think we've heard recognition across this chamber about the remarkable contribution that Chinese Canadians have made across the country and in British Columbia. I certainly know in my constituency, in my city of Vancouver, it's a remarkable contribution. Everywhere you look there are exceptional accomplishments, and it's members of our community of Chinese descent who have been driving those accomplishments.

They've been building our communities, our neighbourhoods, our economy, our social fabric. It's something that is particularly remarkable when you do go back and look at the history that's laid out in the report that was produced by the minister, which tells about some of the wrongs that were done.

I think that's an important part of the work that was done — the consultation process. This wasn't simply the matter of having a couple of people sit down and write a motion. It was about going out and engaging the community and truly understanding the core of that motion, what it needed to be and what the heart of that motion needed to be. I think that is reflected in the work that was done by members and leaders on both sides of this House.

It is a proud day for us here. It's a day that I'm very proud to participate in. I know the people of Vancouver-Hastings are very proud to have me here speaking in favour of this motion and adding my voice in the apology to those Canadians of Chinese descent who were treated so very badly and, yet, in such a remarkable way, have succeeded in finding and building their place in this great province and in this country.

We've now taken a very important step down the road. There's much more work to be done, but we've taken an important step to ensure that not only can we begin to right those wrongs but, as other members have said, we can also, through our education system, make sure that our children and our children's children understand that history, as shameful as it was at times, because only by understanding it can we guarantee that we never repeat it.

It is a good day for this Legislature and for all of us. We should all be proud of what we did today.

L. Reimer: Today is an important and significant day in British Columbia. This motion that I fully support is a critical step in righting historical wrongs.

It is troubling to know that British Columbia was once a place that discriminated against any individual of any ethnicity. It's troubling to know that past provincial governments introduced more than 100 laws, regulations and policies that discriminated against people of Chinese descent. These laws and policies denied the Chinese community's basic human rights, including the right to vote, the right to hold public office or own property, imposed labour, educational and employment restrictions, and prevented them from fully participating in society.

Today the roots of multiculturalism run deep in British Columbia. Our diversity is our identity. We need to ensure it continues to flourish and commit that these past historical wrongs never happen again, which is why this motion follows an extensive three-month consultation process led by the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism.

Between November 2013 and January 2014 the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism travelled to communities throughout British Columbia as part of a consultation process to receive input from individuals and organizations for a formal apology to Chinese Canadians. It was an intensive three months. Approximately 1,300 people attended seven community consultation forums held across the province.

The forums were enlightening and gave us insight into the deep and lasting sorrow caused by the wrongful provincial government policies, regulations and legislation of the past.

[1625]

They brought into focus a need for a formal apology for historical wrongs and legacy initiatives to give British Columbians a better understanding of the contributions of the Chinese-Canadian community to the culture, history and economic prosperity of our province.

The B.C. government was determined that the formal apology be done properly, and that meant working with all parties. The government appreciates the input and support of all members of the Legislative Assembly for making today a reality. Reaching out and confronting a painful time in our collective history is an opportunity to contribute to the healing process and to educate ourselves and all British Columbians about a time we cannot and should not forget.

The Chinese Historical Wrongs Consultation Final Report and Recommendations is the culmination of the tremendous amount of public input from the consultation process, feedback from community leaders — many who are or were in the gallery today — and discussions with the opposition.

Some of the suggested initiatives included in the report are updating B.C.'s education curriculum to better educate our youth about what happened in the earliest days of British Columbia's history. The Ministry of Education and Ministry of International Trade have committed to adding age-appropriate resources for the K-to-12 curriculum. This includes lesson plans and other supplemental resources to encourage students to discuss the issue of historical wrongs in an age-appropriate manner.

Government will increase public education initiatives to ensure that all British Columbians, as well as new immigrants, understand the province's collective history and the racist and the discriminatory laws and policies that prevailed in its early days. This will also include publishing a book similar to B.C. People: Portraits of Diversity in B.C., to celebrate Chinese Canadians in British Columbia.
[ Page 4051 ]

The government will undertake a review of discriminatory legislation identified in the consultation to ensure it is being repealed and to review legislative procedures to demonstrate that B.C. does not have nor will it ever produce again racist legislation.

The report recommends that an inventory be created to identify historical sites and culturally important locations and artefacts. The inventory would include a plan to ensure that Chinese Canadians can honour and preserve their cultural history in perpetuity. I note the member from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant highlighted one of these sites in a recent two-minute speech.

And $1 million will be allocated for legacy initiatives. Funding will come from within the existing budget of the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism.

This government recognizes that this apology cannot undo the wrongs, but I hope that we can now begin the healing process and provide closure on this dark period in British Columbia's history. As some of my colleagues whose families have been affected have said, today is a good day.

G. Heyman: Like members from both sides of this House, it's an honour to be part of this Legislature that is finally issuing an apology that is long overdue, that corrects actions that took place in this Legislature long before any of us sat here. The truth is that in the 143 years that British Columbia has been in existence, our province has been responsible for more discriminatory legislation and racist legislation than any other province. That's why it is so important that we acknowledge that today and that we talk about it today.

I think we know that, as in our personal lives, if we issue an apology without a change in behaviour, the apology is essentially meaningless. While much of the racist behaviour of our past has been eliminated, I think we also know that even if one makes a change in behaviour, if it's not acknowledged through an apology — a meaningful apology along with the action that accompanies that apology — something very, very important is missing in the message that we send to the people who have been wronged. It is important to acknowledge our mistakes and our wrongdoing.

Chinese Canadians came to Canada. They contributed so much to this country and this province. They built Canada in a very real and a very physical way. But they also built this province in a very important cultural way.

[1630]

They contributed to the fabric of what we know to be British Columbia today, and without their contributions, without their presence here, we simply would not be the province that, in many ways, is the envy of the world. It's the envy of the world because of our natural beauty and because of our multicultural nature. Yet when they first came here, they came here as exploited labourers only. They were separated from their families. They were denied respect. They were denied citizenship. They were denied economic opportunity.

I remember that when I was a young person in school, I studied about the history of slavery in the United States. We were taught to be appalled that that took place in the United States. We were taught that that was wrong, and it had been corrected. We didn't learn — we weren't taught — about our own shameful history here in British Columbia, our history of exploiting people who came here to work and build and who were treated as little more than people whose only value was in their labour, whose lives were dispensable and who had no rights to contribute and to be part of the fabric of our society.

We are acknowledging that today. We're also committing, as the Premier said, to acknowledge that in educating the youth of tomorrow.

I also learned, when I was in school, that people casually threw around discriminatory remarks and epithets that would be unacceptable to all of us today, and are unacceptable to all of us today, but that we know still take place. That is why education is so important.

I'm a second-generation Canadian. My parents came here to escape discrimination in their home country, and yet when they arrived here they were accepted as full citizens. They were welcomed to the community. They were able to work. They participated in parent advisory committees. They had the vote, once they achieved their citizenship.

I'm reminded of a friend of mine who is in the gallery today with his son. He's in the gallery today to witness this historic apology because his father was also a second-generation Canadian. He told me a story about a conversation that he had with his father.

His father was a hard-working British Columbian. He was respected by his co-workers. He participated in the community fully. He was respected by everyone who knew him. He provided for his family. But in the midst of this family discussion, a heated discussion about politics, he interjected and said: "I've never much cared for politics or paid much attention to it because I grew up knowing that I wouldn't have the vote."

Ironically, he turned 18 the same year that Chinese Canadians were given the vote. Not only did he grow up believing that he would be deprived of the right to participate in democracy in this country by voting, by having the same rights as every other Canadian…. It affected his whole life and his whole belief about his role in this society in the future, notwithstanding the great contributions that he went on to make.

It wasn't just he who was robbed of this opportunity; it was all of us in British Columbia who were robbed of the opportunity for him and countless others to participate fully in our community life, our community democracy. We call this the people's House, and yet it was not his House.

Education about our past is so necessary for us to im-
[ Page 4052 ]
pact the present and to make a commitment to the future. We need to understand the roots of racism. We need to remain observant, vigilant and active. The Premier said this morning that we will ensure that this never happens again. To ensure that this becomes reality, we need to acknowledge the truth of our past. We need to publicly acknowledge the past. But it's up to us to ensure that we guarantee a just and inclusive future for all British Columbians in the future for everyone who participates.

That means being aware of the racism, the discrimination and the hatred that still exists in pockets of our communities, in pockets of British Columbia, and use this lesson, this acknowledgement of our past, this opportunity to educate children in the future to ensure that we do everything we can to minimize discrimination, to minimize hatred, to minimize everything that goes against the values that we think are so important.

[1635]

Chinese Canadians came to British Columbia and came to Canada to help us build Canada, and they continue to build a vibrant, diverse and equitable community here in British Columbia. That's why I'm so proud to have this opportunity to stand with colleagues on both sides of this House to make this historic apology.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today is a certainly memorable day for Canadians of Chinese descent. But as I listen to speakers on both sides of the House, it's so obvious that everyone has been impacted emotionally by this motion.

Two years ago, in 2012, I was honoured to introduce a similar motion that both sides of the House supported — a formal apology to the Canadians of Japanese descent who were uprooted from their homes on B.C.'s west coast and interned in camps in British Columbia. And 2012 was significant, because it was the 70th anniversary of internment. It was fitting for us to support a motion and commit to ensure that nothing like this happens again. This was an apology for a historical injustice for which the provincial government of the time was directly responsible.

I'd like to think that the collaborative effort between both sides of the House two years ago set an example of what could be done today. By working together, I think that we've seen the evidence that good things can happen.

The scope and the breadth of what was done to so many Canadians by virtue of their ethnicity is difficult to contemplate through the lens of today. However, there were many laws, regulations and policies adopted by past provincial governments that discriminated against people of Asian descent.

Today this motion acknowledges to the Chinese-Canadian community that this was wrong. This motion apologizes to those Canadians of Chinese descent for this, and this apology is overdue. It wasn't really until 1947, I believe — it was 1949 for the Canadians of Japanese descent — that Canadians of Chinese descent were actually allowed to vote. In fact, my father wasn't given the right to vote until 1949. He was 22, and he turns 87 next month. Although he was born in British Columbia, he wasn't allowed to vote.

I thought about that day. That was just 11 years before I was born. So 11 years before I was born, people of Asian descent weren't allowed to vote. This motion recognizes that Asian Canadians were denied basic human rights — the right to vote and to hold public office — and 67 years later we're apologizing for that.

I'm proud to support this motion, a formal apology to the Chinese-Canadian community that reaffirms our commitment to be a welcoming society, free of discrimination, and recognizes that despite these injustices, Canadians of Chinese descent have made some significant contributions to the great province of British Columbia.

This motion was made possible because of the leadership of our Premier, the leadership of the Minister of International Trade and for Multiculturalism, members of the Chinese community, organizations from Chinese communities, MLAs of Chinese descent. I'm proud, as everyone in this House is, to support such a significant motion.

I've always valued something that my father said to me. He said: "We should always remember wherever we are from, but I hope that someday people will forget about being Chinese Canadian, Japanese Canadian, German Canadian, Italian Canadian. There's a time to say that above all, we are Canadian."

D. Eby: I'm very pleased to rise in support of this motion. I was thrilled to hear the speeches on both sides of the House. As someone very passionate about human rights and equality, to hear all of us together united on this has been really important.

I'm also very pleased that there's a special audience in the House right now in the gallery. I see a group of young people who are here to learn about what we're doing here in the Legislature. Today is a very special day. I think they're probably getting a bit of a hint that this isn't a regular day for us.

[1640]

There was a special effort that was put forward by a couple of members of this House that I'd like to recognize — the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Vancouver-Kingsway — along with the staff at the Legislative Library, who put together a list of all the laws in B.C. that were ever passed and that were racist and discriminated against people who came from China, from India and from Japan to British Columbia to help build up our province.

We stand in this House and we talk on this day of apology about not being able to vote. To look at these laws and to see these laws, in the words that we use every day when we're passing laws — laws that said things like no
[ Page 4053 ]
Chinese or Indian person should have their name in the register of voters and that if any official put a Chinese or Indian person's name in the list of voters, that person would be fined and punished…. Can you imagine that? If you wrote down someone's name in the voters list, you'd be punished for that. That was a law that was passed right here in this House.

There was a throne speech that talked about people from China, calling them "evil" — that there was an increasing evil coming to British Columbia that caused this Legislature to pass racist laws.

Now, the students who are here may not know this, but I come from the city of Vancouver to represent constituents here in this House. There was a law passed here that…. The day the city of Vancouver became a city, part of the law that made it a city said that no Chinese or Indian person could vote in the election of the mayor or aldermen in the city. That was the first day of the city of Vancouver.

In 1890, these students might be surprised to know, we wouldn't even let Chinese people work in coal mines. We passed a coal mine regulation act that said that Chinese people couldn't work in British Columbia mines.

I come from a very privileged background. These laws were passed to punish people from China and India, but they also gave a benefit to people who look like me, to white people. They said that white men could vote. So when I look back at the privilege that I stand on…. That comes from privileges that were taken away from other people and given to people who look like me.

I think about that privilege on a day like today, especially when I hear the stories of MLAs who are in this House who come from backgrounds that were directly discriminated against. I try to put myself in the place of understanding racism and discrimination like this and say: "Well, there was this time that I was bullied" or "There was this time that someone was mean to me."

But what do you do when the bully is the government, when the law that is passed is the one that targets you directly, and then when you go to court, there's another bully that's sitting behind the bench who is imposing those racist laws against you?

The scope of this is very difficult for me to understand. To hear the lived realities of people in this House and their families, multigenerational, who came through this racism and ended up in this House representing their constituencies is incredibly inspirational to me. It's also inspirational to me to hear the words of everybody in this House — our commitment not only to apologize for that racism but also to say: "Never again." The reason why we're doing this is to remember, because if we forget, then we could very easily end up in this place again.

I'm so grateful to both sides of this Legislature for making this happen. I'm very grateful that these students are here today on this very important day. I will be voting in support of this motion to apologize for this history in our province, for the privileges that were passed to people at the expense of others based solely on how one group of people looked. I'm so glad that we live in a province where that will not happen again.

S. Hammell: I'm pleased to rise in the House to participate in the discussion around the motion in this Legislature to apologize for more than 100 laws, regulations and policies that were imposed by past provincial governments that discriminated against people of Chinese descent since 1871, when British Columbia joined Confederation, to 1947.

[1645]

What strikes me most about this discussion is in reality how recent the behaviour was that we are so deeply ashamed of and know was so profoundly hateful. It was so recent — I mean, within 100 years.

All of the First World War veterans have passed away, but those Second World War veterans are with us, as we saw today, and were there when the provincial government lobbied the federal government to prevent them from joining the war effort because they were afraid that it would lead down a path to citizenship. I mean, that is absolutely shocking.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We celebrated with those senior veterans today, who earned their citizenship in ways few others have: by risking their lives in war to prove their citizenship.

Within many of our seniors' lifetime this behaviour and the clearly racist attitudes prevailed in our society. These facts are deeply distressing because they punctuate how fresh this hurt is and how much the apology means to those giving it and receiving it.

As a child I grew up on Sea Island, as I've mentioned in this House before. There was a small farm, a market farm or a vegetable farm, of a couple of acres up the street, down by the store. That farm was farmed by a man of Chinese descent named Fong, and although he was part of the community, he was apart from the community.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

As kids, we would visit him. He would give us candy and then shoo us off, getting us to leave. As kids, all we knew was that he gave us candy and that he didn't have a family. He was alone. He didn't have a wife, and he had no kids living with him. I think of him today and know that this apology is directed to him.

Later, my years as a teacher were spent in the Comox Valley. Cumberland is a small town just outside of Courtenay and an old mining town. On the outskirts of Cumberland there's a Chinese graveyard that was only for the Chinese. The non-Chinese, or white, graveyard is in quite a different place.
[ Page 4054 ]

I visited that graveyard when I was teaching there and did not internalize the separation, the reasons for the separation, until years later. Again, to me, this apology is directed to the Chinese miners that, in fact, were segregated even in death.

We have a sordid past, and we have to own it as we go forward. So like the other members of this Legislative Assembly, I deeply regret that Canadians were discriminated against simply because they were of Chinese descent. All members of this House acknowledge that we aspire to be a fair and just society, where people of all nations and cultures are welcome, accepted and respected. After listening today to all of us speak, I know that we are all committed to that end.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Premier closes debate.

Hon. C. Clark: This is an historic day in British Columbia. I'd like to thank all of the members from all parties in the House today for their contributions to this debate, to thank everyone for setting our political differences aside. It doesn't happen often in this Legislature, but as many have said, it happens when we are united around something that we all know is the right thing to do.

We cannot undo the injustices of the past. More than that, we must never endeavour to erase them because we have an obligation to acknowledge them, confront them and learn from them. That is how we will move forward as a province, create the kind of place that the member for Vancouver-Fairview talked about, the kind of place that the Minister of Tourism talked about — a place where everyone is not just accepted but embraced, no matter where they're from.

[1650]

Further, we can take steps in creating that society by creating that society to ensure that these kinds of laws are never considered in this Legislature again.

With that, I very proudly move that Motion 19 and the apology contained therein be presented to this House for a vote.

[1655]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[Applause.]

M. Mungall: Madame Speaker, I seek leave to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I have here a petition with 315 signatures calling on the government to protect the ALR.

Hon. M. de Jong: And with that reminder of our other purpose, I call Bill 24, continued second reading.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I'm standing in the House to celebrate the visit to the precinct of a great Canadian. It's maybe a little overshadowed by the happenings of today, but Clara Hughes visited the legislative precinct on her ride to raise awareness for mental health issues, Clara's Big Ride.

Clara Hughes is one of only five human beings who ever won medals in both the Winter and Summer Olympics and the only human being to ever have won multiple medals in both Olympics. She's a great Canadian. She's donated $10,000 of her winnings to Right to Play. She advocates for mental illness all over our country.

Members from both sides of the House were out — including the Speaker, who graciously helped us have a photo with Ms. Hughes. I want the House to recognize her achievements and her contributions and to give her a great welcome to the Legislature of British Columbia.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

[1700]

D. Eby: I rise to support the motion to refer Bill 24 to the Finance Committee. The reason for my support for this motion is very straightforward. There is no rush here. There is a great opportunity for the government to use the public interest in the ALR in this bill and in ensuring that we have food security for British Columbia, food security for everybody in the province and economic security for farmers as well. That is the opportunity that is in front of the House on this matter.

That opportunity can be seized by taking this bill out into the community with the committee structure that we have here in the province to go around and ask people: "What do you think? Where should we be going? What can we do?" Asking farmers: "What can we do to make your farms more economically viable?" Ask people who are passionate about local food: "What can we do to make local food more available to you, to promote B.C. produce, B.C. products?"

I know that the government knows how this works. I was reviewing the Water Sustainability Act website.
[ Page 4055 ]
There's a dedicated website to the consultations around the Water Sustainability Act. No such thing in this case.

I made the mistake of printing it so that I could refer to it in this chamber. The reason why I say that was a mistake is because on that page were listed all of the names of the organizations that were consulted in preparing the Water Sustainability Act. I ended up printing 14 pages of names of organizations in 10-point font.

Just to show the depth to which, no pun intended, the government went in their consultations around the Water Sustainability Act, there were three stages of consultation in that act. There was a year of submissions in response to a discussion paper. Then there was a report on that engagement that came out, and then at the second stage, there was another year of discussion on a policy proposal. Then finally, there was a third stage of even more submissions on that policy proposal that resulted in a final proposal and then the draft legislation.

When we look at the Water Sustainability Act process, where there were blog posts on websites and people posted comments…. The legislation wasn't perfect that came out of that process. There were a lot of ways in which the opposition would have improved on it, but we voted for that because the process was sound, and ultimately, the legislation reflected a good deal of that consultation.

Given that the government has that history, given that the government did that and managed to get support across the chamber for that really important initiative for our water, for the future, for kids, for the next generation, why would we depart from that process for farmland?

I've heard speeches on both sides of the chamber here talk about the importance of farmland to the next generation, the importance of B.C. food, of food security. It's completely analogous to what was done under the Water Sustainability Act. Yet, in this process, we've got to get it through by the end of this session.

If we don't get it through by the end of this session…. I don't know. I don't know what the crisis is. I'm trying to figure that out, because the time that went into developing the Water Sustainability Act resulted in broad support for that act. Hon Speaker, I can tell you there is not broad support for this piece of legislation that we're suggesting go to committee.

When I think about who would most benefit from the opportunity for this bill to go to committee, there were all kinds of groups that had been in contact with our office, with me, who have written things to talk about the importance of the agricultural land reserve and the need to protect agricultural land. But I think about a conversation that I had with a member of the government caucus outside of this place.

[1705]

He said to me: "You know, I hear you guys talking in the chamber, and I just don't understand why you're opposed to this. I'm a huge fan of agriculture. I think this is something we need to do." He was trying to have a sincere, non-partisan conversation about the bill outside of this chamber and for us to come to some level of agreement about things about the ALR that could be changed to make it work better for farmers and for communities, and that is exactly the committee process.

That is exactly the committee process. It provides a less charged, less partisan atmosphere for all members to hear evidence firsthand from people across the province about how to do this well; about what changes should be made, if changes are even required at all; which direction they should go; whether protections should be tightened or loosened; whether they should be accompanied with economic benefits for farmers that promote B.C. produce that make it more viable for them to operate small, medium-sized and in fact large-sized operations that make B.C. competitive internationally as well.

We're losing that opportunity. I mean, it was really that conversation that drove home to me the need for that process to happen, because it was his feeling that if we talked it out, we could get to yes on this. Certainly, that is what the committee process is designed for: to help government and opposition hear from people firsthand and get to yes on a legislative proposal that will actually improve things for British Columbia. Instead, what we have is this legislation that was not part of the election platform, so it wasn't debated during the election. It wasn't a subject of public discussion during the election.

There has been, with respect, a great amount of back-and-forth about whether or not there will be consultation on this. Key stakeholder groups have had a very difficult time, in the timelines that have been allotted, coming out with clear and understandable positions on this proposal. They need to go out to their members and consult — they've got thousands of members that are working all day on farms — and get a mandate to come back and say: "Government, here's what we'd like you to do. Here's what we like; here's what we don't like." That simply hasn't happened.

I think about who, aside from the people in this chamber, would benefit from the understanding that would come from the committee process. Who would like to come to our committee and present? I can tell you that businesses would like to come and present on the importance of local farmland and the ALR and the need to protect farmland and how we could leverage additional benefits for farmers.

There's a wonderful article in B.C. Business Magazine. The headline was "The Farm-to-Table Opportunity." It came out just in November of last year. The article talks about the challenges that local farmers face when it comes to distribution of their foods. One of the conclusions of the article is that the province's food distribution system needs support. It needs mid-sized businesses. It needs somebody to be the liaison between B.C. farmers and the restaurants and the businesses that want to sell their produce and will sell it at a premium and provide
[ Page 4056 ]
additional income to farmers.

There was a UBC study that talks about grocery stores and hospitals and schools and how they deal with these large suppliers, but that that is a problem for small farmers. That is just one example of an issue where farmers could come and say: "You know what? I hear you talking about the ALR and changing the ALR to help us, to make life better, but what we really need is some support with a distributor to make sure that our product gets the premium that it deserves because it's coming from a small, local B.C. farm and that we're getting the price that we deserve for our product."

One of the quotes in this article says, unsurprisingly, that many farmers don't want to be out acting as salesmen in communities selling their products. They want to be farmers. That's what they signed up for. This is a place where our province could contribute. That's just one group who would like to come and tell this chamber about how we could support farmers in ways that are not contemplated in this bill that's before the House, which is ostensibly about helping farmers. Maybe we should ask the farmers. Maybe we should get out there and consult on this bill and say: "Is this what you want?"

Another group — farmers markets. I just want to give you some example about why we should take this constituency seriously and why their voice should matter in the formation of this bill. On the Vancouver Farmers Markets site there is a big graphic in support of the agricultural land reserve right now. They're very concerned about these changes. They would want to come and present about the importance of local agricultural land.

[1710]

There were 240 vendors in the Vancouver Farmers Markets in 2013 — 18,600 customers, on average, per week. Total vendor sales were $7.1 million, which was up $800,000 from 2012, and 75 percent of that total is agricultural sales. The total benefit to the economy — this is direct benefit; this isn't multiplier effect or anything — is $14 million plus, and that's just Vancouver.

These Vancouver farmers markets and the farmers' markets across the province…. I've got a wonderful article about the Squamish Farmers Market that's seen remarkable growth from 12 vendors to now 62 vendors.

The economic impact of farmers markets in B.C. was greater than $170 million according to a study by the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets. It was overseen by the University of Northern British Columbia, a professor at the School of Environmental Planning.

A $170 million industry would like to consult with this government, before this bill is passed, to say: "Hey, this might have an impact on us." Why do I feel that this industry is being treated differently than the other $170 million industries in this province when it comes to being consulted before bills are passed? This is a great opportunity for the government to get out and to talk to businesses, really small businesses, at the farmers markets about what's proposed here and get their feedback on that.

Another group that would like to be consulted and that we should be consulting before making any changes to the agricultural land reserve is the people who study this for a living at universities in B.C. set up with programs explicitly to study policy in British Columbia and agriculture. I've been in correspondence with a professor at UNBC. He suggested another professor. I know that my colleague from Sunshine Coast has been in touch with academics across the province who study this for a living.

I can tell you that the articles that I am reading — this is what they spend their lives studying: best practices around the world — recommend completely different approaches to what we're doing with the agricultural land reserve. They don't say: "Fragment your agricultural land reserve into six separate panels." They say: "As much as possible, unify the rules so that there are consistent rules. Integrate public priorities across jurisdictions." They would have a great deal to say not just about this bill but also about the global context of B.C. farmland right now.

Professor Margulis of UNBC studies a phenomenon that that is called "land grabbing," which is the mass purchase of agricultural land by investment banks and others because they recognize the escalating value and priority of this land, given that there was a global food crisis in 2007 and '08 that drove the number of hungry people worldwide to over one billion people.

As climate change takes hold, our farmland becomes more and more important. Surely, we could have some academics in that could tell us what kind of impact you'd expect to see from climate change in British Columbia in terms of our agricultural land. What would our best practice be in terms of…? When you look at agricultural reserves around the world — how they operate, what's working well — what do you think is working well in B.C., and where should we be going?

There's certainly no consensus that that is what the government has done in this bill. In fact, we have a letter signed by more than 100 scientists and academics saying just the opposite — that there should be consultation, that there should be more thought put into this bill before it is pushed through.

There's yet another group I can think of that should be consulted in respect of this bill and that the committee structure is expressly set up to consult. Those are local governments and civil society groups. I'm sure, off the top of our heads, we can all think of a number of civil society groups that would eagerly participate in a consultation on the agricultural land reserve.

I heard a number of my colleagues refer to a report by the David Suzuki Foundation that analyzed the fact that high-quality land in the ALR is being taken out and replaced with lower-quality land already. That was before the government's changes. I'm sure they would have something to say. They'd have some interest.
[ Page 4057 ]

I have an open letter from FarmFolk CityFolk to the minister. I'm sure it's one of the e-mails that the minister read. In that letter, they're very explicit. This was written at a time when there was a suggestion that the new minister would be doing consultation.

[1715]

It says: "We are encouraged by your willingness to consult with farmers and other stakeholders regarding these proposed changes. However, we are deeply concerned that your colleague Minister Bennett seems unwilling to give you the space and time you need to do the appropriate consultation."

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names.

D. Eby: Pardon me, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

It's difficult to read this letter now, knowing that there will be no consultation if this motion fails. It's clear to me from this letter that there's a willingness to engage. There is a willingness to consult, to say: "Hey, here are some wonderful ways in which you can support agriculture. Here are some ways in which the ALR can be improved for everybody."

I don't think that anybody thinks that the ALR is perfect. When I read the Suzuki report, they say that it is not doing its job of protecting the most productive land, that it's resulting in swapping out very productive land for less productive land.

The same with the FarmFolk CityFolk letter. They're not saying: "Never, ever could you change anything about the agricultural land reserve." They're saying: "Hey, come on out and consult with us. We're really excited about being consulted, but we're not excited about the act as it stands."

The act as it stands threatens the opportunities of businesses and communities to meet their sustainability goals and to grow their local food business.

I think that there is an opportunity here, but the opportunity is not to get this bill through as quickly as possible. The opportunity is to start a conversation about local food, promoting local food and ensuring that farmers are protected in their livelihoods in British Columbia, which is something that I heard as a consistent theme in the speeches from the other side of the House.

Another local government group that would like to be consulted is the Union of B.C. Municipalities. "The UBCM executive has reviewed the legislative amendments…and will be seeking further consultation with the province on this matter." That's yet another reason why we should be sending this off to committee.

The city of Richmond — a resolution that the core review enable consultation asking the province to consult with the public and local governments before Bill 24 becomes law. Peace River regional district is simply asking that the bill be withdrawn. The village of Nakusp is calling for a longer consultation period.

The Islands Trust is demanding consultation. The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities: "Respect the integrity of the provincewide ALR." The Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments is requesting that "the provincial government undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties."

The B.C. Agriculture Council. Now, we've been back and forth about the B.C. Agriculture Council. Do they support the changes? Do they not? I've heard the minister say certain things about their position. I've heard others from the B.C. Agriculture Council say different things. Clearly, this is a very important group that deserves the time to consult their members — they represent over 14,000 B.C. farmers and ranchers — come back and have a full opportunity for consultation.

The Certified Organic Associations of B.C. feels there was not adequate consultation. The B.C. Fruit Growers Association is seeking further input from its members. The National Farmers Union — a six-page letter to the Premier detailing concerns.

When you have major municipal government organizations — UBCM, city of Richmond, Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments — and then non-profit organizations like the B.C. Agriculture Council, Fruit Growers Association and Certified Organic Associations calling for additional consultation, calling for time to consult their members, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that this motion should pass, yet I fear it won't.

Simultaneously, I don't hear from this government the reason why they would ignore the will of all of those organizations asking for the opportunity to provide feedback on this.

There's another important group of people that I've left to the end here, and that's members of the public. I imagine that, as members of the Legislative Assembly elected here to represent members of the public, we would care about what their opinions are about this proposed bill.

[1720]

One of the letters I received from one of my constituents was very helpful for me to illustrate the feeling that is out there about this bill.

"I do not believe you have the mandate" — this was written to the minister and cc'd to me — "to make such changes. I challenge you to delay the bill and actually have your party canvass your constituents. I'm confident that the majority of the B.C. population want the land in the ALR to remain there and have the protection it was guaranteed when the legislation was proposed originally.

"I also question why you did not put this legislation in your policy platform for the last election, not even one year ago. Could it be that you knew you may lose voter support if they knew this was your plan for vital land for food production in our province?

"There is limited arable land in this province. Once it is taken out of the ALR and developed, it is lost forever. Is this the legacy you want to leave for future generations?"

Well, this is very consistent with the e-mails that our
[ Page 4058 ]
office is receiving. I'm sure it's consistent with the correspondence the minister is receiving, because I know he's cc'd on many of these messages.

The core message from that person is that the government doesn't have the mandate to make such major changes to such a vital piece of B.C.'s legislative architecture — the protection of what's vital in our province, of food security — without bringing it to the public. It was not an election issue.

The challenge is not really a challenge. We have a committee structure, and the committee structure was established by thoughtful people who said: "You know what? We've got a job here, but we're not the experts in all cases." I've heard people stand up and say: "Oh, I'm an expert because I live here" and "I'm an expert because I live there."

The experts are the people who are on the farms right now. The experts are the people who study this issue for a living. The experts are the people who are trying to run businesses selling local food, preparing local food. These are the experts we should be consulting. That's why the committee system was set up. That will give the government the mandate. If that's what they're hearing in the committee structure, then that will give the government the mandate.

To return to the start of my speech, that's why the Water Sustainability Act passed with the full support of this House. It's because the government didn't just run a consultation analogous to a committee system but also set up a website and did elaborate consultations with the public on it. The list of consulted organizations for that is surely no different than the list of organizations wishing to be consulted in this process.

When I say that members of the public have written in, I have to be frank. The vast majority of the letters that I'm receiving will tolerate absolutely no change to the agricultural land reserve. They are outraged that the government has suggested doing this. They don't understand why that's happening, and frankly, they're angry. There are others that say: "If you do think this is necessary, come out and consult with us before you do that."

Here's a good one. "I would like to see the agricultural land reserve kept in place, and maybe your government could review why it was created in the first place and why so many British Columbians want it kept in place. I don't remember this being part of your election platform, so it seems underhanded." Generously calling for a review.

"Dear Madam/Sir: The leader of this province, from whatever political stripe, must show initiative and imagination moving forward when it comes to our food. We need to become more self-sustainable."

What better way to show initiative and understanding than to get out there and to ask the people of British Columbia: "Hey, what do you think? What can we do to promote agriculture? What can we do to make life better for farmers? Is this priority one — making it easier to remove land from the agricultural land reserve?" I'm guessing that the answer would be no. Likely the answer would be something about MMBC, but that's another issue.

"Dear Premier, Minister for Core Review and Minister of Agriculture: British Columbians were not consulted on these changes. I am asking to you kill Bill 24 and engage in a real consultation with British Columbia farmers and with those that eat." That's all of us. "These changes will impact each and every one of us."

[1725]

That's absolutely correct. If British Columbia, because of loss of prime agricultural land, because of the failure of the ALR policy, is required to purchase food from other provinces or other countries, we are less secure. Prices can go up, and we have less control over them.

So when this person says, "These changes will affect all of us. Please consult the people that eat," they know what they're talking about, because every time they go to the grocery store and they see their food bill going up, they know what that's about. "Dear Premier and Minister of Agriculture: Bill 24 should be scrapped, and proper consultation should be started on how to protect farmland and how to encourage people to grow food for our province. Thank you for reconsidering this bill."

There is a great amount of goodwill out there for a discussion about supporting farmers, supporting local food. There is overwhelming political currency, to put it in market terminology, for initiatives that promote local food and local farmers. In my constituency alone….

I was at the farmers market last Sunday, and it was the first farmers market of the year. It was a beautiful day, and it was just packed. It was absolutely packed with people from all over my constituency. The reason why they are shopping there with very limited hours — four hours, ten to two on Sunday morning — instead of going to any of the major chains that are open much more convenient hours is because they love B.C. local food. It is a huge priority for them.

It is that love for local food that will bring people out to any consultation process that this government sets up. It is that love of local food that will bring people out to any committee structure process that this government sets up. It's also that love of local food that will create political goodwill for any initiative that this government brings forward that actually makes life better for farmers that produce food in British Columbia — without pulling land out of the agricultural land reserve.

Very often the suggestion is that we shouldn't go to the public. We shouldn't go to a committee because the public doesn't understand. They don't have the level of sophistication or knowledge to be able to participate in this process.

The correspondence that we've received from members of the public is very clearly not consistent with that theory. People understand not just the issue of the need to protect local land and local farmers, but they also understand the nature of the bill that's been proposed.
[ Page 4059 ]

One e-mailed:

"The breaking up of B.C. into two sections — one in the south, where the ALC continues to protect land, and the rest of the province into an area where fertile land can be extracted from the ALR, industrialized, paved over and permanently removed from agricultural uses — is shortsighted in the utmost. We need all our arable land. We need to maximize our possibility of raising food for our population. This bill does the opposite."

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I think when we're looking at the opportunity that we have here as legislators, the power that we wield…. It's an interesting day to think about that and about the importance of consultation processes. When we wanted to do something right by Chinese Canadians, who have been discriminated against for so long, we went out, and we consulted. We said: "What is it you're looking for? What should the apology contain?" This government did a wonderful job on that, and they had the support of this side of the House on it.

Now that we want to do something right by farmers in British Columbia and we want to make life better for them, why is it that we wouldn't go out to the farmers and consult with them? There's already a committee in place. There's already a structure in place. There's already the goodwill there for people to participate. They're already desperate to participate. We know because we have received overwhelming correspondence on this issue.

Surely this government will support the idea of taking the time to look at the issue of agriculture in this province and local food and local agricultural land properly. Surely this government will support the idea of sending this to the Finance Committee. Surely this government will respond to the countless letters from people all across the province, zone 1 and zone 2, who think that we can do this properly.

[1730]

I started this speech by talking about a conversation I had with a member of the government caucus about his need to understand why it is that our party is opposing this bill. I think that the committee structure is ideal to help the government understand why it is that we're opposing this bill.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

L. Popham: Madame Speaker, I wish to reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Debate Continued

B. Routley: What this motion calls for is for us to slow down, take a step back and refer this matter to the Select Standing Committee on Finance. I was privileged enough in my first four years in the Legislature, when I started in 2009, to be put on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and to travel the province and do consultations. I found it incredibly rewarding work.

To follow up on the previous speaker, the point that he made about when we want to do good work and really, truly consult the people of B.C. together — we can do that. Today was certainly the prime example of the kind of good work that comes together with absolute unity when we take the time to do the proper consultations with the people that are impacted most by the decisions we make.

Referring this to the Finance Committee is the right thing to do for a number of reasons. But I want to back up and take kind of a world view. When you look at what's happening….

I like science. And I find it interesting that when we think that we know where we are…. We think we're standing in this Legislature, and it's just another day. You know, we're grounded on the planet. Well, it's not just another day. It's a historic day that we have gone through and, indeed, an amazing day that we've gone through.

But the reality, in terms of the science — when you look at the science of, really, what's going on — is right now we're on Earth, blasting through space at roughly 66,000 miles per hour, rotating at the equator at roughly 1,200 miles per hour. Canada, to put this in perspective, over the last 40 years has lost 12,000 square kilometres of farmland — roughly twice the size of Prince Edward Island over the last 40 years.

We know the history. Now taking it back to B.C., we know the history right here in British Columbia was that we were losing 6,000 hectares a year. That brought on the introduction of the agricultural land reserve back in 1973. Prior to that, the average was a continued loss of 6,000. Now, have we stopped it with the agricultural land reserve? No. It's not been stopped. All we've done is slow it down — slowed it down to the point where we're still losing about a tenth. So we lose about 600 hectares every year.

The other side would be quick to say: "Well, we added some land." I don't know whether that was Crown land. I know we have forests and range. I'm sure some of that rangeland, which wasn't the high-quality soil that there is in some parts of British Columbia, was added.

So I fear — and I've read from some of the experts that they also are concerned — losing some of the prime growing sites in favour of sites that are not the kind of prime growing sites we need to carry forward in B.C.'s future and to give us the best opportunity to actually grow food crops and the products we will need.

[1735]

B.C. lost, for a while, 89 farms to golf courses. I mean, just think about that. In fact, we've got one in the Cowichan Valley, March Meadows, that I've played on —
[ Page 4060 ]
a wonderful course.

I guess you could have a few carrots maybe every third hole. Maybe the Legislature could come up with a rule that at every third hole we should plant an agricultural crop. That would be interesting. We could say: "On the third hole just take a dogleg to the left of the sweet peas." Or we could get to the ninth hole and head for the turnips. Wouldn't that be a wonderful change? I think it would put a smile on the golfer's face, actually, to participate in such a plan.

We've got to be innovative, and the only way to do that is to get people together. I know the minister knows that himself. He was on the committee for part of that time with me. Travelling throughout the province and listening to the concerns of British Columbians brought about some interesting results. We were actually able to sit down and come up with recommendations jointly that would help all British Columbians. It's a novel idea.

I heard MLAs other than myself, and certainly MLAs from the other side of the House, say: "Wouldn't it be wonderful if we did a lot more work with committees?" Here's an example of that.

You have to ask yourself: was somebody sitting around with their pen and paper and saying: "You know, I've got nothing better to do. Let's womp up some changes to the agricultural land act. Let's make some changes."

I had hoped that we were going to find real people that had been consulted, not just a handful of cabinet ministers and the Fraser Institute. My worst fears, I think, are realized. It's exactly the kind of jiggery-pokery that I had worried about and that I worry about so often in this Legislature — that at the end of the day what we've got is somebody coming up with a plan without consultation.

We can do that. Today's the day that we can slow this down and go back to the opportunity to work with the Select Standing Committee on Finance. I think back on not only that Select Standing Committee on Finance work. I asked the Clerk one day…. I know that we come up with joint recommendations, and that feels like a good exercise to actually have a dialogue, from what we've heard.

I have to say that there's a genuine feeling…. Certainly, as a member of the opposition party, I genuinely had the feeling that both sides were listening to communities throughout British Columbia. It wasn't just the official opposition. I believe that they were listening. Now, they didn't always come to the same conclusions, and we had to have a little — I wouldn't call it arm-twisting — negotiation on coming up with some recommendations that made sense for the people of British Columbia.

When I asked the Clerk how many of those recommendations actually get acted on, I was pleasantly surprised. They feel that at least somewhere in the range of two-thirds actually get some kind of work on them. It may not be exactly what we had hoped for, but again, I think the government would be wise to listen.

I'm sure the fact that the Finance Minister actually takes the time to come and meet with the committee and to send us off throughout the province with some issues that they may want to hear from British Columbians about…. We come back with our report. I figured out at the end of four years roughly how many points of agreement we had reached, and I believe it was about 204 points of agreement, if you can imagine that.

[1740]

We, the official opposition and the government, actually sat down at the table, worked on what we heard from British Columbians and came up with points of agreement. Now, some of those things were kind of generic things — more funding for children with autism, to review options on how to help university students. Some of it was kind of generic, I guess, if you like, but at least it was pointing in a direction, and somebody with a thoughtful mind from government could actually sit down and cherry-pick some bright ideas that they'd heard directly from the people of British Columbia. That's really what we're looking for here.

We've heard and seen all of the mail. I'm sure the minister is going through his mail, and I'm sure he's seeing the same kinds of things that we're seeing. There are not a lopsided number of people saying: "You know what? This is terrific. This is so good I can hardly stand it."

I did find one letter. I found one letter — and I saved it — that said that there was something good about it. They were praising, by name, individuals. And it just happened to be from a community where somebody associated with the core review was coming from. So I suggest there was a little friendliness rubbing off there.

At the end of the day, the letter in the local media was quite complimentary, but what was really interesting and what directly applies to this conversation we're having right now is that they said that the policies and regulations had not yet been worked out, and we were assured that there was going to be more consultation.

So you've got the community folks that actually support the government writing to their local paper saying: "Oh, we really appreciate that they're finally doing some work on this. And by the way, I don't know what the problem is, because there's going to be consultation."

Well, that's the problem. People all over British Columbia…. We're talking about large groups of people, representing a majority of British Columbians. It doesn't get any more major, other than the province, than the Union of B.C. Municipalities. What do they have to say? They have to say, "However, it has not yet determined whether or not it supports the legislative changes" to the commission. They "will be seeking further consultation with the province on this matter."

Now again, here's an opportunity. Here's your official, loyal opposition just here trying to help the government again. You know, it's hard sometimes. It's hard to try and help, because they don't always look over at us
[ Page 4061 ]
as helpful, but we saw an example today of us working together. You've got to keep hope alive. I believe anything is possible.

We could actually have another win today. That's for the government to say: "You know what? The official opposition is right bang on, on this one. We're going to slow this train down. We're racing off the tracks, and instead of racing off the tracks, what we're going to do is slow the train down."

What's the rush? What is the rush? You have to ask yourself: what on earth is the rush again? After all, with 40 years of experience, now all of a sudden we're in some all-fired hurry to bring in some legislative changes when half the people in British Columbia that are involved in farming and ranching have no idea what the heck they're talking about. They're all saying that.

The city of Richmond says that. They had a motion asking the province to consult with the public and local governments before Bill 24 becomes law. I've heard others talk about the little village of Nakusp — I had a sister-in-law that came from Nakusp — and they're all, obviously, reasonable people as well, calling for a longer consultation period all the way around. That's what they were hoping for.

But this one is really interesting. You start thinking about the Kootenays. Now, who do we know from the Kootenays? I wonder who that is.

[1745]

Apparently, on April 9 to 11 the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments had a bit of a convention. They said that government should "undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties on the proposed two-zone approach to the ALR and that Bill 24 not be brought into force until such consultation is complete." It's exactly what we're trying to help out with, with this reasoned approach to ask for the Finance Committee….

You know, this isn't some strange, alien group that we're talking about. This is a group that even the minister is very familiar with. We had a wonderful time, I'm sure, flying around the province of British Columbia, consulting with people — and a helpful time. We actually came in with good stuff for British Columbians, so I know that the minister and others that have been involved in it are fully aware that it not only works; it's good for British Columbians.

They see the process. The information is posted up on the website. Then they go out and do the consultation. There is no such thing as flopping out a plan like some kind of yesterday's old chicken — flop it out on the table and say: "It's really beautiful. Trust us. It's going to be really good for you." "Well, how many days old is it?" "We don't know, but you're going to eat it up, and you're going to like it. You're going to have a wonderful time. This is a buffet, in fact, that we're offering you." That's what we've got going on here. It's definitely one of those foul things that you have to wonder about.

It even goes on. The Certified Organic Associations of B.C. Now, I've heard people talk about modernizing. Isn't that about as modernized as you can find in British Columbia on the whole subject of agriculture? It's certainly modernized when I think about the organic agriculture associations of B.C. Even the fruit growers are looking for more information from their members and trying to figure out what all of this means — this train that's rolling down the tracks.

You think in British Columbia that we've got…. I just read this. We had a nice visit with the BCAC just the other day. They gave us some interesting material that talked about the 200 different commodities that we have and grow here in British Columbia on 19,700 farms. They contribute…. Well, $2.5 billion worth of food from B.C. is exported to 130 different countries. Those facts, all of this information needs to be put through the Select Standing Committee on Finance, when you think about it.

I was on the Committee on Timber Supply, and that was also a good process that could be used as a template for what we're talking about here. You know, the government got it. They said: "Well we can't…. Should we have one chief forester?" "Yeah, for sure we should have one." "How about two chief foresters?" "Yeah, two is good." But I think they had the wisdom to say: "You know what? This is so important. We're going to have three chief foresters go with the committee and inform them."

We had what I thought was a very well-done information meeting. The FLNRO folks brought us in, gave us a jam course in everything we needed to know about the problem that we were going to have with mid-term timber supply and then sent the committee out on the dog-and-pony show to go around to communities throughout the affected area and look at the problem and then come back and work with the experts, the people that had the credentials — the foresters, the chief foresters.

Actually, one of the things that the chief forester said applies, I think, to this particular issue. I remember going for a walk one morning with one of the chief foresters and saying: "Well, what do you think? If you could pick one or two really good things that we should be recommending, what would be your top one or two?"

[1750]

He just commented, said: "You know, we've got to look at partitioning some of this dead pine forest." And he says: "If they've been dining out on pie, it's time that they eat just a little bit more crust." I liked that. That was a good image for me to get, especially when you think about the dead pine forest in British Columbia. Well, you know what? That does apply, I would submit, to British Columbia.

I worry, as do the other folks on this side of the House — and, I'm sure, a lot of the farming and ranching com-
[ Page 4062 ]
munity — about the coming impacts, and even from the pine beetle. They are connected in some way.

Let me give you one of the examples. When we were on a tour, and it was a separate tour from the…. We actually were invited to go to Big Creek Lodge and Sky Ranch in the Cariboo-Chilcotin to look at the impacts from changes in logging practice. But what were those changes in logging practice that had to do with climate change and that also impacted their farmland or ranchland?

What we discovered was that land use changes or land use plans that we had here in the province of British Columbia essentially said that you couldn't harvest more than a third of the forest around one of these ranches. Well, unfortunately, because of all the dead pine that rule kind of went out the window. They were harvesting as much as 70, 80 percent of the timber on slopes all the way around these ranches.

As a result, when the rains came there was this tremendous amount of water that came down. It was almost washing his barn away. It was cutting into the creek, the creek that had been on that farm for I think it was 50 years — a very long time. The impacts of climate change — again, another reason that we ought to be slowing this train down and looking at all of these factors.

Again, reasonable people make reasonable decisions if you sit them down and you take the time. I do think there are people…. I mean, we saw goodwill today. We really did. But we can also go back.

I've seen the jiggery-pokery ways where, at the end of the day, they just say: "We're going to ram it through." We've been told that publicly. "We can do it. We've got the numbers. Go pound sand, Opposition. We aren't interested in whatever you fellas over there, and ladies, have to say. We're going to ram this through, because it feels good and we can."

That's the wrong approach with something that's been in place for 40 years here in British Columbia and has been working well. When you listen to the statements in the letters and read the material, it almost brings tears to your eyes thinking about all of these folks that are putting pen to paper. They're saying, "What are we going to do, when our agriculture land that's so important to us is being changed forever" — changed forever.

It's indeed a sad thing to read these letters and to understand that it's not just the farmers and their friends. I mean, it's bad enough reading this material from the farmers and the ranchers. Quite frankly, I don't know how the minister can really stand up and say there's any support for this — "I've got Bob over here" — but everybody else is over there and doesn't like this and thinks that we should slow it down, thinks that we should have more consultation.

Clearly, they've got biologists, naturalists and academics all writing to the Premier saying: "The sky is falling. We've got to fix this." Again, I think they're right. It is the sky falling, and we've got to fix this. What do we have to wait for — another crisis? It'll be too late.

B. Routley moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

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

The committee met at 1:40 p.m.

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $127,361,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks or introductions?

Hon. M. de Jong: No.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister. I'm pleased that we're going to be able to spend a little bit of time here dealing with the Lottery Corporation and gambling-related matters that fall under the authority of the Ministry of Finance.

We only have a short period of time for this particular piece of the estimates, so we're going to move pretty quickly through, hopefully, four or five core areas.

I would like to start first…. If the minister could tell us…. He will know that there were questions raised when the previous chief executive officer and president of the Lottery Corporation made the decision to leave the Lottery Corporation and go to work for Paragon Gaming, one of the major private gaming companies. That discussion has been had. We know the minister ordered an audit of that. Could the minister give us a bit of a status update on the state of that audit?
[ Page 4063 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct in characterizing the steps that have been taken. I'm advised now that it's anticipated that I will see a final copy of the audit report in the next couple of weeks.

S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us when, after he's had a chance to review the report — presuming it's in the next couple of weeks, as he's stated — he would anticipate a public release of that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise, through you to the hon. member and the committee, that we'd anticipate, following what I think is a normal procedure, the report would come. It would quickly thereafter be presented to Treasury Board, and the practice has been — and in this case, it would be followed — it's then posted.

There is a process, the privacy process, that is undertaken by public servants — not myself, of course. But then it would be posted for examination and review by members of the public and the hon. member.

S. Simpson: We'll look forward to seeing that audit when it sees the light of day after the minister has had a chance to review it and Treasury Board.

A question that relates to that. I read the letter of direction from the minister to start to initiate the audit. It wasn't clear to me in the letter. But my question to the minister is…. And we'll talk about it in regard to the Lottery Corporation. It may be an issue for other Crowns within government, but the Lottery Corporation is the one that the minister is responsible for, so I'll keep it to that for now.

Is the minister anticipating looking at other kinds of rules, or maybe a slightly different set of rules — maybe more similar to what deputy ministers face in the government in terms of should they exit the government, in terms of periods of cooling-off periods, whatever you want to call it, before they can go directly to work for a company that they had obviously had a pretty integral interaction with.

[1345]

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes. You have to be careful because I'm reminded, as we have explored this, that the state of the law around restrictive covenants is…. Your range of options are pretty well defined. But the short answer to the member's question is yes. We are looking at creating a mechanism that, I think, is a comparison to what governs the behaviour of senior public servants. It's probably an appropriate one.

S. Simpson: I'll raise this question for the minister. It's broadly around the operations of gambling through government. I might have raised this with him previously, but I'll raise it again. I know I've raised it with his predecessors.

You have a situation today where the Lottery Corporation and the policy enforcement branch both fall under a single minister and a single ministry. We know that you have one arm there in the Lottery Corporation whose mandate is to go out and seek out business opportunities and promote and generate revenue to come in to support government services as well as to operate this service.

The policy enforcement branch is there to provide regulation and oversight to the industry and to deal with some of the issues that, because of the nature of gambling…. Much like gambling and liquor, there are sensitivities in the eyes of the public. We know — in the cases of problem gambling, some of the issues with FinTrack and money laundering questions that arise — all of the questions that raises.

The policy enforcement branch, just because of the nature of this, has a significant role. It's been my view for quite a while that it's problematic to have one minister basically have responsibility for saying to one arm, "You go out there and maximize the opportunity for government here within the criteria that we give you," and then to say the next day to another branch: "You regulate and provide the oversight for that and, if necessary, draw their reins in if you see challenges here as we move forward."

It seems to me like this is something that may work better if you had different ministers — it creates a bit of a dynamic tension, I'm sure, but that's not a bad thing — having responsibility for those two arms of this operation, the gambling operation in the province.

Could the minister give his thoughts about whether he sees a challenge there that might be addressed by separating those?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm just trying to remind myself of the evolution of the formation of the present regime. It's not an absurd observation for the member to query the relationship between a regulatory division and an operational division.

I'm told that prior to the clear delineation that took place in the early 2000s…. It may even have been 2000; I can't recall for certain. It was a purposeful decision to take an initial step which I think the member probably would have been supportive of, because what he's advocating for is the next step. It was to clearly differentiate the regulatory functions from the operational functions.

[1350]

I think the hon. member says: "Well, that's fine, but…." I won't put words in his mouth, but I think the argument is: "I'd feel more comfortable about that if those two functions rested in separate ministries." Candidly, I'm not sure that I necessarily see the necessity of that.

There are other examples I can think of where ministries have statutory responsibility for regulatory bodies but also maintain operational responsibilities. I think about the Finance Ministry and FICOM. We have statu-
[ Page 4064 ]
tory oversight over FICOM, yet the ministry also would have a direct relationship via taxation policy with those agencies that we regulate. They exist in different spheres.

While I get the argument that the member is making, I'm not sure I'm convinced that it is necessary. To preserve the integrity of the system, I'm not sure that I see the need to separate them out and house them in different ministries.

The member may have something more he wants to tell me about that.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the comment. I think that there are a number of areas of government where the point that the minister makes, makes good sense, that you can do both under one hat.

This is a bit of a unique situation. Much like liquor policy and a couple of other policies, I think there's always been a sense, since government launched gaming and started to do that…. It has grown to the point now where it's a pretty significant revenue generator for government. For one aspect of government, it's a pretty important revenue generator. Everybody knows that, and that's not going to change.

There's always been, I think, in the public a little bit of question about government's role in being involved in the gambling business. I think that's satisfied by the amounts of money that go into grants, where the dollars go to support social initiatives and programs. People kind of feel okay about that.

It's a unique piece of business, because the Lottery Corporation isn't just out there operating. It essentially is a partner with the private industry in the success — the casino companies, the large gaming private companies. They have a partnership that makes this work, in terms of the Lottery Corporation owning equipment and that and the privates being the operational side of that on the ground with casinos and that. It's a different kind of partnership.

The minister will know, and we'll talk about this a little later…. We're going to talk about Perry Kendall's report and concerns about problem gambling, whether that's being addressed in ways that make sense at this point. I know the minister's comments — I think to a news report back a little while ago — about concerns about increases, potentially, in money-laundering challenges and issues. Those are the things that I think make people a little bit uncomfortable in the public about saying: "Hey, how's this going?"

It's a bit unique — unlike a FICOM, which I think is less so but probably more important, in many ways — that separation. That's why this is a sector, probably more than many others, that doesn't just need to have those kinds of separations that you might be able to do in a ministry but has to be seen to be having those in the public eye, maybe more than some others do.

That's part of the thinking. I'd be happy to hear more from the minister on that. I just think that it's something that's worth a visit. I have not done the work to determine exactly what the status in other jurisdictions is, as to how they've separated responsibilities and whether they've dealt with this. I think it might be in some ways an easier thing to deal with.

I'm just going to leave that comment at that, and I'm going to jump to the next question. I just wanted the minister's view on that, and I'm happy to hear anything else he'd have to say.

Around the question of problem gambling. I think I'm going to focus on this issue, primarily on Dr. Kendall's report and offshoots from Dr. Kendall's report. Could the minister just generally give us his response to the findings of Dr. Kendall? The suggestion is that we have 159,000 people here who have some level of problem with gambling. Some of it may be — for 30,000-odd of them — serious; for the rest, potentially problematic. The number seems to be growing, based on Dr. Kendall's work.

Could the minister just generally give us a view of what he thinks about what he's read in Dr. Kendall's report and how he sees the government and the ministry responding to that?

[1355]

Hon. M. de Jong: I probably should begin by observing that the work that Dr. Kendall and the office of the provincial health officer undertook is, in my view, entirely appropriate in a circumstance where, as the member had pointed out a few moments ago, the state is a partner in the delivery of gaming activities and forms of entertainment related to gaming. Tracking the behaviour, tracking the impact, tracking challenges, difficulties, incidences of addiction is entirely appropriate.

The member has participated in these estimates long enough, but I could go through a whole series of numbers, chronicling what the government presently contributes to address gaming issues, gambling addiction issues, and I'm happy to do that or provide that information to the member.

Dr. Kendall provided a series of recommendations — I think, if memory serves, around 17 recommendations. He provided a pointed one about, really, quantifying the amount of money as a formula from gaming revenues that would be devoted to this work. We have certainly taken some steps to provide additional revenues. I think a few days after Dr. Kendall released his report, we announced a partnership with UBC and a contribution of, I believe, $2 million to assist in advancing gambling research that would include issues of gambling addiction.

So there are significant moneys that are being devoted on an ongoing basis. I can't undertake today for the member as part of the estimates process that Dr. Kendall's target of 1.5 percent would be realized by a certain date, but in general, the work he did, in my view, is necessary. It is appropriate, and on balance I found his recommenda-
[ Page 4065 ]
tions helpful.

S. Simpson: As the minister points out, there's a discussion in the report around the resources that get applied. One quote from Dr. Kendall's report, on page 30, is that "despite B.C.'s moderate to high levels of revenue from gaming, B.C. spends the lowest amount of its gaming revenue on problem gambling among provinces for which data was established ($1.50 per capita age 18 and up). This is less than half of the average of $3.59."

That was Dr. Kendall's comment. He went on in other places to talk about the growth of the problem, saying: "Between 2002 and 2007 the percentage of problem gamblers increased 125 percent…. This is likely related to the introduction of new and expanded gambling opportunities in B.C."

[1400]

I think it raises an interesting question. At PlayNow.com, when you look at the B.C. Lottery Corporation's levels, we're seeing that things have gone pretty level or flattened out in much of the casino business, except in a couple of particular table games that seem to do very well with some customers. But that seems to have levelled out, particularly slot machines, which was the cash cow for casinos.

But the PlayNow, the whole on-line, mostly home gambling — those numbers continue to grow. That's also the area where people who are concerned about addictive behaviours say the biggest possible challenge is. We know that in casinos they have staff and personnel there. If they see somebody looking like they're getting into distress, there are resources at the casino obliged by the GPEB and by the ministry to be there to provide support and assistance. You don't have that at two o'clock in the morning when you're on your computer at home.

So we're seeing less resources there, and we're seeing challenges about significant growth in the number. I'm interested to know how this is being dealt with. I particularly remind the minister of a quote. He was quoted on the CBC in October, saying: "Before further increasing spending for problem gambling programs and services, we're going to review the outcomes of our current programs to ensure that we're meeting the needs of our population." That's a reasonable position to take.

The question I would ask the minister is: have those reviews been done, and would he be prepared to make the results of that available in terms of the assessment of how these programs are working?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe in reverse order from how the issues were raised by the member.

He's correct. The work is ongoing. I'm advised that a report on prevalency is going to be completed in about a month and should provide some assistance about where to target resources.

The member was characterizing Dr. Kendall's report and, I think, suggested…. Either it was his observation or Dr. Kendall's that funding in this area was declining. I might take a little bit of issue with that. It may not be increasing at the rate that the member or Dr. Kendall would like, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that it is declining. It may not be increasing at the rate the member would like, but we are trying to find new avenues for research and for providing support.

The member also raised the question of electronic gaming, and I think it's appropriate and legitimate that he does so. It is, obviously, a new gaming option, new for the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Candidly, we don't have a plethora of data now that I can share with the member that focuses directly on problem areas.

[1405]

I would not dispute his observation that for those who choose that form of gaming and can do so remotely from their home, from wherever, it does pose a unique set of challenges for identifying issues and problems and providing the requisite support.

I will say this, though, because there is…. I don't know that it has been the member, so I don't want to make that assertion, but some people have questioned the validity of the Lottery Corporation, and therefore the government, stepping into this area of gaming. I think it is appropriate to point out that the activity has taken place in many cases, until recently, exclusively on unregulated sites.

What the corporation has repeatedly emphasized to me are the steps they are trying to take, recognizing that this is a new area, to build in some safeguards: time restrictions for participation; the ability to self-regulate by setting limits, where, I guess, the screen will alert you to when you are hitting your limit and it's time to stay within it, to use the phrase.

It'll be interesting to see what the data reveals, going forward. I, again, won't dispute the member's assertion that it is an area that bears close examination. I am comfortable, and would share this with the committee, with the notion that the Lottery Corporation steps into this area on the basis that at least it represents a regulated, and I hope, therefore a more responsible option for British Columbians and, as we're discovering, other Canadians, because the corporation has been approached and has expanded the PlayNow range of gaming options to other provinces, like Manitoba.

S. Simpson: I just note that on the question of the amount spent on problem gambling, I wasn't suggesting it's been reduced. I was just contrasting the reality of what gets spent here versus what seem to be national averages. We're probably a little less than half of what the national average is on spending. That was the point I was making. I wasn't suggesting that less dollars per capita were being spent.

Part of the problem, though, I guess, with PlayNow
[ Page 4066 ]
— and it's been a challenge for a while, of course — was at the point when this became a key initiative of the Lottery Corporation a few years back when the decision was made to move pretty actively into this area of electronic gambling.

Of course, one of the first things that happened was limits were increased almost $10,000 a month for spending — pretty significant numbers, numbers that are significantly more than: "Let's have some fun while on the computer with the slot machines and spend a hundred bucks." These are big, big numbers, and they are the kind of numbers that can get you in trouble — those kinds of numbers.

I appreciate that there's work being done for the Lottery Corporation to get its head around the situation here. Has there been an assessment of what goes on in other jurisdictions and best practices? I know….

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Yeah. I'm thinking in particular…. And I'm pulling this out of my head, because it's been a while since I looked at it. I know in Britain they, I think, had had higher limits, and they brought the limits down, specifically, to about 750£ or whatever it was a month. I'm picking that number out of the air, but it was a number that was significantly less than the equivalent of $10,000.

The reason for doing that was to say: "We're a little concerned about this problem of potential risk people are getting into, and we need to look at it." Those are also matters, of course, that Dr. Kendall flags around that concern. I understand this.

I'm interested in knowing what work is being done around deciding, now that we've got a couple of years of experience, where the potential challenges are, how they get measured, what other people are doing and how you refine this particular piece, the growing piece of the industry.

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: I was trying to ascertain for the member, going back to when the electronic gaming option was first developed, what consideration went into the establishment of those limits. Was it a product of a comparative assessment in the manner that the member has alluded to? The short answer to that is no. It seems to have been the product of an examination of the financial regulations, the FINTRAC regulations governing what….

I am further advised and can relate to the committee that the work that's taking place now, in addition to considering the behaviour and the results of that, has been and is incorporating a comparative assessment of what exists in other jurisdictions and presumably — although I'll confirm this for the member — changes that have occurred in other jurisdictions like the U.K.

S. Simpson: That would be good. I hope when that work is done, it will be made available. I don't expect…. Most people wouldn't do this, but you've got a limit now so that arguably somebody could spend half a million dollars a year on electronic gaming under the current policy. That's an awful lot of money, and that's a lot on credit cards.

I don't expect people to do that. But just having that seems like a huge amount of money for something that's supposed to be fun.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: I'm going to finish here. I'm going to cut back and reference that.

The question I'd asked, the last question, relates to Kendall. The minister referenced, I think, 17 recommendations in the Kendall report. Could the minister give us some idea about whether he's considering those recommendations? Are some of them being adopted? Are there some of them that he thinks are just not appropriate? So a bit of an assessment of the recommendations and their status.

Hon. M. de Jong: We'll get a more detailed thing, and I'll complete my answer.

The member is right about the potential investment. There are two things that I guess I'd say about that, as a guy that goes to the track probably once every three years and splurges on $25 worth of betting and maybe twice that on food and beverage.

It's all relative. Like the member, I could not contemplate wagering $25,000 or $50,000. Some people, of course, possess a wealth and income where that is less problematic. For some people, that $100 bet is excessive. So it depends on their circumstances.

The other thing that I neglected to say and should emphasize…. It is not a complete answer, and I don't want to leave the impression that we are necessarily satisfied. But on the electronic gambling side, one of the questions that is pointedly asked of participants at the outset when they register is…. They have the option of setting a limit.

Now, the member could say, "Well, yes, they could override that, and they can change it," and all of that is true. But I just wanted to put on the record that as this system was developed, people turned their mind to trying to incorporate systems that would assist people in managing their own behaviour. There may certainly be more that can be done in that respect.

[1415]

I'll now try to get the information that the member sought about the recommendations from Dr. Kendall.

With the assistance of staff, I'm trying to remind myself of some of my thoughts on some of these things that I can share with the member. The recommendations included things like restricting access to cash, and this re-
[ Page 4067 ]
lates to something that the member alluded to earlier around money laundering.

First, let me say this in general. I thought the report touched on logical areas related to gaming activity and the behaviour of those people involved in gaming. So there wasn't anything I read in the report where I'd go: "Why was Dr. Kendall even looking at that?" These are all areas that bore a relevance to the industry and the behaviour of people in the industry.

Candidly, the recommendation, for example, to allocate the set percentage of revenues would involve shifting revenues around from present sources. So I can't, as I said earlier, undertake to the member that that would be happening any time soon.

There was a recommendation related to restricting access to alcohol in gaming facilities. I say this not to be mischievous, but I'm actually kind of interested in the member's views on that. The gaming industry has a certain culture associated with it. People go out. Done in moderation, I don't actually see anything wrong with folks having a cocktail and playing their card game or rolling dice or all of the things that I have no understanding of or any skill at.

To the extent that the recommendation in those areas and the observations are to guard against people abusing alcohol to an extent where they abuse themselves through unreasonable behaviour at gaming facilities, I think that's legitimate. I don't want, though, to leave the suggestion that we are going to embark upon a strategy to remove or suggest to the Lottery Corporation and their partners that alcohol needs to be purged from gaming facilities.

I think there is a link in that form of entertainment. It needs to be a responsible link. We'll continue to work with the Lottery Corporation, with their partners, to ensure that that linkage exists in a balanced way.

Those are, I think, three or four of the recommendations and some thoughts on them.

[1420]

S. Simpson: I would probably agree with the minister on that. Frankly, I look at the 17 recommendations. I'm not sure that I agree with all those 17 recommendations or that I would support them all. But I think there's merit. They deserve consideration, whether I think they're a good idea or not. They deserve a serious discussion and serious consideration, and there may be modifications of them that make some sense.

The inquiry is about: how is the Lottery Corporation getting its head around that to deal with the issue that's been raised? Particularly, when you look at problem gambling, one of the things we know from the statistics we see is that we haven't seen a significant growth in the numbers of people who are enjoying this particular form of entertainment. The numbers are fairly static.

But the revenues grow, and there's the suggestion that the people who have more challenges in managing that and being responsible about it…. Knowing they've got $100 to go out and entertain themselves with tonight, when the $100 is all gone, they say that was a great night, and they go home — and then the people who can't do that.

The concern is that the people who can't do that make up an inordinate amount of the revenue stream in British Columbia coming into the casinos and into the gambling revenue stream. That becomes a concern if it's accurate that that's where the money is coming from. It's complicated because there's also the desire for the revenue stream. It's a difficult issue; there's no question about it.

I guess my biggest inquiry is about how you are dealing with a difficult question without an easy answer around that. I'm going to just leave it at that. Happy to hear from the minister on that. I think I'm working on about ten more minutes or so.

I want to get to FINTRAC and laundering. We know the report that came out, the audit that came out, showed some significant potential growth in the amount of instances of suspicious transactions. For example, I think they suggested that there were more than 1,000 of these transactions in 2013. Interestingly — I think it was on CTV — they reported there were no charges at all on any of these, so apparently, they were all good. But I'm sure it raises questions on how you have more than 1,000 suspicious transactions and they're all good.

The question I have for the minister…. I believe I heard him in the media, when this story came out, expressing his concern about this increase in instances and wanting to get a better handle on that. Could the minister tell us what efforts are being made to get a better handle on this?

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. First of all, I think the number the member cited is correct — over 1,000 suspicious activities chronicled for the period in question. Now, the one thing I have just again been reminded of: the term "suspicious" is the correct term. It may not be the best use of the term. Anything over $10,000 is automatically reportable to FINTRAC and designated suspicious, whether or not it fits the criteria in other ways.

I think when the issue was raised — and the hon. member refers to some of the media reports — what I said candidly was that I think through the anti-money-laundering team that has been established and efforts that are underway and just better awareness, we're probably getting a little better at identifying some of this stuff — the work through FINTRAC being a big part of that.

Where, candidly, one gets a little suspicious is when you hear about the stories of people coming in with a suitcase full case of money, $100,000 or $200,000. Again, I was reminded then, at the time, that until 2011 the only way to bring money into a casino was via cash. For large
[ Page 4068 ]
international gaming tourists who played in those circles, that's what they would do.

What we're now aggressively and pointedly trying to do is move away from a cash-based system to electronic transfers of money, which are a whole lot easier to track and do assessments on.

The combination of sometimes cultural behaviour and the fact that until a few years ago that was the only way to bring gaming money into a casino means…. I think the number of transactions is somewhere around 24 or 25 percent now that are electronic. Yeah, in the neighbourhood of 24 percent of the gambling activities are now via electronic transfer.

We clearly have a lot more work to do on that front. I'm not hesitant to share this layperson's observation that having people come into a casino with suitcases full of money — by definition, that strikes me as suspicious and something we should try to avoid.

S. Simpson: The minister is right. Again, I'm just reading from a story. I guess this came out of the CTV report. In 2012 a Mr. F walks into a casino VIP room with a backpack — $200,000 in $20 bills. That's a lot of $20 bills.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's a heavy backpack.

S. Simpson: Yeah.

I accept — and I've been told, as the minister says — that there are significant numbers of people who come from offshore. They come here, and they like to gamble. They gamble at levels and with numbers that I don't understand, but I accept that. That's what they want to do.

I also haven't ever heard anything that distinguishes between…. Those folks are pretty clearly known to casinos, I suspect. They come in as pretty special customers and patrons, and they're treated as such. They're very important to the business of the casinos. I understand that. I fully expect everybody knows who they are, and they're treated accordingly.

It's hard for me to believe, of those 1,000 transactions, that they were all about those folks and that there weren't other transactions, maybe a significant number of those transactions, that were from folks who wouldn't fall into that category, necessarily. I don't know that for sure, but I'm wondering whether that gets tracked in any meaningful way.

There's a whole range of questions around this. We're not going to get to them all. One of the issues that was raised, though…. As the minister will know, there was within the RCMP, I guess, a particular small special unit that dealt with gaming issues. They were disbanded in 2009, I believe.

They had raised some concerns. There was a bit of controversy over whether there was some anger there around other matters and that. But it's the issue about some particular or specific police, presumably RCMP, attention to these issues and having some small number or some unit that pays attention to that.

[1430]

Could the minister tell us: does he think that there is merit in that as one of the ways to try to get at this issue, as well as — as I think he says — trying to get cash to the greatest degree possible out of the casinos?

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm glad, actually, that the member raised this. There has been interest, and I think some of that has been generated by perhaps not a clear enough understanding of what existed and what exists now.

The unit that the member refers to that was disbanded, contrary to what many people think, was not an anti-money-laundering unit. It focused on gaming matters but a particular type of gaming matter — whether illegal gaming activities, the dice game in a basement.

What I can tell the member is that today the gaming policy and enforcement branch employs 27 investigators who specifically investigate incidents of wrongdoing or suspected wrongdoing in legal gaming activities — money laundering, fraud inside casinos.

Of course, they work with the RCMP, who have a primary responsibility for the Criminal Code investigations under the Criminal Code of Canada, money laundering being an offence under that statute. So there is a specific group of investigators who are assigned the task of working with the RCMP on those matters. In fact, they have specialized training, whereas the group previously was focused more on identifying illegal gaming activities and curtailing that activity.

S. Simpson: I'm just going to, as an aside, because I'm getting close to the end here, whether, as a response…. I guess it would be GPEB, actually, as a response to those reports and these numbers in the audit around the increase in numbers of suspicious transactions…. That doubled, I think, since 2011. I think that's what the numbers said. I'd have to look in my notes, but I know there was a significant increase.

I'd be interested to know if GPEB is doing some assessment of how they look at these things, how casinos look at them, and looking at kind of how they may be tweaking the requirements, the regulatory requirements, the oversight requirements to try to bring those numbers down. Clearly, getting away from cash would be one big way to do it. Some other things. So I'm interested in that. Particularly if there's anything in writing on that, I'd be pleased to see that.

I'm actually going to jump to a question about horse racing. The Horse Racing Industry Management Committee, as you'll know, is a committee that was put in place. Horse racing — a long history in this province, not doing as well as people would like. It's in a tough place.
[ Page 4069 ]
The minister talked about going and making the odd bet. Well, you know, the Hastings track is in my constituency, and I don't mind going up there and blowing ten bucks in an afternoon myself.

A Voice: Big spender. Wow.

S. Simpson: Big spender. That's probably why it's good gambling for me. I can do it $2 at a time, and I can just go crazy. They're not counting on me to pay the bills, apparently.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to be a jockey when I grew up.

S. Simpson: It's not going to work out, Minister. I just thought I'd tell you. Good try, but it's not going to work out.

A Voice: There's still a chance.

S. Simpson: Yeah, maybe a jockey for a Clydesdale, I don't know. Let's see if I get an answer after that.

[1435]

Here's the problem, though, with horse racing. I've been talking to the people in the industry — the Horsemen's Benevolent Association, that side of the industry. You'll know that there's been a body of work going on with this committee to try to find the way forward for this industry in what is a difficult situation.

One of the real complications has been this notion that Great Canadian, who owns the tracks, will be made whole and not face any losses. There no longer is a shared responsibility for the success or failure of the track. Instead, they have now been told that the folks in the industry, the thoroughbred and standardbred sectors, the benevolent folks — those folks essentially have to start paying for training costs and other costs. For every other track, it's the owners of the track that have that responsibility.

In this case, the deal looks like Great Canadian is being told — and the management committee seems to be supportive of this — that they will be guaranteed against losses because the other parts of the sector are going to have to foot the bill, should they face losses. That doesn't seem like the way this should work.

It's an industry where everybody should be in, everybody should be trying to make it work, and if there is success, everybody should share in the success. If it doesn't go so well, everybody, including the people who own the operation, should probably have to pony up a little bit in sharing the challenge of the loss.

Nobody wants the loss there, but if that's the demand of Great Canadian, it's problematic. It's problematic for the breeders, the trainers, the owners — all those people on the other side that actually are horse racing.

I wonder if the minister is aware of any of this issue and whether he has any comments. I can assure the minister, I know, on this that people in the industry who have spoken to me would, I'm sure, be happy to talk to him and provide some of their concerns about why this is an issue for them and for their ability to move forward and have a successful industry.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, there are a number of reasons why it's an appropriate issue for us to talk about here. It is, as the member pointed out, an important industry in terms of the numbers of people that are involved in various dimensions of it, whether it's at the track, one of which is in the member's riding, or on the farms elsewhere in British Columbia that produce the horses that race.

It looked, at one point, like the member and I might be having this conversation in the context of an unresolved dispute. It looked pretty serious up to a couple of months ago in the aftermath of a report that was completed by the Horse Racing Industry Management Committee that seemed to lead to some significant measure of disagreement.

[1440]

I'm told that it was actually a subcommittee, which involved the breeds, the track and track operator. They managed to get together and settle on a new agreement. They're maintaining the same revenue-sharing agreement that's been in place for the past two years, with the revenue being split between the three industry participants — thoroughbred sector, standardbred sector and horse-racing track operator, Great Canadian.

I guess I'm somewhat guided by the fact that the main participants…. Well, I'm candidly relieved that the main participants managed to come to an agreement.

The investment by the province is significant insofar as we now allocate 25 percent of the net revenues from slot machine profits — casinos located at Hastings and Fraser Downs — to support the horse-racing industry.

The other thing that the member may not know is that when those discussions were taking place, from time to time one detected an interest on the part of the operator to shift some of those gaming facilities and slot machines to other locations. Our point was: "No, those have been licensed to operate at those track facilities, and that's where they're going to stay."

I don't know to what extent that may have helped — I hope not hindered — the discussion. It was something that the operators had expressed an interest in. We made our position clear on that, that they were licensed to operate at that location, and we didn't contemplate that changing.

I think the member began his submission on this point by observing that it's an industry that has seen better days. I think that's true. I think gaming behaviours have changed. The number of race days is going to decline. I
[ Page 4070 ]
hope and I believe that we will see horse racing continue in British Columbia, through the thoroughbreds and standardbreds, but it will be necessary for all the parties to sharpen their pencils and to understand that they are competing with a broad range of gaming activities.

For whatever it's worth — and I'm not a particularly active gambler at any level — it's a lot of fun. It's a great evening's entertainment, and it would be, in my view, a shame not to have that option available, although I don't use it myself frequently.

It's great fun to go to Hastings Park or Fraser Downs. The people are passionate, particularly the folks that work with the jockeys and the trainers that work with the horses. I certainly commend people, if they're so interested, to responsibly avail themselves of that form of entertainment and support the folks that provide it to British Columbians.

S. Simpson: I'll comment on that, and then I'll be pretty much done.

It is an important industry. It's important in a number of ways. I know there are a large number of people who work in what's called the backstretch area there. It's a unique community. It's a community of people who, for lots of them, have been around horses a long time. They don't necessarily have a whole bunch of other skills to be doing other things. It's a community that looks after itself.

I know a number of those people are my constituents. I believe folks who are in the industry when they come and tell me that if they didn't have a job there doing what they're doing, the likelihood they would find suitable employment outside of the track is not great.

It's an important place. It's created an important opportunity for these people in their lives. I'm a fan of that.

I've also got to say that Great Canadian, to their credit…. There was a lot of controversy when they came to the track. They made a number of commitments to the surrounding community. They have fulfilled all of the commitments they made. They fulfil them on an annual basis.

I'm happy to give them credit for what they've done. They've built a fabulous child care centre. They provide contributions into a community amenity fund. They provide opportunities for fundraising for non-profits. They have fulfilled every promise they made. I commend them for that.

[1445]

I think the revenue shares are there. My sense of the debate, though, is how the liabilities potentially get shared — not the revenue streams, necessarily, but the liabilities. That seems to be where some of that problem is. As the minister says, it's exacerbated by reduced race days because all those other folks make their money out of race days.

We're starting to see the impact, I'm told, now on breeders. You know, they're not going to get ten horses to that track now. Maybe they're going to get five, and what do they do? That industry is reducing and being challenged. Or they're looking to California. Can they sell their horses to California?

I get the sense here…. I appreciate that the management committee was put in place. I believe it's probably got about $10 million a year of government money to help support this and get it back on its feet and moving forward. I guess the suggestion that I would make is there are people in that industry who are on the ground, horse-racing people, who continue to not be happy. They might have signed deals because they didn't have a heck of a lot of other choices than to come to a deal, but that doesn't make them happy for the future. The minister…. I would hope there might be some more conversation.

We really don't have much time, and I want to give it to my friend the Finance critic. I would ask the minister, though — I may have a few other questions, but I'll put those questions in writing to the minister — whether I can get a commitment for responses in writing.

M. Farnworth: Mindful of the time we have, that it's not as long as initially scheduled, I'm not going to have any really lengthy opening comments other than to say I'm going to try and focus on some key areas, in the time that we have available to us, that I think are particularly important.

I'll start with taxation. I think that's where most of my questions are going to be. They're going to be in a number of key areas on resource revenue; LNG, obviously; issues around credit unions and changes to the federal taxation at the federal level; tobacco tax; and property purchase transfer tax, of which I know the minister is aware. Then I'll also have some questions on revenue-sharing and some other more local questions on strata legislation that I know the minister is responsible for.

If the minister could quickly introduce the staff who will be assisting us, that would be wonderful.

Hon. M. de Jong: Of course, Deputy Peter Milburn, Paul Flanagan, Pat Parkinson, Dave Riley and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland — I think I've got everyone — are here assisting us on this journey through taxation heaven.

M. Farnworth: I guess taxation heaven depends on whether you're paying or receiving.

On that very comment…. I mean, we're a resource-rich province. Revenue resource extraction is a key part of British Columbia's economy, and the revenue that we derive from that is of acute importance to the treasury, particularly the Finance Minister at budget time. A key part of the government's agenda has been around LNG, but LNG isn't the only natural resource that this province has. Whether it's minerals in the ground or forestry or our hydro resources, they all contribute to our natural resource revenue.

I have a number of questions on that because people
[ Page 4071 ]
have remarked that while we have been in the midst of a very long boom in terms of our exports, particularly to Asia, and high demand for a lot of our resources, the amount of revenue that we've gotten over the last number of years has seen a bit of a decline. This year in the budget statements we're looking at just over, in total, natural resource revenue of some $3 billion. I just pulled one of the previous years out to have a comparison, and in 2006 we got $4.4 billion worth of natural resource revenue.

[1450]

Now, obviously, we are subject to market prices and market forces, and all those things go into resource revenue. But at a time when we have been in high demand for our resources — projections, both internally and externally, talk about continued demand for British Columbia's resources — why is it we have seen a decline in resource revenue compared to, let's say, 2006, for example?

Hon. M. de Jong: I guess the short answer is that, as the member pointed out, there's an ebb and flow in each of the areas of natural resource pricing and revenue to the Crown. But the areas where you see the biggest swing, and a swing to the downside — I would say, firstly, natural gas, natural gas prices being appreciably lower than they were seven years ago.

In fairness, I also have to observe that the trend in forest revenues would be the other area where you would say that ten years ago you might have been hovering around the $900 million or even the billion-dollar mark. They are, obviously, over the last number of years significantly lower than that.

Natural gas probably accounts for the biggest portion of that diminished return to the treasury. After that, the secondary I would point to is forestry.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's response. I would agree that those are significant factors on those particular commodities. There are other commodities, though, other resources, particularly in the mineral areas, where we have seen prices increasing and production declining — I know gold and silver, for example.

I'm just wondering. The mineral resources where this has been taking place — does the government have any…? Are they monitoring this? Do they have an explanation for why that is in fact the case — that you've got increasing demand but declining production here in British Columbia? Particularly when you look at…. Some of those products are part and parcel of existing mining operations.

Hon. M. de Jong: I was just sort of doing a survey of the various areas and the various commodities on the mineral side. On the mineral side, generally, there has been not just a measure of stability but moderate growth. Coal prices started…. If we go back ten years, they went up steadily. They have come back of late a little bit but are considerably higher than they were back in that period. Copper fluctuates as per the world market conditions.

[1455]

The hon. member may have a particular area of mineral extraction in mind, whether it's gold or silver, and he'll inform me of that in a moment I'm sure.

M. Farnworth: The minister is right. I guess, looking at some statistics out of Natural Resources Canada on the mineral production of Canada by province, in terms of British Columbia, one of the things that's interesting is that in 2002, with the price of gold at just over $400 an ounce, we produced just over 20,000 kilograms of gold. In 2012, when the price is at $1,600 an ounce, we produced probably less than or just about 2,500. That's a significant difference in production level at a time when the price is through the roof and one would assume or would think that you would be seeing more production in that area.

Likewise with silver. In 2002 it was over 600,000 kilograms produced, and the price at that time was just over $6 an ounce. Yet in '10, '11 and '12 you're looking at probably somewhere around 75,000 kilograms being produced at a price of $30 an ounce. Again, given that we know in terms of resource development from this province…. You're seeing when prices are high, production tends to increase as well, and yet here are some important minerals for British Columbia and the price is…. That's not, in fact.

You're seeing declining production at a time when the price is high and one would expect government would be seeing the potential for significantly more revenue coming in to the province. So my question is: how does government, in fact, monitor the royalties that are in place and the projections in terms of what they're anticipating? And more importantly, do they look at changing the royalty structure when they see trends like this taking place to ensure that we continue to get the revenue that we're expecting to get?

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to make sure I was able to address all three points. The first question was: how and who does the monitoring and the forecasting?

[1500]

In the case of minerals, which is what we're talking about, the line ministry would be responsible for price forecasting and — if I say this clumsily — activity forecasting. The ultimate decision, of course, lies with the private companies, the mineral companies. But as a new mine comes on, the ministry would factor that in and provide that information to the treasury branch, which then includes it in the budgetary documentation.

The member also asked about, I think pointedly and properly, the degree to which the Crown — whether it's the Finance Ministry or the line ministry — would utilize
[ Page 4072 ]
the taxation system, which includes the royalty system, to address behaviour or incent behaviour. The short answer to that is — I think the member is familiar with this — yes, we do. The clearest example of that, or the one that people frequently point to, is on the royalty side for gas. We're in the midst of a pretty significant effort and undertaking in that regard with the respect to LNG.

In terms of finalizing royalty regimes going forward, one of the things we are interested in incenting is that the gas being utilized in the conversion process is sourced within British Columbia as opposed to other jurisdictions, most notably Alberta.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Ensuring we're competitive on that front is important in all instances. In the case of natural gas and liquefied natural gas, it's a pretty significant piece of the puzzle that is being constructed right now. I think the member has indicated he's going to ask questions about that later, so I won't dwell too much on that.

Ensuring that we have a royalty regime in place…. A ministry will make the case, as it were, to the treasury branch for why an adjustment should be made and what they believe that will accomplish in terms of incenting behaviour. Candidly, the treasury is interested in two things. One is the general economic activity and jobs that will accrue from that and, bluntly, how much we get.

M. Farnworth: It's the second, the latter. That's why I'm asking these questions. You know, when you look at statistics and see that there's a significant price…. But even with declining production, you're wondering: "Okay, is the resource simply not there in the case of gold?" That may well be the issue. Or is government receiving the information that it should in terms of reporting exactly what is produced so in fact it can get the revenue that it is due? Or does it need to revise its…? You know, given the significant change in price that may have been in place for quite some time, does it need to revise the tax rate or the royalty rate which it's getting revenue from?

I appreciate that response from the minister. That brings me to the next question in this, which is…. I understand that the ministry is in the process of updating the computer software that will administrate the Mineral Tax Act. If that is correct, is there a reason for the update? Is it a standard time to upgrade the technology as the Minister of Technology this morning said, so that we…?

Perhaps I'll ask it this way. Is the Mineral Tenure Act being updated because it is operating on key punch and computer cards and ticker tape, and it's time to bring it up to the 2014 technology? Or is it, in fact, part of just a scheduled routine update?

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. There is a technology improvement upgrade taking place. The catalyst for that, actually, was the return to the PST. I'm told that we have leapt from version 3 of the applicable model and system to version 9, which sounds far more impressive than I am able to describe without assistance from staff. But if the member has questions about that, I'm happy to oblige.

The system, I am told, operates more efficiently in a variety of ways. Candidly, it requires less people to drive it. It is also able, I am told, to accommodate some of these other facets of the tax collection process. We were talking a moment ago about the mineral tax.

I think the member's specific question was: is there an upgrade in technology taking place there? The answer is yes, insofar as the new system is able to accommodate the mineral tax and other aspects of the taxation collection and monitoring system. It does, however, relate back to the investment that was made as part of the shift back to the PST.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer from the minister. That leads me to my next question, in terms of…. I think it's interesting, given the issues that we've seen with technology that government has had, some of the challenges it's had with technology over the last couple of weeks.

One of the interesting issues that comes up is the issue around smart meters and the old analog meter and the new meter that's put in place. The complaints sometime come, and they go: "Oh, my bill has shot up." The answer that government provided — or that Hydro has provided, as well: "It may be that your old analog meter wasn't working properly, and you are now actually getting a bill that is reflective of the true cost of the electricity which you are consuming."

I'm also wondering if there is the potential here with this new technology — in terms of, okay, we've got this new system — that we may find that we are going to be getting more revenue.

The question I have is: how do we evaluate resource revenue in some of these sectors — mining, for example — to ensure that we are, in fact, getting the royalty revenue that we should be getting? How is that determined, and how is it, in fact, monitored? Is that part of the new technology? Does it have a better ability to do that, for example, than the current methods that we use?

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: Without overstating or exaggerating, the shift to the new technology, and particularly the e-filing…. I'm told, now, in the case of the PST, it's upwards of 65 percent e-file. Some people, the larger collectors, are obliged by law to do that. Smaller ones are not.

I'm reminded and advised that the mere fact that the data comes in electronically…. The cash is received quicker. It has reduced some borrowing costs on the part
[ Page 4073 ]
of the Crown. To the extent that there is statutory authorization to do so, the sharing of information between taxation branches assists in monitoring what is being received and analyzing it.

We're not in a position yet with the mineral tax for me to assure the member or the committee that we're in a position to conduct a meaningful analysis of the sort that I think the member was alluding to. I don't want to leave that impression. We're not there yet on something like the mineral tax. I'm told that the belief is that compliance rates are improving as a result of the ease associated with electronic filing.

As that moves forward, the question will be whether the trend continues. One hopes that it does. But in fairness, I'd have to say that at this point the big shift relates to the manner in which the data is now collected electronically, increasingly, and the ability that that is affording the Crown and the branch to conduct analysis and zero in on behavioural analysis armed with better data.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. If we're not there yet, how do we ensure that there is compliance with the Mineral Tax Act and the tax rates? How often is an evaluation of compliance rates done, and when was the last time one was done?

[1515]

Hon. M. de Jong: What we're trying to do…. I think partly the member's question was: to what degree of regularity does audit activity take place? We're trying to track that down to provide a number.

I can tell him that within the mineral, oil and gas revenue branch, revenue division, there are budgeted 33 FTEs. There are four vacant positions, and five audit contractors that are engaged in that activity. We'll try to get an answer that addresses the specific point more directly.

Following up from the earlier conversation, I was handed this bit of data that is, I suppose, positive news as it relate to utilizing the tools of technology. This tells me that as of March 31, 2014, the average PST delinquency rate was estimated at 4.9 percent. The same figure under the social service tax a few years ago was 9.3. That would seem to support the proposition that the use of technology is helping in terms of driving compliance.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer and the information that he's going to get or that they want to track down.

I think one of the key areas that we want to make sure is in fact taking place, particularly given the importance of resource revenue for government and given there's legislation governing the Mineral Tax Act in place, is that we are getting the revenue that is our due as a province. Part of that is ensuring that audits are taking place on a regular basis, that compliance is there and the ability to track over time how compliance rates are. So you can do what you just did — which, in terms of the PST, is going: here's what it is now, and here's what it was then.

I think having that information will give a greater sense of confidence that as a province we are getting the resource revenue that we are entitled to and can expect and that the technology is in place to allow us to do that.

I could spend more time on that, but given that we are limited in time, I'd like to move on to the other area of resource revenue which is a key priority for government and, I think, of key interest to the public of British Columbia, and that's around LNG.

I know the government has said that they intend to have the royalty rates in place for the fall session and that that, in fact, is going to be the main goal of the fall session.

But this time last year I asked the minister the question of when we could expect to see it, and the minister said it would be by the end of the calendar year. Now, I could give him the way out and say I never did say which calendar year, but I think the general assumption, and I know the minister knows it as well, was that it was this past calendar year.

Can the minister explain why the province was unable to meet that target?

[1520]

Hon. M. de Jong: I should confirm on the record so it's not left to speculation that the member is correct. When we had this conversation a year ago, I indicated that the target was to have the taxation…. The member used the term "royalty." I think what he was meaning was the taxation regime in place. I indicated that the objective was to have the construct and the model laid out at the end of the calendar year.

So it is accurate for the member to say that insofar as the government and I disclosed that information as part of the budget in February, we were some five or six weeks behind the date that we had intended. I do, I think fairly, make the point that we did, as part of the budget, lay out the construct and were as definitive as one can be without actually embedding numbers in legislation.

In describing what the LNG tax would look like and how it would operate, I think I shared the analysis that had gone into focusing on an LNG facility–specific income tax. We ruled out significant adjustments on the royalty front at the wellhead. We ruled out export measures and opted for the LNG-specific income tax and laid out where we thought the rates would hover around.

We were not, as I said, specific due to the ongoing work — a two-tier tax up to 1½ and 7 percent. As the member has fairly pointed out, I said at that time and have said since that the objective is to embed the final numbers around that taxation measure in the fall when the House will resume sitting, following the conclusion of this session.

I could say to the committee and to the member that
[ Page 4074 ]
we remain on track to do so. There have been very positive developments through the last number of months. The work continues. I will say this, and I'm sure we're going to explore this a little further. I am acutely conscious of the fact that when dealing with taxation law, it is important that I emphasize that rate decisions are not final until they present themselves in legislation.

The member is a veteran of these places and knows the importance that is attached around the budgeting process to ensuring there is not advance…. There can be lots of discussions; there can be lots of exchanges. But the definitive moment for when a tax has been confirmed is when the intention reveals itself definitively when it is presented to the House. It becomes a fact when the House exercises its legislative function to enact through passage of the bill. So we're on track.

The member is correct insofar as I had hoped to make the announcement by the end of 2013. In fact, it was February of 2014 when I laid that before the House and the province through the budgeting process.

M. Farnworth: I agree with the minister that in terms of the final taxation, it will be something that comes forward in terms of legislation. We can have discussion and questions and those things. I think that's appropriate.

I think what is of concern to the opposition, and certainly to many in this province, is in terms of finality or in terms of being definite. Prior to May of last year, the Premier was quite definitive in a number of statements.

[1525]

In terms of how LNG is being presented to the public…. The way in which it's been presented to the public around those particular statements and the challenges that the ministry is going to face in putting together a taxation regime that will meet those statements I think is somewhat challenging. Those are some of the questions that I would like to explore.

The government has predicted $100 billion in revenue from LNG over the next 30 years, along with 100,000 jobs. Now, a key part of that, of course, is going to be based on the price that government eventually gets and developments that take place not just here in British Columbia but also in other jurisdictions and in other areas where we're in competition for LNG — south of the border in the United States, in Asia. So it's not just the producers, but it's also going to be the purchasers as well.

The minister has stated in this year's budget that we're not anticipating revenue from LNG until after 2017. It may well even be into 2018. In 2018 natural gas in the U.S. will be reaching Asia. That's going to be putting downward pressure on prices. The U.S., it's anticipated, will be able to offer gas for between $10.74 and, let's say, $12.28 a million cubic feet. That's out of an Australian financial review, where they are already well ahead of us in terms of LNG development.

In B.C. the price that's often been sort of mentioned is that at $16 per Mcf we'd get about $6.3 billion in tax over 30 years from one facility of about one 12-mnt facility. That means we'd need about 15 of these facilities to reach the $100 billion mark.

I guess my key question is: is that $100 billion realistic? Are the rates and the calculations and the price structure that the ministry is looking at in terms of achieving its goals realistic?

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, a couple of things that the member has raised, and they're all good points for us to discuss here. One of the first observations the hon. member has made accurately is the point that I have made repeatedly in the fiscal plan before the House now and that are the subject of these discussions. I have pointedly said that the government and the treasury ministry have not included any revenue from the LNG tax.

I say that because I want to differentiate…. It's not to say that benefits will not accrue to the province and to the treasury from LNG development, but we are not anticipating, in the three years of the fiscal plan, LNG taxation revenue.

[1530]

The question that the member has posed relates to forecasts for ultimate benefits relating to the revenue. Are they realistic? He has read forecasting from other jurisdictions. There has been a lot of it published here relating to the Canadian, British Columbian and North American circumstance.

I can assure him that the proponents are engaged in no end of modelling, price forecasting. There is a speculative element to all of it. In fact, if I were to suggest where I think the greatest level of nervousness is…. You can talk about cost structure. Proponents will demand, as the member pointed out, the measure of certainty from government on taxation, on royalties. They will, as we have discovered, look for that, not just in legislative certainty but in contractual certainty via project development agreements.

The area that causes, I think, people the most nervousness is: what does a boatload of LNG fetch in Singapore in seven years? I'm not going to try and stand here and convince the member or his colleagues or the committee that I am an expert on that and can say with certainty.

What I can say, though, is that it is entirely, in my view, legitimate and appropriate to poke, prod, challenge and assess what some of those analyses are and which ones we are purporting to rely upon. At the end of the day, that is important and legitimate. If we were contemplating an investment of $10 billion or $20 billion taxpayer dollars, it would be more than legitimate. It would be essential.

Maybe the best comfort I can give the member — and what I say to members of the public when we have this conversation — is that happily, in this case, it's not tax-
[ Page 4075 ]
payers' money. It is boards from international agencies, groups of companies, who are making that assessment, who are conducting that analysis and — the member is right — at the end of the day, will want to be satisfied that they reap a reasonable return from the investment of those billions of dollars.

They will make a decision after considering what their cost structure is going to be. They will make a decision about what they think a boatload of LNG is going to fetch in Singapore or Japan or China in five, six or seven years. And, to be fair, they will hedge their bets by some of the activity you're seeing now, which is entering into long-term supply agreements. That market is very active.

I'm going on too long, and I apologize. But if you think about what's happened in the last three years, the world of energy economics is a pretty challenging one to try and predict, given the dramatic changes that have occurred just in the last few years. Nonetheless, our confidence derives from the fact that these agencies with which we are engaged on behalf of the people of British Columbia are moving forward with significant investments.

The LNG Canada group that, for example, Shell Canada is part of is investing billions of dollars now, which is why I said earlier that although we don't anticipate specific LNG income tax revenue, we do think that by the time we get to this point next year, if the member asks the question or someone asks the question, "Are you including any revenue projections from the general area of LNG activity?" we're cautiously optimistic that the answer will be yes.

Now, it won't be LNG income tax, but we think we're going to have to start factoring in some other revenue streams from other elements of the activities.

[1535]

That's a far too long-winded answer, but it is delivered with sincerity, and hopefully, it's helpful to the member.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer. I guess the question and the response that I have is…. I understand what the minister is saying in terms of "we're not booking revenue, but there will be revenue flowing from other streams." Any time you have that kind of economic development taking place, whether it's the public sector or private sector investing billions of dollars in making a development and an assessment — at some point they'll make that final decision — of course you are going to see revenue from that, even if it's just through general PST or wages from people employed here.

But in terms of the revenue…. This is where I think most of the public are, and the message communicated to the public was that we are going to see a bonanza from LNG. I think the question that people have is: how realistic are the promises that the government made in terms of what the revenues are going to be and what we're going to be able to do with them?

I agree with the minister that energy policy and energy pricing and all those things are volatile. But having said that, at the same time it's not that volatile in the sense that the experts in the fields who are out there who are engaged by those companies, the organizations, the financial institutions that monitor the industry over the short, the medium and the long term and have been doing that for years have an understanding of what's happening and are able to have a strong sense of where prices are going in terms of both the production side but also on the demand side and the impact, either the entry of different players into the field or even world events…. They have a competence that's reflected in the numbers that they talk about.

Now, there are events that can swing that very dramatically either way, but by and large, they give you information that government can make informed decisions on. I think that's important, because the numbers that you're starting to see saying, "Here's what we can expect in terms of prices in Asia when certain jurisdictions enter the market…." The United States is obviously the big one, particularly with the gas that they do have coming on stream. That's going to create a price in a particular area.

We here in British Columbia have got our gas, and we have our advantages, and we have our disadvantages, and we're going to be able to come in, and companies are going to feel confident they're going to be able to come in at a price, whatever it is. Let's say it's 11, 12 — doesn't matter. But they're going to be able to come in at a price.

The government is wanting to ensure that we get our share, that we get our taxation, that we get the revenue that we need to do what we said we would do. At the end of the day, I think what the public expects is: "Okay, we were told by the government that if we do this, if we take this vision, here's what we're going to get. The Premier said we're going to be debt-free. She said we're going to be debt-free in 15 years."

Given where we are in terms of the prices that we're seeing today, the prices that the companies are talking about, is it still a realistic proposition that we will be debt-free in 15 years?

[1540]

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this firstly, because the member has alluded to it and I think it's important to state on the record, as attention around this topic has increased. Although I think the member and I spoke about this…. Well, we did speak about it last year. I have to say — and he may agree or disagree — I have noticed, in terms of meetings and contact that I've had, not particularly within B.C. but in other parts of North America, that awareness around this opportunity has increased dramatically, and I think that's a good thing. It's appropriate. But we are engaged in this work and see this opportunity before us and have endeavoured to develop a taxation and regulatory model that does two things.

One will present British Columbia as a competitive
[ Page 4076 ]
jurisdiction — we'd like to be the most competitive jurisdiction — that will attract that investment. So these agencies that can look to the U.S., that can look to other parts of the world, to Australia, will conclude, when they are gathered around their boardrooms — which I'm sure look something like this — and their various divisions are reporting out and they are making recommendations and decisions about where to direct capital investment….

They will conclude that British Columbia — the British Columbia division, the British Columbia project — represents the best prospect for return for their company and have conducted that analysis based on all of the information that we have provided to them about our regulatory and taxation strategy.

That's one of two considerations. The second is, the one that the member properly referred to…. We have an obligation — we, the government, the executive branch, and we, the legislative branch — to derive for the owners of the resource, the people of British Columbia, a fair and reasonable return on that arbitrage, added value, whatever you want to call it, that has generated interest in this industry in the first place.

Now, what is that added value? What is that arbitrage? It comes back to the issue that the member raised, driven by price forecasts and the actual price that agencies represent. We believe — based on the analysis that has taken place, the work that is undertaken, the interest and the actual investment of billions of dollars that has taken place and is poised to take place — that this represents a significant incremental source of revenue that will allow us to do something that we did once before in the last 12 or 13 years, but perhaps even do it to a greater extent, we hope, we believe, and that is pay down debt. There was that period of time.

We've already begun to reduce our borrowing needs significantly. We aren't borrowing any longer to address operating expenses. We continue to borrow for capital expenditures. And I say this candidly: paying down the debt in real terms means balancing the operating budget, and we've accomplished that. We intend to do everything we can to stay there. But it also means realizing sufficient revenues to pay for the robust capital construction program.

You do those two things, and now you're not borrowing at all. Then if you want to go the third step and be paying down debt, you require revenue above and beyond that. We also think it's realistic that this opportunity provides us with a realistic prospect of doing that.

The rate at which we do it will depend on choices the government and the executive and legislative branch…. Candidly, it's generally the government that presents the budget. At what rate we do it will depend on two things: the amount of incremental revenue we receive and decisions we make about how that revenue is allocated.

[1545]

We have clearly established as a priority the paying down of debt. We have done something else. We've said that we think it is wise to avoid the trap of taking those additional incremental revenues and increasing dramatically our operating budget to take advantage of that.

We've said that between increasing the size of government and the operating costs associated with it and paying down the debt, our priority is to pay down the debt. But it will be for future governments and the assembly to make decisions about the rate at which that happens, contingent, of course, upon the opportunity being realized in the first place.

It is entirely appropriate for any member of this assembly to say: "Don't count your chickens until the final investment decision has been made and the LNG starts flowing." Until that day arrives, it is an opportunity — a golden opportunity. But until that day arrives, it is an unrealized opportunity. That's what we are working towards.

M. Farnworth: It's interesting. I appreciate the minister's answer, and in particular, the comments that he just ended his answer with, because it does lead into a comment I want to make and my next question.

And that is: "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" — until a deal is actually done. Well, just over a year ago, the Premier was pretty definitive in terms of counting those chickens and counting those golden eggs by making a statement: "We will pay down the debt. The debt will be paid down in 15 years. And then we will do the PST."

A question that I have is: has there been work done in the Ministry of Finance on what kind of rate you would have to have to achieve that goal — to count those chickens, so to speak? What would have to happen for that to take place, and in terms of the PST, following on that? That's one question. I don't need that answered right now. I will go on with the rest of where I was going with my comments.

That is, the other thing that's of interest…. I agree with the minister. Companies are going to make these investment decisions on what's in their best interest. They are going to look at a whole host of factors in terms of how they make those decisions.

They're going to look at it from the regulatory framework. They're going to look at it from the labour supply. They are going to look at it from issues of social licence, and they're going to look at it from a taxation revenue. The government has been clear. It says that it intends or that it wants to be the most competitive tax jurisdiction for companies when they make their decisions. They are looking at British Columbia and going: "It's the most competitive."

Well, the reality is, if you are the most…. You can very easily be the most competitive if you, say for example, start at a tax rate of zero. Then you are competitive compared to everybody else. You're not getting any incremental revenue. You're not getting any extra incre-
[ Page 4077 ]
mental revenue other than the revenue that you would get from people engaged in building, and they're working. But you're not getting the additional revenue that people would expect from the resource. Then you are going on a sliding scale upwards.

The question becomes: at what point does your desire to be the most competitive impact on the goal of being able to have the $100 billion in the prosperity fund, the objective of paying off the debt? Has the ministry done work in terms of determining where that point is? That is crucial in terms of, one, the success of the attractiveness of British Columbia but also in terms of us being able to, as a province, reap the benefits which this government has aggressively sold to British Columbians.

[1550]

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things, and I'll come to the member's point. I wanted to address one thing that I heard in his comments, because I think it's illustrative of something else that's taking place in the consultations that are occurring right now.

It doesn't automatically follow…. I understand what the member was saying, that if your LNG tax rates are at zero, you are more competitive. I get that point, and I think on budget day I said something similar. Someone asked me: "Well, what do you think the proponents would like for the rates of the LNG?" Well, they'd like zero.

The interesting thing about consultation discussions taking place…. Although we and the public have tended to focus on tax rates, because they're conceptually easy to understand — they're two numbers — they are in many ways the least…. They have represented the least preoccupying dimension to the conversation.

On the competitiveness side, it's all about overall cost. If we had a zero LNG tax rate…. And we won't, in case someone reads the record and tries to draw that conclusion. But if our royalty rates were wildly out of sync, that would affect the assessment of our competitiveness. In fact, what it would do, in that case, is drive the sourcing of the gas to other jurisdictions, and we wouldn't get any royalty. In British Columbia we have a carbon tax that will be applicable, and it gets factored into the cost structure.

The only reason that I say…. I caution against focusing exclusively on the LNG tax as the determinant of competitiveness, because that's not what proponents are doing. They recognize the obligation that we have to derive a fair return for the taxpayers. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that they are broadly acceptant of the construct of the two-tiered attack. They'd like the rates to be as low as possible, but there are other issues — transfer pricing.

There are complex issues of tax definition. What's included in the LNG facility? Is it the plant itself? How far up the pipe…? All of these are issues that can swing the pendulum on the taxation meter in one direction or another. It's conceptually easy to focus on the rate. There are a whole range of other issues.

Maybe I say that a bit defensively to account for the fact that drafting this legislation is very, very complex. We have to get it right because the stakes are high. That being, again, the far too lengthy preamble. The specifics of the question….

Look, I think it's appropriate for political leaders, in promoting a new direction — I might say, immodestly, a bold new direction — to make aspirational statements about why it is a government and the leader of a government want to develop public policy to take us in a certain direction, and to talk about the potential that that new direction will create for the province in this case, the province of British Columbia.

[1555]

By the way, it's equally legitimate for other political leaders to stand up and criticize that, or criticize the direction or criticize the calculation or criticize the likelihood of it occurring. As I mentioned a few moments ago, ultimately the pace at which we realize the objective we have set for ourselves in paying down the debt will be determined by the amount of revenue that flows in and decisions that are made about how much to spend elsewhere versus reducing the debt.

I don't anticipate being here in 15 years, but if at that point someone confronts me and says, "Aha, I knew it. The government has only paid down half the debt," I'll take that criticism. I'll take that criticism, because I think we went in the right direction.

M. Farnworth: I'm just imagining 15 years down the road. I'm not anticipating 15 years down the road, but I can tell you that if we were here 15 years down the road, we would still both be younger than the former member for Kamloops, Claude Richmond. It might be interesting, actually, to see how accurate and how things have turned out.

I understand what the minister is saying, and I understand the issue around governments putting forward their vision and their ideas. As opposition, it's our role to prod and to probe and to question and to critique, and all those things. But at the same time I also think it's a fair criticism to say: "Look, people do expect that, but what they also expect is a realistic take on that vision. They want to be able to trust in terms of what government and leaders are saying."

When they say, "We will be able to pay off the debt in 15 years," we may understand the concept of aspirational vision, but people go: "Hey, we can pay off the debt in 15 years. I like that."

I think there's also a responsibility to be able to back those statements up and say, if you're going to be that definitive: "Look, we can do it. Here's how we'd do it, and here's the rate, and here's what will be required to make that happen."
[ Page 4078 ]

I think that's one of the questions, in terms of our criticisms or critiques and this process here, in terms of saying to government: "Hey, hang on a sec. Here's what you said. Here's where we're at in terms of what the rest of the industry is saying and what's happening in other parts of the world. How realistic is that? Are we really going to achieve those goals in the time frame that people have said, that the government and the Premier have said?"

One of those comes to the prosperity fund. The statement was that we could be at $100 billion in 2044. In fact, a government-authored page on LNG in B.C. states: "Our research shows this new fund could go to in excess of $100 billion over the next 30 years." That was the page the government put up. The page has since been removed.

My question is: was it removed because the government now is recognizing that they're not going to reach a prosperity fund of $100 billion in 2044? Have they reviewed the price point upon which that was calculated, and have they decided that's no longer accurate?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I'd answer the member's question in two ways. And I won't be repetitive except to observe that at the end of the day, what is contained within a prosperity fund — the term we've used — or a legacy fund will ultimately be determined by revenue flows and decisions that are made around not just spending but also the allocation of funds to debt reduction, which impacts the size of what is on deposit in a prosperity fund.

The member asked about the fact that a particular table…. I think I specifically remember the one that he's mentioned, because I think I specifically addressed my mind to whether or not it should be there. I didn't think it should because…. I don't want to leave the impression, and I hope I haven't during the course of our exchange here today…. As cautiously optimistic and enthusiastic as we are, I don't want to leave the impression that this is a done deal, that we are guaranteed. What we have is this opportunity that we can realize upon.

We are still asking British Columbians — members of the public service, for example — to be very modest in their expectations around salary increases. That reveals itself in the settlements that have accrued to date, and I'm happy that we have had those settlements. Presenting something that might be misconstrued as representing a guarantee of a certain amount of revenue, to my mind at least, flies in the face of some of the tough choices and the things we are asking British Columbians to do in the short to medium term before we might get there.

That really is the most direct way I can answer the question with respect to that particular material.

M. Farnworth: To the minister, I appreciate the remarks he's made. I have a few more questions on that, but I do have two colleagues who have questions to ask on different topics. The member for Delta South has a question, and the member for Vancouver-Fairview also has a question. If we could deal with them, then we can finish off the rest of the LNG, because I know that a couple of colleagues have some other questions on that topic.

V. Huntington: I'm really am grateful to the critic, because I know the pressures of his estimates are very difficult this year.

I just would like to say that 35 percent of the cement used in British Columbia concrete is imported. That's up from 5 percent five years ago. The minister has been approached many times by Lafarge and Lehigh Hanson on the issue. They are running at 65 percent of capacity, and it is strictly and only due to the carbon tax.

They have approached the government year after year for some sense of relief from the carbon tax. I would dare say that the impacts on this industry, which in a crisis becomes one of national security, are so significant that they are far worse than, say, the greenhouse industry, which is also dealing with severe competitive pressure. On the cement industry, it's even worse.

[1605]

I noted that the 2013 budget said that the government was going to be dealing with the issue and was going to engage in consultations. The 2014 budget says the same thing. I'd like to ask the minister: what options is he considering, and what type of consultation is he now engaged in with the cement industry to try and find a resolution to this extremely serious issue for that highly important industry in this province?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I'm grateful for her question and participation. She is correct in summarizing the submissions that have been made by the industry, both to her and over the last couple of years to the government and to me.

I don't want to dismiss in any way the pressure that the industry is facing. The carbon tax represents a levy that the government has imposed on emissions. They have historically produced a lot of those emissions. I will say that the pressure the industry faces…. The carbon tax contributes to that pressure. I don't accept the proposition that it is solely responsible for the pressure the industry faces.

They are facing competition from non-traditional sources in terms of lower-cost Asian products that are coming into Canada. It doesn't make their life easier; it makes their life more difficult. Whilst I accept that the carbon tax adds cost, I'm not prepared to accept the proposition that all of the problems can be laid at the feet of the carbon tax.

The member fairly points out pressures that were faced by the greenhouse sector. We did afford some relief. I should say — and I'm not certain if the member agrees with this or not — that one of the things that resonated with me in addressing that issue was the fact that in the
[ Page 4079 ]
case of the greenhouse sector, they were, to use their terminology, being penalized for the production of a by-product that wasn't actually just a by-product. The CO₂ that they produced, they needed, they required. It's part of the growing process.

That contributed to my and the government's view that it was, in addition to the economic pressures that they were facing, imposing an additional cost for the production of a product that they actually required and might warrant some relief.

In considering whether or not to afford some measure of relief to an industry like the cement sector, I'm going to suggest off the top of my head that there are two factors that come into play.

One won't surprise the member, and that's our ability fiscally to forgo revenue that would otherwise flow to the government, because that's really what we're talking about here. So that gets factored in. We haven't been in a tremendously strong position to do that, and I've been candid about that.

Here's the second thing, and I'll be interested to hear the member's reaction to it, because I think she tracks this issue closely and has had a lot of contact.

[1610]

I am told that if you accept the proposition that what the carbon tax, as a matter of public policy, was intended to do was influence behaviour, reduce emissions and drive people and agencies and the corporate world to explore other technologies and other forms of energy, arguably that's happening. The use of biocoal that I am told is beginning to take root within the cement industry is a classic example. They don't pay carbon tax on that fuel.

Now, it may well be the member will say: "Well, it's early days, and they are still exploring that." But I am told that some very advanced work and pilot projects have been underway and that the success rate has been very high.

I will not deny what I'm sure will be the member's assertion that there are capital costs associated with a transition on that scale, and she is undoubtedly correct about that. But I would also have to say candidly that the carbon tax represented a public policy that was designed to incent/provoke changed behaviour, and we are beginning to see that in the cement industry.

I'll end by acknowledging that the margins are, for a variety of reasons, very narrow and will not deny that the industry is confronted by some economic challenges.

V. Huntington: I have been fairly well acquainted with the industry, given that Lehigh is in my riding, since the late '90s. Since the late '90s Lehigh, then Tilbury, has been actively pursuing alternative modes of energy, so much so that they came to Delta in the late '90s and wanted to use tires. We all went, "Oh my goodness gracious me," and they struck a public advisory committee to which we appointed members. It was one of the most successful public outreaches I've ever seen within an industry. They pursued the process with our blessings.

Subsequent to that, they have looked at all sorts of other types of viable alternatives. And this was before the carbon tax came in. They are an industry driven by high costs of fuel, and they are constantly looking at lowering their margins as the result of alternate fuels. They are the first ones that wanted to use methane from the Vancouver landfill. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they weren't given that opportunity, and it went to the greenhouse sector. They're still looking at whether they can use methane from the landfill.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that this industry has been on a constant path of search for alternate fuels. I think that there is opportunity here to seriously look at, if not engage in, removing a portion of the carbon tax from the industry. There are other options that they have suggested throughout the process, and I really do believe that while it may not be solely the result of decreased capacity, it is by far the majority reason.

I would seriously ask the minister to look into this very critical industry because Asian and American cement is pouring across our borders right now, and it has to do with the lack of competitive capacity from Lafarge and Lehigh.

I guess I'm just saying thank you to the critic, but I really urge the ministry to look into this quite seriously.

G. Heyman: We had a number of exchanges in the session in the summer about tax credits with respect to the film and digital industry, and there were a couple of commitments that were made by the minister's party prior to the last election. One of them was to extend the distant-location tax credit to Victoria, and the other one was to extend the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to post-production work.

[1615]

In the last budget the minister announced that the distant-location tax credit would in fact be extended to Victoria and was quoted — I'll paraphrase the quote because I don't have it in front of me — in the Times Colonist as saying that it was a promise that was made prior to the election, so it was a promise that should be kept. Yet I note that there was no mention in the budget or the throne speech of the digital animation or visual effects tax credit.

I've asked this question of the minister for culture as well as the Minister of Jobs. The Minister of Jobs said that it was her understanding that some studies and research were being done, as well as consultations, in terms of what it would mean to implement this tax credit.

My question to the minister…. This is an issue that a number of my constituents have questioned me about. I have a high proportion of people who work in the film and digital industry. In fact, I think Vancouver-Fairview has the highest percentage of workers in that industry of
[ Page 4080 ]
any constituency in B.C. So on their behalf, I'd ask the minister if it is his intent to still keep this promise and if he can give a progress report on work to date — if, in fact, it is his intent.

Hon. M. de Jong: I know time is short, so I won't take up the committee's time by going on a long ramble about the extent of the support that is provided to the industry via film tax credits. They are significant. I think the member knows that.

We have continued, he correctly and fairly points out, one of the pledges that was made as part of the recent election campaign that was included within the budget as it relates to distance productions and the extension of that to southern Vancouver Island, which I think has been welcomed and celebrated and, one hopes, will incent additional production activity.

The short answer with respect to second part of the pledge is yes, it is still our intention to move forward. We're working on two aspects of that, endeavouring to quantify what the likely cost will be and how to accommodate that cost within the budget.

M. Farnworth: Just before we had the two questions, we were talking about the counting of the chickens — not to count any before they're hatched. I had commented on the $100 billion — or 100 billion chickens, if you like. I think we do have to be realistic, and we do have to understand that there's an opportunity and, in all those issues the minister talked about, that yes, taxation is not the only consideration. It's an important consideration. Companies will make their investment decisions on a whole range of issues. The minister is absolutely right on that.

From a conceptual point of view, taxation is something easy for people to understand. The key part of that is having confidence we're going to get the revenue that the government has led the public to expect they can see to accomplish all the great things that the government says it wants to do.

I would hope that whomever is government — if this opportunity materializes, because the minister says, quite rightly, it is not a done deal — the public are in fact consulted on how we would want to spend revenue that we would get from this opportunity. That's something else that I think the government needs to acknowledge and recognize and commit to.

But I'd like to come back to…. I think where the public is, is looking and saying: "Okay. We've got this coming in. The government says all these things are going to happen, or have the potential to happen if they go ahead." The issue is: on what numbers, what facts is the government basing those assertions on?

The opposition has done a number of FOIs, and we have received, as is not uncommon, many pages of blanked-out white paper. I will officially ask the minister, and I'm sure that he will give me a response.

[1620]

We have made FOI requests on the numbers, on the figures that the government is using for its assumptions in terms of jobs and the prosperity fund around the development of LNG, and all we get back is white paper.

Will the minister commit to releasing to the opposition the numbers, the facts and the assumptions that it's using on LNG?

Hon. M. de Jong: My sense was that the studies themselves by Grant Thornton and Ernst and Young, I think it was…. That material was available in the public domain. It's certainly referenced in the budget documentation.

I am advised, though, and can tell the member that in terms of the material that generated those reports or the supporting documentation, they include and are based in large measure on information derived from the proponents themselves and that those who are charged with applying the Freedom of Information Act and privacy protection have applied those rules and severance processes in a way that they believe is appropriate to protect that proprietary information. That's where we are there.

M. Farnworth: Initially the Ministry of Energy was FOI'd, and we were informed that there was nothing and that was because it was with the Ministry of Finance. The FOIs to the Ministry of Finance have not returned anything. The minister's comments…. His answer was about what I expected it would be.

Let's put it this way. We will continue to ask the questions around the assumptions. We will continue to push the government on those particular areas. This fall will be very interesting in terms of, I think, the expectation around the taxation structure, the framework around LNG. There's going to be a lot of focus and a lot of attention on that, and the opposition will be looking at that in great detail, as we should.

I have got some more questions peripherally related, as opposed to specifically, to LNG and where we're at and then some questions from my colleagues on other issues. Then we can move on to other topics.

One of the issues around LNG that has been of considerable interest that the government has talked about and that local government has certainly been interested in is around the potential for revenue-sharing. We have, as you know, in this province a number of models on how revenue can be shared with communities that produce the wealth, particularly in northern, rural and the interior of British Columbia. In the Peace River country we have the Fair Share programs. In the Kootenays you've got the Columbia Basin Trust.

[1625]

Has the government done work in terms of northwest British Columbia around how a revenue-sharing model might work? Have they done consultations with local
[ Page 4081 ]
government and local communities or First Nations on how that might work?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that, too, is a fair question — an important question — for a variety of reasons. One, I think that over the years the expectations of communities have changed. When the pulp and paper industry developed — or the forest sector, in many ways — the notion of revenue from resource development flowing into the capital and then being doled out was the norm.

I think communities expect to see far more benefits associated with development in their area remain in their area and not go through that transference process. There's another reason I believe the conversation around revenue-sharing is important. One is the expectation that I've just talked about. But it's probably the best way I can think of to develop and generate validators, champions at the local level.

This development generates employment and a lot of opportunity. There are challenges that come with that. Some people have difficulty seeing beyond the challenge to the benefit. Sharing benefits, sharing revenues, is a way for local leadership to say to communities: "Yes, our community is going to change, but we can change it for the better in the following way." I think that's important.

Has the work begun? It has. My colleague the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development has begun the process of meeting with communities to assess what the needs are going to be and how they can be met.

I won't pretend that there has been a lot of discussion to this point about the model. The member has pointed to various approaches that have been taken — from trusts to, in the northeast, a different model.

I don't think the conversation has evolved to that point yet. But certainly, it has begun to focus in on where the areas in need are going to be. I'll predict this fiscal pressure now. That is, we've already talked about the gap between the development and when major revenue flows. That is going to be the difficult time, because if this happens as we hope it will, some of the infrastructure needs, both capital and societal, are going to exist before the revenue flows.

No, I don't have a magic answer for that, but I know it's going to confront us — and a reason why it's important that other areas of our economy continue to grow and generate some additional fiscal wherewithal.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the opportunity to canvass an issue that I canvassed with the minister last year during budget estimates and, during my own budget estimates with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations this year, canvassed again. He recommended that I come to you. So that's where we're at.

I'm going to do two questions at once. There will be a bit of a preamble, but in looking at the time we have, I think it's best to try to get both questions in at once.

February 25, 2013, the minister's government announced that they would be providing $32 million to the First Nations Limited Partnership to facilitate a non-equity investment in the pipeline — the pipeline being the Pacific Trail pipeline.

[1630]

I asked the minister about it last year. He said he didn't know the answer, but a couple days later…. I thank his ministry for getting an answer back to me that that money was not in last year's budget and would be booked in this year's budget. We couldn't find it in this year's budget. And, as I said, when I asked the Minister of Aboriginal Relations about it, he said to come to you.

The government's news release says: "The provincial government is providing $32 million." It was in present tense, and that was last year. So I'm curious as to where that $32 million is in the budget for facilitating the non-equity investment. That's the first question.

The second question. At the same time that that news release came out, the Premier said: "This announcement creates a valuable model for industry proponents who seek to work in partnership with First Nations."

Again in a press release, I quote from the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas and the current Minister of Natural Gas Development. His quote was: "This updated agreement is an example of industry's collaboration with First Nations."

April 16 and 17 in Moricetown — the Minister of Natural Gas Development was there, and so was the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. It was publicly revealed by the Wet'suwet'en, who were hosting this meeting in Moricetown with government and with Pacific Trail Pipelines, that the terms of the agreement, the First Nations Limited Partnership agreement with Pacific Trail Pipelines, had what is characterized as stand-down clauses.

I was able to read those clauses. They were read publicly at the meeting. What it means is those signing onto the First Nations Limited Partnership…. The stand-down clause said that if there are delays or if there's action that inhibits the implementation or "harasses" — this was the word — implementation of the pipeline through legal means, the signatories to the contract, the First Nations Limited Partnership, would have to, at their own cost, enter the court case on behalf and beside Pacific Trail Pipelines.

Considering there are other First Nations who aren't especially supportive of Pacific Trail Pipelines, this has the potential to pit First Nations against First Nations, to create ill will where none exists at this point. And there were other aspects to the stand-down clauses that were concerning.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

The first question is on the $32 million. The second
[ Page 4082 ]
is…. That $32 million would be used, through the First Nations Limited Partnership agreement with Pacific Trail, to facilitate these non-equity investment agreements.

Regarding the comments from the Premier saying this is a valuable model and the comments from the Minister of Natural Gas Development saying this is an example of collaboration, would the minister comment on whether he thinks that kind of model — where there are stand-down clauses that could create First Nations against First Nations in a legal court, neighboring First Nations — is actually a valuable model?

Hon. M. de Jong: Welcome, hon. Chair.

[1635]

So two questions. One, the $32 million, and I think the question is: where in the budget? The triggering event for the flow of the money, as I understand it, relates to construction commencing on the project. There has been uncertainty about when that is. The short answer is that since it is contingent upon an event we really don't have control over it, it is contained within the contingencies section of the budget — which is a general definition for what gets included there.

Now the member's second question, which I'm interested in…. If I misinterpreted it and I'm answering incorrectly or in a way that the member…. He can signal, and I'll invite him to ask the question.

My sense is that the member is concerned about a construct and clauses within the agreement that would say to a participant that, if the project is challenged in some way, part of the responsibility you assume for signing on and receiving benefits associated with that is to either defend against that challenge or contribute to the defence against that challenge. Certainly, you are precluded from joining the challenge.

The member points out that that has the potential for creating some tension. I suspect it does. But you do have to decide. Happily, in this case, many First Nations have decided that they see tangible benefits flowing from the project. They have negotiated astutely to share in those benefits.

This may be an inelegant analogy. If you choose to sign on with a team, you can't play for the other team. You have to make that decision. I realize for many communities it's a difficult decision. While I accept the member's suggestion that it could create a measure of tension at times, I am not troubled that such a clause would, in a very open way, say to a community: "When you sign on to this and agree to accept benefits from it, you are obliged to support it."

M. Farnworth: At this point I'd like to move on to some other topics. I'm mindful of the time.

Actually, I would just ask the minister: in terms of the motion that we're voting on, does he…?

Hon. M. de Jong: There's going to be a division, so we should hear the bells at some point.

M. Farnworth: Okay. Then we're planning on coming back here. Great, thanks.

I'd like to move to what I guess is a favourite topic of conversation for many people around the province, particularly those purchasing a home: the property purchase transfer tax.

The property purchase transfer tax has been in place for a long time. It generates a significant amount of money for government.

A Voice: Who introduced that tax?

M. Farnworth: "Well, let me think." [Laughter.] "You know, we gotta keep the taxes low. Maybe those people that live in the big rich houses should pay a little more."

[1640]

That was the original intention. The trouble is we all now, especially in the Lower Mainland, live in properties where the value has gone up. Yes, government does make changes year after year. I think it's some $800 million — maybe even a lot more than that, depending on the market — that government gets from property purchase transfer tax. The real estate industry has repeatedly made requests, and I'm not going to dwell on that, because I'm mindful of the time.

One issue that has been raised, and I know the minister has been made aware of it, is around the issue of bare trusts. When you structure the bare trust, the beneficial part of the ownership is sold, but there is no actual transfer of the particular property. This is particularly prevalent, or apparently prevalent, in the commercial side of real estate transactions.

The issue has been raised in the past. The government has indicated that they are aware of the issue but were kind of vague in terms of how big the problem was, what potential costs are to the treasury. So I'm going to ask.

The direct question is: has the government looked at this particular issue of the bare trusts? Do they know how many are, in fact, put in place each year — and of the loss to the provincial treasury in terms of revenue that is forgone because of the creation of these bare trusts?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising an issue that has come up from time to time. On the specific question about analysis and quantification of lost revenue from transactions that rely on the bare trusts, the short answer is no, because our tax…. The triggering event for the tax is registration, and what distinguishes these transactions is they don't trigger registration, so there's no real way of quantifying a transaction you, arguably, never hear about.

I understand the argument of how this is a mechanism that has developed to avoid a registration-based tax.
[ Page 4083 ]
There are two things. One may strike the member as more hopeful than the other.

The other mechanism for achieving the same thing, of course, is a share transfer. Title never changes. I buy…. Your company owns the property. It's a sizeable property worth $80 million. I don't want to pay the property transfer tax, so I purchase the shares in your company. I now own your company, which continues to own the land. It's a similar mechanism that can be used. I'm not certain how you would address that. It's a longstanding principle that corporations may hold assets, and control of those corporations may change.

I am, however, told — and this is where the member may find more cause for, if not rejoicing, at least some sense of hope — that Ontario has looked at this problem and is moving to attempt to capture bare trust transactions for the purposes of their transfer tax. We're engaged now in some conversations.

[1645]

The drawback, if I can use that term fairly, is that at this point our information is that their system for collecting on those is based on a voluntary disclosure. Again, because theirs is a registration-based system, except for voluntary disclosure of the transaction, there'd be no legal mechanism for otherwise becoming aware of the transaction.

We're looking at that. We're alive to it. It will be curious to speculate and, I guess, eventually discover, if that mechanism is closed to people or closed to companies and agencies, to what extent they revert to the traditional share transfer to accomplish the same thing.

Hopefully, the member derives some hope from the fact those conversations are taking place between us and Ontario to examine some of the options.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer.

I guess what I'd say is this. The tax was brought in to capture the transfer of properties when they're sold and to take some of that tax. Homeowners do that. They're not able to set up a corporation for the sale of their house. They pay. And to the average homeowner, when they hear that a real estate development takes place, commercial property or otherwise, and there's a way to avoid paying the property purchase transfer tax, they see that as inherently unfair.

I'll just read very quickly into the record an e-mail that somebody from Surrey e-mailed to you. He pointed out in what could best be described as very stark terms: "Will you do anything about those wealthy British Columbians who are avoiding paying millions and millions of dollars worth of property transfer tax through the use of bare trusts? Or will you just get my 87-year-old Alzheimer's-afflicted mother-in-law to finance the suddenly unbalanced budget by her shiny new wheelchair fee?"

I think the issue is that it comes down to being one of fairness and equity and an appearance that everybody is being treated the same. I understand what the minister is saying, and I understand the complexity of the issue and using the share model as a way to avoid the bare trust matter or the property transfer tax matter. But I think the minister and the ministry need to do better in determining the size of the problem.

I think it's like many things. If there's a will to figure out how big the problem is, there's a way, then, to find out. I understand what the minister says of registration. But he knows and I know and a reporter for the Vancouver Sun — I won't say figures it out — knows that this is a common way of avoiding a property purchase transfer tax and that when the number of commercial transactions, the commercial deals, that takes place is significant, the potential revenue lost to the Crown is potentially significant.

I think the ministry should endeavour to have a much more accurate understanding of how this works. I think it would be appropriate for the ministry to actually focus on this, put some resources and try and figure out just how much, so we can have a better understanding of the issue and of the revenue at play.

If it's small potatoes, if it's not a lot of money, that's one thing. And when people stand up and ask the minister and say, "Hey, why is this taking place?" the government's in a position to say: "Look, we have looked at this thoroughly. We have an understanding of the issue and an understanding of the problem, and we can tell you that it's X number of dollars this year, and on the basis of that, we think the current structure is the right structure that's in place."

Or the government can say: "You know what? It is significant. There is an inequity in the tax that was never meant to be there. The tax was brought in for a particular reason."

Then maybe you say: "You know what? We're going to either look at how we can fix that, or do we change the tax in some way that makes it more equitable between the commercial side and the residential side?"

I think that's one of those things that really frustrates people and infuriates them — when they go to work, they pay their taxes, they file them on time, and they look and they go: "Hang on a sec. Someone's managed to figure a way to avoid paying tax that was never intended when the tax was brought into place."

So I would ask the ministry and the minister to take a closer look, and I think….

[The bells were rung.]

The committee recessed from 4:50 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Just on the question of the bare trust and the property transfer tax, I think there are two ele-
[ Page 4084 ]
ments to this that account for the measure of interest and frustration that exists. The member has identified one of them. That is, the perception that the tool to avoid paying the tax exists at a corporate level and not necessarily at an individual level.

I accept that as a source of frustration and have indicated the work that has now begun in terms of examining the approach that Ontario has apparently adopted to address this issue there.

[1705]

I think there's a second dimension to this that adds to the frustration, and it's something that the member mentioned right at the outset on this section. The amount of tax collected and the amount of tax collectively, globally and per transaction is dramatically more than was the case when it was introduced in '89 and probably what was contemplated. So the thresholds…. And we began to look at this in an admittedly very modest way in this last budget with respect to first-time homebuyers.

What I think many in the housing market are interested in seeing are the thresholds around the 1 and 2 percent with respect to all of the other transactions, particularly residential transactions. I think there is a valid argument there. We are constrained by our ability to forgo the revenue. There's no question governments over the years have become dependent on the significantly increased revenues flowing from this tax, and yet there is an argument that says we should be considering adjusting the thresholds for when the 1 and 2 percent kick in.

I'm not disputing that, but it will take time. It will take considerable time. The cost associated with moving, either altering the percentages or moving the thresholds, very quickly…. Very small changes add up to very big amounts, and that's something that we'll have to consider. So those two things combined, I think, are contributing to the anxiety and frustration that people feel.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer, and as a question I would encourage the ministry and the minister to get a really good understanding on the size of the issue in terms of the revenue that's potentially being forgone by the province. With that, I'd like to move on to some other topics, because I know we are running short of time.

I will ask one final question on property transfer tax. I know the minister has addressed it on individual cases, but I just want to get it on the record, and that is…. Many people have a disability or, as they age, may get a chronic condition that requires them to move out of their house because they are no longer able to continue to live there, and so they must move to new accommodation.

Many times they're on disability. We get lots of letters, as I'm sure the minister does, on the ability of recognizing this within the property purchase transfer tax, either by waiving or reducing it for people on disability. Does the ministry have any plans to look at this particular issue or to make any changes in upcoming budgets?

[1710]

Hon. M. de Jong: I can't honestly say that I've been overwhelmed by letters. I'll try to answer as forthrightly as I can.

There are some mechanisms available, within the property tax realm, to identify, for example, for homeowner grant purposes whether someone is disabled. It is not really possible to ascertain at what point they became necessarily disabled or what the impact was on their ability to live in their home.

I'm a bit, candidly, hesitant about utilizing the property transfer tax as a form of relief. We've had a conversation about the tax and some of the challenges, but I wonder if a more appropriate way….

We provide relief on a yearly basis through the homeowner grant and enhanced relief. We've dramatically expanded the ability to simply defer annual property tax rates. That's an option that would be pretty universally available. In instances where someone is obliged to sell their home and move into an institutional setting where they're not likely to be buying a registerable interest, it's not an issue. However, in the circumstance the member raised where they sell a bigger house to buy a smaller condo, it is an issue.

As I think about it, I worry about how you differentiate, how you assess what the cause — the genuine cause, the real cause — of the move was. It may be better, easier and have a more lasting impact to facilitate people saving money through property tax deferral on an annualized basis.

But I must confess that I'm sort of offering thoughts off the top of my head on this one.

R. Austin: I'd like to follow my Finance critic with the issue of property tax — although, take this conversation from a broader provincial perspective down to something more specific for a particular community.

Last week I attended the Nisga'a Special Assembly in Gitwinksihlkw, and this topic came up. About three weeks prior to that I had the honour of speaking in the legislative chamber of the Nisga'a Nation in Aiyansh, and this again came up. It's to do with the transition from the Nisga'a treaty and the ongoing process to create a property tax structure for the four villages of the Nisga'a Nation so that they are able to, like everybody else in British Columbia, collect property taxes, which come down here, and then get that portion sent back to them, for them to be able to provide services to Nisga'a members.

My understanding is that these negotiations between the government down here and the Nisga'a Lisims Government began in 2010, and we're now in May 2014. I'm just wondering three things, really.

I'm wondering why it's taken so long for this tax struc-
[ Page 4085 ]
ture to be set up, and maybe if the minister can let us know, also, where we're at with this. Perhaps most importantly for the Nisga'a, obviously, is: when does the minister expect this to be concluded?

[1715]

I'm sure he will know, as part of the Nisga'a treaty, that there were capital transfers that were made on an ongoing basis for several years as part of the transition. That's now ended, as of the 12th anniversary of the Nisga'a treaty. Obviously, in the upcoming years the Nisga'a are going to be desperately needing this property tax in order for them to continue to fund programs. I'll leave it to the minister to answer that.

Hon. M. de Jong: If I were to say that negotiations are ongoing, I think I would leave the wrong impression. They are at a pretty critical stage right now, which is why I'm readily able to answer the member. I can't say in a definitive way why it took three years to get to this stage — differences of opinion, senses of urgency — but I can say there is a genuine sense of urgency on the part of all parties now.

In addition to the reasons that the member has mentioned for attaching importance to this, he will also know that the Nisga'a are poised to see some fairly significant industrial activity. Both they, the Nisga'a Lisims Government, and the proponents involved in that industrial activity need to know what the rules are going to be and want to know what the rules are going to be.

In as forthright a way as I can say, I think the negotiation has reduced itself to several key issues. Negotiators, led by the deputy for Aboriginal Relations, are fully engaged. The one thing I can't honestly say for certain is when this is going to be resolved. I wouldn't want the member — or the Nisga'a, for that matter — to suggest that I and the government are imposing a deadline.

We're anxious, as I know they are, to have this resolved in short order. By that I mean within a matter of weeks, not months, and I'm hopeful, as I'm sure they are, that that can happen.

M. Farnworth: I'm quite mindful of the time. There are a number of topics I want to get through. I know that some people might be wondering if we're going to get to labour relations or executive compensation. We are not going to, unfortunately, be able to engage in that topic. I had hoped to spend four or five hours talking about that. Unfortunately, we're not going to be able to do that. But there are some other topics that I would like to touch on.

One of them is some changes to the federal Income Tax Act that impact credit unions. I see the minister nodding, and I know that he's aware of that. If he could just tell me the status of where things stand with that and how the credit unions…. And what work has been done with government?

[1720]

Hon. M. de Jong: There are a few dates here, and if I get them wrong, someone will kick me.

The federal government decided in the late Jim Flaherty's budget of 2013 — or at least to commence then — on phasing out, over a five-year period, a form of tax relief that would apply to credit unions in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. Although the legal mechanism for this is a bit complicated, generally speaking, the provincial component of that, in the ordinary course, would have followed suit.

We obviously cannot control decisions made by the federal government and the federal parliament. We were approached by credit unions within British Columbia to address the aspect of this that does fall within the provincial sphere. In the budget that was tabled in February, the member will know that we did so and provided two years of…. I don't want to call it additional relief, but we preserved the provincial status quo for an additional two years and then signaled that that relief would begin to disappear or phase out at that point.

The member may have questions to quantify what the lost revenue is to the Crown. I think I have that material, and I'm happy to give it to him. I'll just have to check.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his response, and that was going to be my next question. Also, given that the government has made the changes and that other provinces have also made changes of their own, have consultations continued with the credit union sector on the impact of the changes on credit unions after the two-year period?

Hon. M. de Jong: We're just tracking down the amount and should have it momentarily.

In response to the second part of the question, credit unions I think were pleased that in the budget the government provided the additional two-year relief. They celebrated the achievement of that benefit for probably 27 seconds and then began the process of urging the government to extend it beyond those two years, as I'm sure the member would expect.

I expect we will hear more from credit unions in that regard. I don't have anything definitive that I can say to the member. All of this will be considered through the budgeting process.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister. So the status quo stays in place for the next two years, and I expect that we will probably be discussing this next year, as we get closer to the two years and credit unions raise the issues that they're concerned about.

[1725]

Another area that there has been some interest in from constituents not just in the Lower Mainland but on the Island is around strata and the legislation that the minister has under his jurisdiction, in particular around strata
[ Page 4086 ]
management licensing. It commenced in 2006, with the responsibility for it being allocated to the real estate industry association under the Real Estate Services Act rather than to consumer protection agencies.

Since that time many concerns have been expressed about the lack of effective consequences for strata manager who abuse owners' trust, resources and assets. On several occasions since 2008 the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, for example, has made these concerns known to government and requested a review.

What progress has been made in reviewing the act and for bringing in some changes in the area of the management licensing regime?

Hon. M. de Jong: We have been doing some work, as the member knows, with the Real Estate Development Marketing Act and several other pieces of legislation — the Society Act. I want to be as accurate as I can.

The Real Estate Services Act that I think the member has just referred to — we're not actually in either the midst of a statutory review, nor do I believe we are anticipating in the year ahead doing so. That doesn't mean that there aren't issues, but the resources we have at the moment are focused on other pieces of legislation.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. I guess one of the things that is concerning some of the strata owners associations residents, and in particular the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, is their sense that they have been raising concerns and that the necessary reviews haven't been taking place.

There's a sense that there was some optimism that they were going to see some changes back in 2009 on the Strata Property Amendment Act that was passed. They were hoping that there would be access to provincial small claims court. It was not brought into force. Provisions were repealed by Bill 44 in May 2012, and they were replaced by a new civil resolution tribunal, with the promise that it would come into effect in 2013 as a way of resolving some of the smaller issues.

That was postponed until 2014 and apparently is now being postponed until 2015, by which time it will have been over five years since strata owners were first promised access to an affordable mechanism to resolve strata disputes. They are concerned that at this time it is unclear whether this latest postponement will be the last one or whether the government is still committed to this issue.

I'm wondering if the minister has some response to that.

[1730]

Hon. M. de Jong: I always hate doing this in these discussions, but in this case I feel it's fairly legitimate. There are a variety of different acts here. The Strata Property Act falls under the Minister for Housing. When I said earlier we're not planning any immediate reviews, we'd best check with them before we say anything more definitive.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that. This is one of those issues…. It's like trying to get a bunch of stuff in before we run out of time.

The next issue I'd like to talk about is the one — it's back in the taxation realm of things — that's around tobacco. We talked about this last time. The issue of tobacco taxes and contraband and the growth in illegal tobacco. At that time, the issue had come up around…. There had been a significant federal increase. There has been a provincial increase. Yes, they are supported, but the question also becomes: at what point do you reach a tipping point where you are starting to see the growth in illegal tobacco products coming into the province of British Columbia?

Can the minister tell me whether or not the ministry has been monitoring that since those changes have come into place, and what changes, if any, have they noticed? Or has there been a decline in revenue? What's taking place?

Hon. M. de Jong: No arguing the observation that there is a tipping point. It's difficult to know, with particularity, where that tipping point is. I should say…. And we do have the unit that monitors this on an ongoing basis.

Two things about that. One, candidly, when we were preparing the budget and included the measure of the taxation increase — I think I've said this in other circumstances — we had settled upon the increase. I think the federal budget was introduced five days before. We weren't aware that the federal government had also included an increase, which troubled me somewhat.

The smuggling activity that one worries about, of course, is when there are great disparities between jurisdictions. Insofar as the federal measure applied across Canada, it raised the price across the board.

We're alive to it. We certainly understand the need to monitor it. In fairness, I think I'm accurately advised that it's probably a bit early to say whether or not the increase that was part of the budget in February has had any significant effect in increasing smuggling activity. But we'll have to monitor it closely.

[1735]

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's response. I do think the issue of the tipping point is one that government needs to be acutely aware of. You're starting to see now, from what I'm hearing, that you've got…. Well, in Manitoba the price of a carton of cigarettes, I think, is around $120, which is pretty significant. I think we're at $80-some-odd….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: It shows that none of us smoke; let's put it that way.
[ Page 4087 ]

Anyway, the point is that you are now seeing a significant movement east from the illegal cigarettes out of Quebec and Montreal and New York coming into Canada. Every time the price goes up — I'm not arguing for a minute that it shouldn't — we need to be acutely aware that there is that tipping point and that particularly it becomes more attractive for imports, as well, from Asia. That has issues in terms of enforcement in the port, and again, that's costs to us as a province.

The other issue is the court case that's taking place in Alberta at the current time around the ability to bring, it would be, I guess, cigarettes produced on reserve that are then sold on reserve in Alberta at a significantly cheaper price. It's basically the expansion of the smoke shack issue that you've got back east. And of course, the greater that gap is, the easier that is to take hold and causes us problems here in a number of ways.

One, the loss of revenue. But just as important is the ability of, particularly, young people and first-time smokers to access tobacco far more easily than would otherwise be the case.

My question to the minister is this: are they monitoring that case in Alberta? Are they in touch with their counterparts in Alberta on exactly what is happening with that case and the consequences of that case if it goes the wrong way?

Hon. M. de Jong: Three things that the question triggers. Our tobacco tax manager is headed for Calgary, where the topic undoubtedly will come up. By and large, though, for legal analysis we rely on the justice department insofar as there are constitutional issues being argued and considered here.

Then thirdly, we are having some conversations — early stages right now. A few First Nations have inquired regarding the historic mechanism by which the provincial government assigns responsibility for the distribution of tobacco products on reserves. A few First Nations have said that they would like to assume that responsibility. There are some issues associated with that and liability issues.

[1740]

Just so the member knows, if he hears about this in the next six months or so, we have indicated a willingness to explore some options on a pilot project basis. Now, whether we arrive at an understanding that works for both parties, it's hard to say at this stage. But you may hear something along those lines in terms of whether or not the responsibility for the distribution of tobacco products on a reserve right now rests with the provincial government. Some First Nations have said: "Look, that strikes us as being a vestige of paternalism, and we'd like to assume that ourselves." Conceptually, I don't have a problem with that. There are some legal mechanisms that we have to work through and see if we can come to an understanding.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that, and I thank the minister for the additional information. If it's possible, at some point I wouldn't mind — I know we don't have time today — to have a briefing on that. I would appreciate that. If the minister would agree to that, that would be much appreciated.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I'm happy to oblige in that respect.

I'm also able now to advise the member that the measure we were talking about with respect to credit unions following the elimination of income tax relief…. When that occurs, the corporate income tax on credit unions would increase by an estimated $15 million per year. That's the order of magnitude on that. It would obviously visit upon different credit unions at different amounts.

Also, going back to when we were talking about the mineral tax, I'm told that the provincial desk audits 100 percent of all tax returns annually relating to the mineral tax and that all major mines are subject to a field audit annually, which provides a minimum of 75 percent of audit revenue annually. So it sounds like in the mineral sphere there's a pretty robust audit function taking place.

M. Farnworth: The next issue I'd like to go to is something that comes under the Ministry of Finance, and that's involving the Insurance Council of B.C. For the minister, I'll just give a summary around the questions I'd like to ask.

Life insurance providers have seen two substantial changes to their sector. One is a conflict-of-interest policy that the Insurance Council of B.C. published in December 2013, which enumerates certain careers that are determined to create or have the potential to create a conflict of interest.

The second policy adopted by the Canadian Insurance Services Regulatory Organizations is to harmonize training and regulation nationwide. Under this agreement, use of same material nationwide would be compulsory for all training organizations, leading companies involved in the industry to voice concens that costs will rise to them as they will now be forced to pay for this new material. Under the old system, topics were mandatory, but material could be developed in-house.

I've had a number of representations from life insurance industry people — people selling life insurance, people who do it as a part-time occupation. They see the changes that are being proposed and put in place as affecting their ability to carry on that occupation. There is a range of occupations that have been affected. It's not exhaustive by any means. It could be a teacher, a police officer, a doctor, an immigration consultant. It could be one of us, a politician, funnily enough.

The changes are impacting a significant number of people who are in the industry right now. The question I would have is: why have these changes taken place? What
[ Page 4088 ]
kind of consultation has taken place around them, and has the ministry met with the affected parties in the industry to explain the changes?

[1745]

Hon. M. de Jong: Lots of information, and I'll try to convey it as accurately as I can.

With respect to the conflict item that the member has mentioned, I am advised as follows. There are regulations that have been approved. They are approved provincially by the Finance Minster and stipulate a life agent should not be in a conflict. It's a specific statement.

Guidelines were developed by the regulator to try to give some guidance as to what constitutes a conflict — in the same way that the Members' Conflict of Interest talks about a real or perceived conflict and then the conflict commissioner has added some assisting opinions over the years, or guidelines.

These are guidelines that…. The example that was offered to me is that if you are a nurse, you probably shouldn't be selling life insurance products to one of your patients. They are guidelines. The law is a statement around a life agent not being in conflict. That's the first thing.

The second aspect of this that the member has heard about relates to the harmonized training initiative. What I can inform the committee of there is that this is not a creature of the provincial government. The Insurance Council of B.C. acts as a regulator here, and they joined with other provincial bodies to form a national regulating body. I am advised that that body didn't just came up with a proposal but is moving to implement a harmonized training program for life agents across Canada and has produced material.

I am told that they…. I'm advised, at least, that they and their provincial regulatory bodies, self-regulating bodies, consulted extensively with members and that there is broad acceptance of this but that a few companies have expressed concern.

Probably the most important thing for me to say in response to the question is that to the extent that this is causing any life agents or companies concern, it would appear to be something that they would take up with their regulator both provincially and nationally. It is not something that the provincial government has dreamed up to impose upon them.

The Chair: Member, and noting the time, perhaps a short question.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I'm noting the time.

I thank the minister for his response. I guess the concern is that a number of companies…. They have been coming to MLAs and visiting them and saying, "Look, here's the impact that this is going to have" on them.

[1750]

I understand that in terms of the regulations and the overall umbrella, it's not directly the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. But if there is an opportunity on the first question I talked about, for a role for the ministry to perhaps assist in trying to resolve a problem, I would appreciate that.

What I would like to do at this time, if the minister doesn't have a problem, is adjourn our estimates. I may have an additional half hour at some point next week. If we can find a place and the time to work that, that would be great. If not, then we'll quickly, at the appropriate time when we return, wrap the estimates up quickly, if that's fine with the minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Of course it is.

I'm certain that the member will respond in the affirmative, as thrilling as it is to have this audience join us. If the member is able to provide some indication of which areas we will be covering, then we can liberate a fair number of people.

M. Farnworth: I have no problem in doing that. I'll let Penelope know.

For right now, I will move that the committee rise, report amazing progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada