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)

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 3

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Tributes

HUGH CURTIS

Hon. M. de Jong: Hugh Curtis was first elected to public office in, I think, 1964 and served locally as a councillor and then as a mayor in Saanich. He served as an MLA in this chamber from 1972 to 1986. He served in ministerial capacities, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, but is probably best known for the time he spent as British Columbia's second-longest-serving Finance Minister from 1979 to 1986, almost exclusively in the government of then Premier Bill Bennett. Those were difficult times, and his was a difficult burden to bear, wherever you were on the political spectrum.

What perhaps isn't as well known about the service that Hugh Curtis rendered to the province of British Columbia is the lasting impact that his time as Finance Minister has had institutionally. He was the minister that guided the passage of the Financial Administration Act — not something that people think about every day but something that has served the people and the government well since then. It received unanimous support in this assembly, thanks largely to the work of Mr. Curtis. His influence in creating a modern treasury secretariat continues to be felt, and the benefits of that continue to accrue to British Columbians.

It was with great sadness that we all learned of Hugh Curtis's passing yesterday. I know there are members of the chamber who worked closely with him, who got to know him in his various capacities, who were there when he was made a Freeman of the Municipality of Saanich in 2002.

I know, Madame Speaker, that all members of the assembly, whether they worked closely or not with him, are cognizant of the contribution he made to public life in British Columbia and to British Columbia in general and would want you, on our behalf, to send condolences to his family and send our thanks from a grateful province for the contribution that Hugh Curtis made.

G. Holman: I'd like to extend the condolences of this side of the House, as well, as MLA for the constituency in which Mr. Curtis served, although it was known then as Saanich and the Gulf Islands. I'd like to join my colleagues in acknowledging his passing.

By all accounts, Mr. Curtis served his constituents in municipal and provincial politics with distinction and honour, and I understand that he was particularly proud of never being defeated in local and provincial elections for 25 consecutive years.

I do understand that there was an occasion in this House where he was actually ejected from the House in an altercation with an NDP member. I'm sure he would regard that as a badge of honour, Madame Speaker.

To his colleagues and his family, I want to extend my condolences and congratulations on a life well lived and in the public service.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: We have a very robust gallery today, and as part of that, it's important to acknowledge a whole host of societies that have gathered to celebrate the Komagata Maru Memorial Day today.

[1340]

I will start off with acknowledgment of a number of societies that are here. First and foremost, the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation is here. These guests are on the floor as well as in the gallery.

The Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver, the Khalsa Diwan Society of Victoria, the Khalsa Diwan Society of Nanaimo, the Alkali Singh Sikh Society in Vancouver, the Descendents of Komagata Maru Society, the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the Komagata Maru Heritage Foundation, Gurdwara Baba Banda Singh Bahadar Sikh Society, Gurdwara Sahib Dasmesh Darbar, Guru Nanak Niwas Richmond, Pakistan-Canada Association, Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara in Surrey, Khalsa Diwan Sikh Society of Vancouver, Khalsa Diwan Society Abbotsford, Punjabi Market Association of Vancouver. We have the Progressive Intercultural Society. We have the Indian Ex-Servicemen Society.

Would the House please make all these people welcome.

H. Bains: I'd also like to join with the minister on behalf of the opposition, and I also would like to say thank you for coming. Welcome to this House of yours. To all those organizations that the minister mentioned I say thank you for continuing on with the fight that they are doing. But also there are many individuals, and I say welcome to them. Please join with me, and let's give them a very, very warm welcome.

R. Lee: Today is B.C. Jade Day. We have a very large celebration at the reception hall. Some of the guests are actually staying for question period. They are aboriginal drummer Soloman Reece over there, Mr. and Mrs. Kirk Makepeace, Charles Hu, Nanhui Zhong, Cici Yeimn, May Chiu, Jianchun Chen, Vincent Liu, Linda Chang, Kim
[ Page 4314 ]
Carroll, Yaxin Guo, Lila Kwong and Jingsheng Ren.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I have had an unusually pleasant day today. They're all pleasant, but this one has been a great day so far because I am being job-shadowed today by two students. Kiran Gill sent me an e-mail asking if she could job-shadow me. She says that she hopes one day she will become Premier or, even better, become Prime Minister. I had to tell her it's not better. She's joined today by her parents Jagtar Raj Gill and her brother Taran Gill.

I'm also being job-shadowed by Cole Gaerber. Cole is 13. Kiran is 16, celebrating her birthday today, no less. What a way to spend your birthday. Cole is a student. He's 13 and fascinated by environmental issues. We'll be meeting with the Minister of Environment a little bit later today. He's here with his father Allen Gaerber.

They got to see us at our best today, joining together with the opposition to commemorate the terrible events 100 years ago with respect to the Komagata Maru, and now they're about to see us in question period — at our best in question period as well, I'm sure.

J. Horgan: I want to join with the Premier because I was shadowed inadvertently by her job-shadowers today as we were paying tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Komagata Maru. I know the minister will be making a statement shortly, and my colleague from Surrey-Newton will be following suit. I also wanted to say that the leader of the opposition is a good step to the Premier's position, so you can keep an eye on that.

I digress, because my intent for rising was to…. This is, of course, a familiar occurrence for many here. Because I'm a local MLA, when my spouse Ellie comes to visit, I like to say hello to her via the television. So my delightful wife of 30 years, Ellie, is in the precinct today. Joining her is a very good friend of ours who was a maid of honour at our wedding a long, long time ago, an educator from Toronto, coming to see how we deal with education issues here in British Columbia. Trish Oliver is with us today. Would the House please make both of them very, very welcome.

[1345]

Hon. R. Coleman: I have three little packages of introductions. The first one today is to introduce a person who is a constituent of mine, one of the brightest young women I have ever met. Jennifer Mamone from my area of B.C., Fort Langley–Aldergrove, is here today.

In addition to that, I have the pleasure of welcoming to Victoria visitors from the B.C. Liberal Party office. We know that without the dedication of our people that work for us, we really don't get where we want to get to. Two of them are here today — Brent Rein and Kirsten Hamilton.

Also, there's a group of people that get a unique opportunity every year in British Columbia to come here to be legislative interns through the summertime. I'd like to introduce our summer interns: Jonathan Barry, Simrath Grewal, Alessandra Harkness, Brooke Heller, Chris McGrath, Adam McPhee, Riley Whitelock, Jonathan Wilkinson and Sebastien Zein. Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

D. Eby: I'd like to welcome, on behalf of the opposition, a group of students and faculty from Douglas College and Camosun College who are concerned about the end of English-as-a-second-language programming at those schools this is year. Would the House make Ruab Waraich, Ann-Kathrin Thiele, Tracy Ho, Farzin Jamatlou, Wei Cai Yu, Vione Yang, Kaho Shibuya and Andrea Eggenberger feel welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: It gives me great pleasure to introduce conservation officers who have done exceptional work for British Columbians. Patricia Burley is in the House today to be recognized as the Outstanding Officer of the Year and is the first woman to receive this award. She is joined by her husband, Mike Tonge.

Ken Owens is also here in the House today to be awarded Outstanding Officer of the Year for 2013. Ken is joined by his partner, Pam Johnstone. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

M. Karagianis: I have a couple of introductions to make, if you'll bear with me. I have a couple of little groups here, and I'll try and go through them quite quickly. I, too, would like to welcome some of the Camosun College's ESL learning program students from my constituency. It's Eugeny Popelnitskiy, Mohammad Reza Nagash Zargayan, Pei Mei Chia, and Roxana Ruiz-Gomez from that group.

I also have, from my constituency, Olga Liberchuk, who is a constituency assistant to MP Randall Garrison. Lynn Klein is here with the paramedics for the British Columbia Ambulance Service. Robin Tosczak is here, and she is a teacher at View Royal Elementary, so she's joining us here today.

I think members will be familiar with two of my other favourite visitors here. Kody Bell and Mark Bridges are in the precinct, so everybody be warned. Hang on to your electronic devices. They're here today with their job coach, Jeanine Reemst.

I'd also like to introduce a couple of other constituents that are here. No stranger to this place, of course, is one of my most famous constituents. Moe Sihota is here on the floor with us, a past MLA and a groundbreaking individual who was the first Indo-Canadian elected here as MLA and who served as cabinet minister. He's here with his better half, and I can say that easily because I know her. His beautiful and amazing wife, Jessie Parhar, is here, and that truly is the better half of this couple.

Could we please make them all very welcome.
[ Page 4315 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: We have so many guests today, but I did want to recognize three individuals that are here from the great city of Surrey: Mr. Prem Vinning, who's the former president of the World Sikh Organization here in Canada, Satnam Johal, Jagmohan Singh; and Balkar Udham. I'd ask all of the members of the House to welcome them to the precincts.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome one of my constituents, who's here today as part of the Douglas Students Union delegation, the internal relations coordinator Lorna Howat. I've had the great pleasure of working with her on a number of issues, including access to post-secondary education, equality issues. I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome her to the House here today.

S. Sullivan: I'm very honoured to introduce to the House a gentleman named Paul Cermak. He was the very first volunteer for an organization called Tetra. This is a group of engineers and technically skilled people who build devices for disabled people.

[1350]

He was volunteer No. 1, and since his time, they've created over 5,000 assisted devices for people with disabilities. He's here with his wife, Rosemary Bundell, and good friend Imy. Please welcome them.

C. James: I also have a group of constituents who are here as part of the group that's concerned with programming for ESL: Natalia Potokina, Rufo Boria, Mi Joo Lee, Linda Guintos and Judith Hunt. Would the House please make those individuals very welcome.

The second set of introductions are two individuals who are very important to me in my life. Bobbie and Al Mitchell are here. I'll always be grateful to Bobbie for sharing her brother, Norman Davy, with our family for over 20 years. Although Norman isn't with us anymore, he certainly will always live on and his impact to our family will always live on. We will always remember his smile and his laughter and I'm so grateful. Please welcome Bobbie and Al Mitchell.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm pleased today to have two sets of introductions. With us in the gallery today is the president of the B.C. Chiropractic Association, Dr. Jay Robinson, and the executive director of the association, Rick Nickelchok. The association represents B.C.'s chiropractors by providing leadership, information and services for their members to meet and enhance the health care of British Columbians.

Also in the precinct today I'm very happy to have councillors Don Matthew and Shelly Loring of the Simpcw First Nation. They are here to meet with the Ministers of Energy and Aboriginal Relations regarding economic opportunities in the beautiful North Thompson Valley. Would the House please make these visitors very welcome.

S. Robinson: I have several people to introduce today who are here in the gallery with us. Lisa Cable is here. She's an involved community member of the Tri-Cities. She owns and operates her own business, Sweet Beginnings, an event planning business. She's the mother of two delightful children, Ryder, 5, and Lily, 3.

She's here with a couple of my other friends. Ramona Chu is here. Ramona and I met while serving on the parent advisory committee for Dr. Charles Best high school in my constituency. Ramona is one of those parents who volunteers for everything that's going on in the school, and with a 22-year-old and a 16-year-old, it means that she's been a volunteer parent in our schools for 17 years and counting. She's joined by Bonny Gibson, another constituent, who also has a daughter going to Dr. Charles Best School.

I'd also like to take this time to introduce three parents whose children attend school in Maple Ridge and Mission. Stacy McLennan, Laura Pomgrants and Scott Susin are here to watch our proceedings.

If the members of the House can please make them feel welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: I would like to introduce to the House my two very best friends. The first one is a very well-known Chinese community leader, a philanthropist and a very successful business person and also president of the Canadian National Chinese Congress, David Choi. The second one is my constituency assistant, Regina Tsui, from Richmond Centre. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

J. Shin: As part of our Douglas and Camosun Colleges delegation in the gallery today, I have the pleasure of introducing my Burnaby-Lougheed constituent, Greg Teuling. I also would like to take this opportunity to honour a man who once told me last year: "Jane, our Punjabi community was empowered by electing representatives to serve in public office. Let's make sure our Korean community achieve the same." So this man that I look up to is seated right behind me today, the first Indo-Canadian MLA, Moe Sihota. I just want to give him my personal thanks and welcome.

Lastly, I'm thrilled that my Punjabi papa is here today, and he's also sitting right behind me. Would the House please make Mike Mukhtar Sandhu feel very welcome.

Hon. J. Rustad: All throughout my ministry I've got great staff that do a lot of real quality work on behalf of the people of British Columbia, but there are some that are here in the audience today that I want to introduce from my deputy ministry's office: Shawna French, Sarah Sparks, Alana McDonald, Kim Ponchet, Sheila
[ Page 4316 ]
Kowalewsky and Janice Franklin. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1355]

R. Fleming: I want to make two sets of introductions. The first is to welcome Benula Larsen, who is the president of the Greater Victoria Teachers Association, to the House today. Then there's also a delegation from greater Victoria, Camosun College students involved in the ESL program at that institution who have joined with us today, including Xiao Yin Zhang, Min Yan Zhao, Louisa Mamisao, Svitlana Potapova, Rachael Grant, Diana Kohl, Tony Vernon, Ibrahim Almalki, Jumana Chikalkasir, Eui Tae Kim and Leigh Sunderland. They're all here with us today. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

R. Lee: I would like to add a few guests here to celebrate B.C. Jade Day: Lyle Sopel — he's a master of jade stone carving; Tony Ritter, from the industry, and Barry Price; as well as Anne-Marie Martel. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Donaldson: I would like to follow on the words of the member for Burnaby North. We are all wearing a jade medallion today in honour of B.C. Jade Day. The industry representatives are here, and the artists and First Nations. I'd like to make them welcome and say that of the world production of jade, three-quarters of it comes from B.C.

A large part of that comes from the constituency of Stikine, Jade City being one of the locations on the Kaska traditional territories.

It's not just mining, hon. Speaker. There's a reality TV show being filmed in Jade City. Omnifilm is filming it, on the jade sector and the jade industry. So it's not just mining. It's creative arts that are part of this too. Would all members acknowledge B.C. Jade Day and welcome the visitors to the gallery.

M. Bernier: It's my pleasure to welcome in the House today a bunch of young students who travelled 1,400 kilometres to come down on a bus from Little Prairie Elementary School, which is by Chetwynd in my riding. Will the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statements

100th ANNIVERSARY OF
Komagata Maru INCIDENT

Hon. A. Virk: Sat sri akal, namaste, salaam alaikum, good afternoon, bonjour. I think it's more than fitting this day that I use a variety of greetings in this, the people's House, today, as we celebrated the Komagata Maru Remembrance Day.

Today I rise in the House to remember the passengers on a ship named the Komagata Maru. On May 23, 1914, that ship entered Vancouver's Burrard Inlet carrying 376 passengers from India.

Why had they come here? I'll tell you why. They were simply looking for a new life, a better life in Canada. This is something most immigrants, including my own family, understand very well. But that did not happen, Madame Speaker. Instead they were turned away and not allowed to enter Canada. What made this event even more tragic was that upon their forced repatriation to India 19 passengers were killed.

Regrettably, like the historical wrongs against the Chinese community, the Komagata Maru was one of several incidents in the 20th century involving exclusion laws in Canada and the United States.

The Komagata Maru incident is not just a story of what happened in 1914. It is one chapter in a long struggle to create a Canada that resists racism and a Canada that resists hatred. That story continued to inspire those who believe in a Canada that accepts, celebrates and welcomes diversity.

In 2008 the British Columbia Legislature made a formal apology to the South Asian community. I know that all members of this House believe that a rich, multicultural society helps nurture acceptance, nurtures understanding and nurtures mutual respect. Cultural diversity, increased participation and engagement by all cultures are vitally important to creating a strong, vibrant and economic future for British Columbia.

Earlier today the Premier and the opposition leader joined together in a non-partisan way. Together with the support of all members of this House they proclaimed May 28, 2014, in British Columbia to be known as Komagata Maru Remembrance Day.

[1400]

Madame Speaker, I am deeply honoured to stand here today as a proud Canadian of South Asian descent for the inaugural Komagata Maru Remembrance Day.

H. Bains: It is my privilege and honour to stand here and follow the minister and talk about our history. When we reflect back into our history, examine our activities, three things come to mind — who were these people, what happened to them, and what did they do — and how far we have come and where we need to go.

Komagata Maru actually acted as a Rosa Parks for the South Asians in Canada. It galvanized and sparked the community to stand up for their rights. It instilled in them that we need to make Canada a better Canada, a more just Canada, an equal Canada. They didn't give up on Canada, despite all the difficulties, the challenges not only in this House and other parliamentary Houses in Canada but what the government actions were outside of these chambers — the discriminatory racist laws being passed here, close to 140 of them.

Then the government agents didn't stop here. They
[ Page 4317 ]
were working within the community to destabilize the community, divide the community, try to buy them off. They went to great lengths. They even tried to convince them: "We will send you to Honduras, if you leave Canada. We'll buy land for you."

I say thanks to those people who didn't give up on Canada and said: "No, this is our country. We will make Canada a better place to live."

Government agents even went as far as going to the 2nd Avenue temple that was run under the leadership of Khalsa Diwan Society at the time, and shots were fired. Many were injured. Bhai Bag Singh, who was serving the Guru Granth Sahib and sitting on that seat, didn't make it. He was killed. But that didn't sway the community — none of that. None of the bribes and none of the attempts to purchase or buy them worked. They continued on.

I want to say thank you to them. As a result of their perseverance, their commitment — and their commitment to even die for an equal Canada — is the reason that I am here, as many members of South Asian descent made this House.

Many organizations and individuals had a huge role to play in that. I must mention a few: International Woodworkers of America, especially the president, Harold Pritchett, who went with the delegations to Ottawa and here and tried to get us the right to vote; CCF leadership of the day, who didn't make the popular decision but made the right decision to make sure that they wanted to stand for the right causes. I want to say thank you to them.

In 1972, when Dave Barrett first won the government, although we had the right to vote, laws were equal now, but there were some languages in some cities…. The covenant still stated that certain races could not purchase properties in different parts of the city. He said that was one of the first things that they did as a government, under order-in-council — have that thing eliminated.

As a result of all of those efforts, people like Dr. Gurdev Singh Gill, the first Indo-Canadian to practise medicine in B.C. And as a result of that, Naranjin Singh Grewall, the first Indo-Canadian to get elected to any office as the mayor of Mission.

[1405]

It continues on. In 1986 my good friend, who is here with us, Moe Sihota, the first South Asian to get elected in any Legislative Assembly of Canada. I want to say thank you to him for opening up the doors for us to these Houses.

I want to continue, to say the community themselves, the mills of the world, the Herb Domans of the world, the Terminal Forests of the world. They went to the pinnacle on the industry side, and they showed the public what they can do, that they are second to none in any aspect of life. Today we have presidents of UBC.

The third part that I want to say is this: where do we go from here? The work isn't over. It's just the beginning. As we say, "That was in the past," but my good friend Ali Kazimi, in his very recent article quoted a very famous American writer, James Baldwin, reminds us. He said: "If history were past, history wouldn't matter. History is present. You and I are history. We carry our history. We act our history."

As a reminder to all of us here and elsewhere, we, as the legislators, must remind ourselves that we are the history. Actions that we take here we want to make sure will pass the test 50 years, 60 years and forever in this country.

So thank you very much for the opportunity, and I want to say thank you, all of you, for continuing to carry the torch. People like Charan Gill continue on to carry the torch, to make our country a better place, better than what we inherited from our parents.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. JADE DAY

R. Lee: Today is B.C. Jade Day. The province of British Columbia is blessed with many rich mineral deposits. It's well known that we have gold and silver mines and that these mines generate many economic benefits for our province. But it's less commonly known that another mineral, jade, is increasingly valued by carvers of fine jewelry and sculptors here at home and also across Asia.

As demand increases, B.C. jade has the potential to become an emerging job creation industry. While Canada as a whole produces jade, nearly all of the jade deposits are here in our great province. In fact, B.C. jade was proclaimed the official mineral emblem of our province in 1968. This is because jade has a long history in British Columbia.

Jade artifacts, such as decorative materials and plates dating back to 3000 BC, have been found in the southern part of this province, like Lillooet and New Westminster. The first official record of jade in B.C. is from Sir John Richardson in 1851. During the gold rush years in the 1850s and 1860s, Chinese prospectors discovered jade in the Fraser River. In 1887 Dr. George Dawson recorded that jade tools were used by the Salish people. Jade has been found in many areas in the province, including Dease Lake, Cassiar, Omineca and on the gravel bars of the Yalakom, Bridge, Coquihalla and lower Fraser rivers.

B.C. jade is very similar to Chinese jade, which also has a rich jade history that can be traced back for 4,000 years. It's not surprising that B.C. jade is getting popular in Asia and that the demand is increasing. In 1990 a 13-tonne jade Buddha was carved for the Great Stupa of Universal Compassion in Thailand.

So in celebration of this great mineral and Asian Heritage Month, we celebrate the diversity of our community that we also share among our cultures.
[ Page 4318 ]

SUPPORT SERVICES FOR IMMIGRANTS

J. Shin: Immigrants arriving in British Columbia, like my family and I did, face many linguistic, economic and social barriers in their settlement process, and such barriers compound their challenges when they're looking for city housing or employment.

[1410]

So 50.5 percent of recent immigrants experience hidden homelessness — couch-surfing or living in overcrowded living spaces or in temporary conditions at churches and warehouses — and are prone to infections and chronic and mental illnesses.

Children of recent immigrants are also at the highest risk in B.C., with 49.6 percent — that's one in every two children — living in poverty. These kids grow up just a little weaker, a tad bit slower, leading to delayed cognitive development, increased illiteracy, higher dropout rates and lower achievement.

That's why I would like to take this opportunity today to acknowledge and thank the generous communities that we have in B.C. We have a multitude of organizations, like the Burnaby Neighbourhood House, helping new immigrants with their welcome and inclusion programs. We have groups like the Burnaby Rotary Club and Burnaby Firefighters collecting winter coats and providing healthy snacks for our school children.

We also have incredible teachers often — too often — paying out of their pockets to supply and equip our students. We also have many Sikh temples in our communities and countless individuals fundraising and volunteering relentlessly to lend a helping hand.

In particular, I would like to express gratitude for the delegation of 30 students, staff and faculty from Douglas College and Camosun College here with us today, joining us, not just providing the incredibly important English training but also doing their part in engaging and empowering the new Canadians in our community to feel at home and to succeed in B.C.

SPARKLING HILL RESORT

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure today to rise to speak of a tremendous Vernon-Monashee success story. Four years ago Sparkling Hill Resort, located in the heart of the Okanagan in Vernon, opened its doors to the world. Since opening in May of 2010, Sparkling Hill has received many, many awards. They've been recognized as an international wellness destination leader and recognized as being in the top-performing 10 percent of businesses worldwide, receiving the 2013 TripAdvisor Certificate of Excellence.

In the Fodor's category for trendsetting, they have been recognized as one of the top hotels in the world. Sparkling Hill Resort was also a Spafinder Wellness Readers Choice Award, winning in many categories. In 2011 they were recognized in Berlin as the best new spa in the mountain category in the world.

Mr. Gernot Langes-Swarovski, the imagination behind bringing the European-style spa experience to the Okanagan, is a man with a history in sparkle. His family name, Swarovski, has been a leader in crystals and beauty. They have innovated for over a century.

Together, the visionary minds of Swarovski crystal's head of innovation, Mr. Andreas Altmayer, and Sparkling Hills CEO Hans-Peter Mayr integrated more than 3.5 million crystal elements into the design of Sparkling Hill. The brilliance and beauty of crystals is on display and part of every experience you will have while enjoying your stay.

Don't take my word for it. The weather in the Okanagan is already beautiful. Take a drive up to Vernon any time, any weekend. Stop into Sparkling Hill and enjoy one of the world's finest resorts. Please join me in congratulating CEO Mr. Hans-Peter Mayr and his outstanding staff on four years of success. I thank them for choosing Vernon for their home.

BAYVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOL CENTENNIAL

D. Eby: For more than 100 years, Kitsilano has been a growing and vibrant community. Of course, growing and vibrant communities need schools for young families. That's why, despite the construction of General Gordon school in 1912, a second home for young learners on Vancouver's west side had to be built, and urgently.

A hundred years ago, in August of 1914, Kitsilano families welcomed their brand-new Bayview Elementary School located at West 7th and Collingwood. With only four classrooms at its humble beginning, Bayview is now home to over 300 students from kindergarten to grade 7.

Today all 300 students and their families are celebrating the school's long and remarkable history, with many alumni, teachers and volunteers during the school's centennial celebration, featuring singers, displays of the school's history, performances by student groups and an open house.

In 1916 Bayview established Vancouver's first parent-teacher association, a group that remains vibrant today, advocating for seismic upgrading at the school and much-needed resources for maintenance for a 100-year-old building.

In the 1970s Bayview celebrated another first when it received its official designation as a community school. While the official designation and funding ended several years ago, the Bayview Community School still proudly keeps the name and the community spirit behind the original program.

[1415]

The staff and students at Bayview have also been leaders in establishing international connections. While digging through the archives in preparation for today's
[ Page 4319 ]
celebrations, Bayview's principal, Noreen Morris, found a box sent from Bayview's sister school in Japan in 1940. Filled with delicate paper cuttings, a national flag and painted landscapes from a grade 2 class, it will be a featured part of today's decade rooms tour.

Innovation never stops at Bayview, and today the celebrations won't stop either. This 100-year birthday party for the school is the product of and will be enjoyed by countless volunteers, alumni, neighbours, current and former staff, friends and students. I'm sure the whole community will be proud to partake in the school's theme song: "Bayview school, our community school, where everybody likes to come. Bayview school is our school. Come on and have some fun."

ELECTION IN UKRAINE

Moira Stilwell: I wish to speak today on the situation in Ukraine. It is an issue that has deeply affected and resonated with me, as I know it has with many of you sitting here today.

As the situation deteriorated over the past months, I have been heartened by the display of unity and solidarity across the nation. I commend the government of Canada on its strong and ongoing response to the situation, and to the Premier for her statements on December 13 and March 5. As the Prime Minister, the Premier and many leaders around the world have said, the sovereignty of Ukraine must be respected.

I believe an important stand was made on Sunday in the pursuit of peace and stability. Though not without its challenges in the face of the violence and intimidation, Ukrainians went to the polls to exercise their democratic rights to determine their own future. The long lines were a testament to their bravery and courage, for standing up for the freedom to vote without fear is something we sometimes take for granted in a country like Canada.

Here in British Columbia we are home to people from all over the world. We are proud to welcome everyone regardless of race, ethnicity or culture. We value their contributions and that of their descendants to the multicultural and economic fabric of our beautiful and great province.

In western Canada the impact of Ukrainian communities is especially felt. British Columbia alone is home to a large Ukrainian community, over 200,000 strong. It is our hope that this election is the beginning of a peaceful resolution for the people of Ukraine.

Freedom and democracy are values that we share with many nations. It is in Canada's national interest and in the interest of us all.

100th ANNIVERSARY OF
Komagata Maru INCIDENT

R. Chouhan: One hundred years ago on May 23, 1914, a ship called the Komagata Maru entered Canadian waters with 376 passengers. They hoped for a new and better life in Canada, which they believed was their right as British subjects. Little they knew that upon arrival they would receive the cruelest and inhumane reception at the hands of the Canadian authorities.

The Khalsa Diwan Society, along with other progressive people, did everything they could to keep them here, but it was of no avail. After two months the Komagata Maru, along with most of its passengers, was forced to return to India, with deadly consequences.

Although the South Asians were in Canada since 1895, they did not get the right to vote until 1947. Much progress has been made since those dark days of our history. South Asians have successfully established themselves in business, education, medicine, law, lumber and agricultural industries, not to forget politics. The first South Asian, Mr. Naranjan Singh Grewall, was elected the mayor of Mission in 1954. Moe Sihota was elected the first South Asian MLA in 1986.

In 2005, when I was first elected, the first thought that came to my mind when I walked into this chamber was that this was the place where those racist policies were adopted to deny 376 human beings their rightful entry into Canada.

Our journey for fairness is not over yet. Bigotry and prejudice still exist. We must learn from our past to have a better future. That's why it is so important that our school curriculum includes lessons about the Komagata Maru, the Chinese head tax and the correct history of the aboriginal people.

[1420]

Thanks to all the community leaders who are here with us today and to all Members of the Legislative Assembly for your support and efforts to make B.C. an inclusive and welcoming place for everyone.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN
TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Horgan: Last week the Premier went on radio and made the claim that B.C. teachers don't care about class size and class composition; they just care about the money. I don't know where the Premier gets her information. I, on Monday, went to the schools that my children graduated from, and I talked to the teachers that helped shape their minds and shape their characters into the fine, upstanding citizens they are today. Not one of those teachers mentioned money.

Every single one of them talked about how they want to give more to their kids than they're able to, but they're constrained by the absence of any coherent class-size and class composition language in their collective agreements. That's been the case for 12 years. Children who started
[ Page 4320 ]
in grade 1 when the now Premier was then the Minister of Education have had a disrupted education, and now they look at the last month of their time in the K-to-12 system and there are more disruptions.

My question to the Premier is: how is inflaming the tensions that already exist helping us get to a collective agreement that will ensure that our kids get the best education they possibly can in the public school system?

Hon. C. Clark: This is a very, very challenging time for parents, for students in particular but also for teachers in the classroom. There's been a lot of confusion about what's happening out there, and as we go out and we attempt to get an agreement between the government and the teachers union, we need to decide we want to do that by bargaining, by sitting down at the table and talking about the bargainable issues like class size, class composition, pay raises for teachers and all of the other issues that are there.

That should happen without disrupting classrooms for children. It can happen. It's what all of us would like to see happen. Let's get to the bargaining table. Let's sit down. Let's bargain hard, and let's prove that after 30 years of dysfunction in bargaining between government and the BCTF we can sit down, bargain an agreement like adults and leave the kids out of it.

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

J. Horgan: If only it was bargaining by adults, maybe we'd be in a better position, but the record of the government in power since 2001 is far from that. The record of the government in power is stripping collective agreements, stripping agreements that were duly signed by the employer and the employee.

We now have confusion, as the Premier rightly points out, but the confusion is coming from the Minister of Education and his obscure determination that a lockout was in the best interests of the bargaining process. It did not include any consultation with the actual employer under the labour code — duly elected trustees. We have trustees in this province, every corner of this province — administrators, teachers, parents — still getting explanations from the minister seven days after he made the determination.

Instead of heightening tension, instead of adding to the confusion, why won't this government recognize that stripping rights, taking away the constitutional rights of teachers — not once but twice — and provoking a strike is not in the best interests of our children, our families or our province?

Hon. C. Clark: The government's success in negotiating with public sector workers is unparalleled. We have successfully negotiated tentative or ratified agreements with almost half of the public service.

[1425]

We have been successful when we've sat down, negotiated, rolled up our sleeves and recognized that our hard-working public servants — whether they are nurses, doctors, police officers or teachers — deserve a raise. They've earned it. It needs to be an affordable raise. It needs to be one that's fair across the public sector. But we know we can get there.

The only way to do it, though, is to decide that we — the teachers union and the government — want to bargain this agreement the same way we bargained it with over 40 percent of the public sector, and that's sitting down, rolling up our sleeves and working hard to get to an agreement.

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

J. Horgan: The Premier talks about the dysfunction of the system over 30 years, over one-third of that time under the watch of the B.C. Liberals. The dysfunction started, I would argue — and I think just about everyone agrees with me; certainly the Supreme Court does, not once but twice — when that Premier, then the minister, stripped contracts and took away language….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: We've heard the Premier say that she's got trouble with the teachers. They're greedy. That was the first thing out of her mouth. Then it was: "Let's get them in a room and lock the door until they come up with a deal." The latest intervention on behalf of students and parents and teachers across British Columbia is: "If I don't have a deal by sundown Saturday, there's going to be heck to pay." Or the actual quote was: "Or else."

So it begs the question to the Premier: if there's not a deal in 48 hours as you have mandated, what's the "or else"?

Hon. C. Clark: In 30 years in almost every agreement that has been settled between the government and the teachers union, governments have legislated almost every single one of them after job action has erupted into our classrooms. That member conveniently forgets that he was an adviser to a government that legislated teachers back to work. It's because of the dysfunction in the way that we bargain. We need to fix that.

We need to restructure the way that we bargain between teachers and government. We need to work on getting to ten years of labour peace so that students will be protected in the long term and that teachers will be guaranteed to be treated fairly. I believe that this is what most classroom teachers want. This is what government wants.

This is something that I believe is going to mean we
[ Page 4321 ]
are able to move forward, improve our education system and make sure that kids in the future don't end up — as they have almost every time for the last 30 years, including when that member was advising an NDP government — in the middle of these disputes, because they shouldn't be there.

R. Fleming: Well, Madame Speaker, you're going to have to forgive British Columbians for wondering just exactly what this government does want. In the last 24 hours we've had the Minister of Education saying he wants a settlement by the end of June. Then we've heard the Premier say: "There better be something in place in three days or else." Is it any wonder that parents across British Columbia and teachers are utterly confused by government's escalation this week of locking teachers out from their daily duties as teachers?

There's a 12-year record of acrimony, and….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

Please continue.

R. Fleming: It's only the government side, unfortunately, that has the chance to put things on a different footing in British Columbia, but they're continuing the pattern that only they know best, which is a pattern of confrontation instead of negotiation, imposing legislation. The courts have shown that that is a disaster. That is no way ahead for British Columbia.

[1430]

British Columbians need a commitment that this government and this Premier will stop creating confusion, will yield on their agenda of retribution and will find a way to negotiate ahead so that B.C. parents can have their kids back in our schools.

Will the minister just commit today to stop unfairly blaming teachers for everything, set aside the threats and help facilitate a settlement so that there's actually an alternative in British Columbia to the chaos that this government has created in our public schools?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am amazed at the righteous — or unrighteous — indignation from the member opposite, and I'd like to bring some facts to his attention. The accusation that the government has provoked something…. I'm going to read from a press release that was put out by your friends at the BCTF on April 17. Here are some facts.

During stage 1 job action their members were instructed by the BCTF not to "undertake any mandated supervision of students outside of regularly scheduled classes, except as set out under essential services order," not to "be at a worksite one hour before commencement of instructional time and one hour at the end of instructional time," and not to "attend any meetings with management, other than meetings of worksite joint health and safety."

I'd like to know why the members opposite, when this press release came out and when the BCTF launched the action, didn't pick up the phone and call their friends and say: "Why are you provoking this? Why are you putting students in the middle? Let's keep classes functioning while we're still at the table, trying to negotiate."

R. Fleming: I think we would all agree here that a lockout order that requires five statements of clarification in Qs and As is the very definition of confusion and incompetence.

I want to ask the minister about another area in this dispute that he has deliberately muddied the waters on in negotiations. It's the issue of class size and composition. It's a central issue in this dispute. It's critical.

The minister told the media on the weekend that "all the studies in the world say that class size and composition don't have any impact on learning outcomes." Well, we went to the Legislative Library to see if some of those studies available in the world were here.

Luckily, unlike many schools across British Columbia, the Legislature still has librarians. I now have a stack of research, which I'm only too happy to share with the minister, that shows definitively that class size and composition do impact learning outcomes.

Will the minister just admit that in order to find a way ahead in this dispute, his government's ignoring of the key issues like class size and composition is one of the reasons why his government has been utterly unable to resolve this dispute and it drags on?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Six weeks of silence after the BCTF initiated strike action — six weeks of silence. Now we have indication that we are at fault.

[1435]

But I'll tell you this. Six weeks of no response from the members opposite. We now have children….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We do regret that children and parents and communities are caught in the middle of this dispute. We have been very clear that it was the strike action initiated by the BCTF six weeks ago that brought us to where we are today. We have been at the table. This government, through the employers association, has made significant moves to get a negotiated settlement: a reduction in term, a $1,200 signing bonus, movement on the salary grid.

To suggest that we are not focused on student learning outcomes and not focused on a negotiated settlement is
[ Page 4322 ]
truly, truly the height of hypocrisy by the members opposite.

SUPPORT SERVICES FOR
STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

S. Robinson: A Coquitlam school district parent who is watching from the public gallery here today, along with many other concerned parents, has a three-year-old daughter named Lily who is hard of hearing. Currently Lily exceeds expectations for children her age. That's because a team of people are working with her and supporting her. But Lisa is scared that when her daughter starts school in 2015, she'll fall behind because there simply will not be enough resources in her classroom to go around.

Lisa is worried that after 12 years of erosion of support services in our schools, Lily will not get the supports that she will need to succeed when she finally does start school. Can the Premier please tell Lisa and the families like hers why their children are not receiving the supports they need to thrive in our schools?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I met with the individual that the member opposite mentioned and a friend. We had a very good discussion about the future of education not only for their children but for all the children of the province of British Columbia.

That is why this government is committed to long-term stability in classrooms that continues our track record of great outcomes for students and improves on them. Education does need to transform, but we also have to do it in a climate of stability. We have to do it in a climate where we clearly understand that every child deserves a positive learning experience, a positive learning environment that is stable and, yes, that we can afford within the structure of our education system.

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

K. Corrigan: I think it's rich that the Minister of Education talks about stability when this is a government that intentionally incited a strike in order to curry political favour. It's in the court documents.

This is an excerpt from a letter by a Burnaby parent who writes: "There is nothing more important than giving our kids a quality education, for both their development and that of our province. Unfortunately, after more than a decade of underfunding in British Columbia, there are far too many children that are still in crowded classrooms and are receiving less of the one-on-one attention they need and they deserve."

Will the Premier listen to the parents who are pleading with this government and start investing in our public education system?

[1440]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Since 2001 an additional $1 billion every year invested in education. A learning improvement fund to deal with composition issues in the classroom of $225 million. All-day kindergarten at $120 million. Graduation rates, increased by 15 percent. Aboriginal students, increased graduation rates of 103 percent. The number of special needs students graduating in the province of British Columbia, increased by 166 percent. So the facts speak for themselves.

CABINET APPOINTMENTS AND CHANGES
TO AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

N. Simons: We've obtained e-mails between the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the former Minister of Agriculture from before they were appointed to cabinet. These e-mails make it clear they disliked the agricultural land reserve and wanted to undermine the land commission. Clearly, the views that were expressed in these e-mails should probably have disqualified them from being eligible to sit in cabinet, but instead, they were rewarded by the Premier with the two positions most capable of destroying our farmland.

Can the Premier confirm that when she appointed these two members, she was endorsing their plan to dismantle the commission and open up agricultural land for development?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. Our government's approach to the Agricultural Land Commission has been consistent for many, many years. What we want to do is continue with the Agricultural Land Commission Act, to continue to make sure that we preserve farmland for future generations.

But we also want to make sure that we encourage farming on that land. That's of primary importance throughout our province, and that's what we're doing right now with the bill that is before the House. We've had great debate over the last few weeks on this, and we will continue today and tomorrow, as I understand.

I want to talk just a little bit, give an example of what we're talking about here, if I have time.

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

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: I might have to continue that letter later, when I have more time.
[ Page 4323 ]

N. Simons: The minister is new. I understand that, but he should know his file a little better than that. The issue of the cherry juice–maker isn't one that he should be quoting in this House. If they want to sell their land in order to get the capital to do something else…. That's not what it's about. This bill is about opening up land for development, and the minister knows that.

The Premier knew of the hostility these two members had towards the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. They had the motive. She gave them the opportunity and the means. If her intent wasn't to break up the ALR and the independent commission, why did she appoint these two to important cabinet positions?

[1445]

Hon. N. Letnick: I understand the passion of the member opposite. I understand the passion of everyone in this province to make sure that we have a strong ALC that is independent of politicians, that works to make sure we have an ALR that is there not only today but for future generations. That's exactly what we're doing on this side of the House.

We are here to help the ALR continue, not only by making sure we preserve agricultural land but by helping farmers farm that land. For the life of me, I cannot understand. What is the problem with telling someone in the North Peace, for example, who has 600 acres of land that if he wants to park a few trucks on his property so that he can service industry around, he can do that if — and here's the big catch — the independent ALC believes it's in the best interests of agriculture to do so?

That's exactly what we're doing here, and I wish the members opposite would join us in supporting this bill when it comes forward tomorrow.

L. Popham: From the e-mails revealed today, it's more obvious now than ever that the plan to dismantle our ALR started before the election. This was led by MLAs whose agenda was clear before they were given cabinet posts by the Premier. The Liberals said their farm-destroying legislation was "aimed at continuing to protect B.C.'s rich farmland."

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

L. Popham: But instead, they broke their promise.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, just wait.

Members. We are waiting till the Chair can hear the answer and the question.

Please take your seat, Member.

Please continue.

L. Popham: The Liberals said their farm-destroying legislation was "aimed at continuing to protect B.C.'s rich farmland," but they broke their promise. Instead, e-mails reveal that it was always about pure B.C. Liberal political crassness.

To the Premier, now that B.C. knows the real story, will she immediately put a stop to this legislative sham?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Again, I understand the passion of all members in this House. I understand that, through all the letters I've received, both in favour of the proposed changes as well as those that are opposed. I understand how it's important to have food security in our province. We are working towards that on this side of the House, as I'm sure all members in this House would like us to achieve that.

In 2010 the chair of the ALC went around the province, talked to hundreds of people, listened to many submissions and produced a report. At the same time, I believe, another report was produced by the Office of the Auditor General. That information was taken into account by the minister of the day. The process continued.

It is government that proposed a change to the legislation to ensure that we have strong agricultural land but also strong farmers on that land. It is this government that adopted some changes to the legislation, which I proposed after consulting with the B.C. Agricultural Council and the leadership of the ALC — all of this through the public consultation that I have done through my letters.

We've had great time to debate it. Tomorrow we'll have a vote, and we'll see what happens after that. But it continues, with consultation on the regulations soon to follow.

L. Popham: This is not the Minister of Agriculture responding to this. This is the minister of development.

[1450]

Before the election the B.C. Liberals said they would protect farmland, yet after the election the Premier appointed a cabinet clearly bent on breaking apart the agricultural land reserve. The Premier acted deliberately to kill the ALR, steamrolling over concerns from farmers, chefs and food lovers in this province.

Given the facts that she has no mandate to make these changes, will she end the attack on B.C. farmland today and kill Bill 24?

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

We continue to support agriculture on this side of the House. We did it by a 20 percent increase in the budget for agriculture over the last two years, millions of dollars for a Buy Local program to encourage people to buy
[ Page 4324 ]
products right here from British Columbia. We're rebating the carbon tax on our greenhouses. We're rebating the carbon tax on purple fuels for our farmers.

We're changing the ALC to give them all the independence they need to make good decisions on preserving good agricultural land right here in British Columbia. We have money for replant going forward too — almost half a billion dollars over the next five years, a $14 billion goal.

We have people going to China and we have people going all around the world from industry, trying to promote our products. We are there with them, supporting them.

At the end of the day, we want the same thing. We want a strong agricultural community right here in British Columbia on good agricultural land to make sure that we have food for generations to come. We are investing money into the program, we are investing our time, and we are introducing legislation that will assist us in getting there.

[End of question period.]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will now receive three reports.

Reports from Committees

J. Yap: Madame Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Yap: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Yap: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

J. Yap: I ask leave of the House to move a further motion to appoint Carol Bellringer as Auditor General of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR GENERAL

J. Yap: I move that:

[Pursuant to the Auditor General Act, (SBC 2003, c.2), Carol Bellringer be appointed as Auditor General of British Columbia, for one 8 year term commencing on September 15, 2014.]

In moving this motion, I'd like to provide a brief profile of the candidate unanimously selected by the committee.

Ms. Bellringer, who is in the gallery with us, is the former Auditor General for the province of Manitoba, a position that she held from 2006 to March 2014. She also was Manitoba's Auditor General from 1992 to 1996, when it was known as the Office of the Provincial Auditor.

Ms. Bellringer is a chartered accountant and holds an MBA from the Warsaw School of Economics, University of Quebec at Montreal. Given her extensive background in conducting financial audits, performance audits and investigations, she is well qualified to lead the B.C. Office of the Auditor General.

Ms. Bellringer also brings other relevant experience to this position. She previously served as the city auditor for the city of Winnipeg and has held management positions with KPMG and with MediaOne International in Poland.

[1455]

She's also a former director of private funding at the University of Manitoba and has served on numerous boards for business, charitable and arts organizations. She's currently serving on the board of the International Federation of Accountants.

Given her impressive experience and credentials, I'm confident that Ms. Bellringer will prove to be an excellent Auditor General for the province of British Columbia.

In closing, I'd like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, along with all committee members for their hard work and dedication over the past ten months. The committee considered some very excellent and qualified applicants during the search process, and in the end, we were able to unanimously recommend the candidate for appointment.

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to further express thanks to everyone who participated in the process, including the many excellent applicants we considered.

As well, I'd like to acknowledge Mr. Russ Jones, who is also in the gallery with us today, who has served in the role of acting Auditor General since March of 2013. Mr. Jones took over the position during a time of transition for the office, and he carried out his duties with professionalism and dedication. On behalf of all members of the Legislative Assembly, we express our sincere appreciation and gratitude.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to also rise and welcome Carol Bellringer — hopefully, if it's approved — to the position of Auditor General of British Columbia.

I was struck, during the interview process and the complete process, by how well she was regarded by all MLAs on both sides of the House in Manitoba; how well she was regarded by those that she worked for, those that she worked with and those that worked for her as well; and how well regarded she was by other Auditors General across the country. She has private sector and public sec-
[ Page 4325 ]
tor experience. She was a leader in the profession.

Of course, at the end of the day, it also has to be a unanimous decision, and it was a unanimous decision by the committee. I am very confident in joining the Chair of the committee in saying that we have made a very good choice and that we will be well-served. So I am very happy to welcome Carol.

I also want to add my appreciation to Russ Jones. I have been on the Public Accounts Committee for many years and have seen Russ for many years doing a wonderful job, both as Deputy Auditor General and now as acting Auditor General. He has served us very well over this year of transition and, I'm sure, will continue to offer a lot to the office.

Thank you very much to everybody who served on the committee, and welcome, Carol.

Motion approved.

Reports from Committees

B. Ralston: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the 40th parliament. The report summarizes the committee's activities in this session of parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. Ralston: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

B. Ralston: I move that the report be adopted. In so doing, I would like to make some very brief comments.

The report summarizes the committee's activities in the last session. In that period the committee reviewed ten reports of the Auditor General and approved the Auditor General's annual workplan. I'd also like to thank all committee members for their contribution to the work of the committee, and I would also want to acknowledge the assistance provided by the offices of the Auditor General and the comptroller general.

At this point, I would also like to welcome the newly appointed Auditor General, Carol Bellringer, and look forward, with other members of the committee, to working with her in the future.

I would also, again, like to join the comments that have been made about Russ Jones and thank him for his time as acting Auditor General.

S. Sullivan: As the Deputy Chair, I'd like to add to the words of the Chair. First of all, I'd like to thank the Chair for his capable leadership. I'd like to acknowledge Russ Jones and his fine work with his team.

[1500]

We've had some great support from our staff, Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Ron Wall, who have also provided great service to us; of course, the office of the comptroller; and the many members of the committee.

I'd like to just acknowledge the fine work that the committee is doing to make British Columbia government work better for its citizens.

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the first session of the 40th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to make a few comments before I move that the report be adopted.

This report summarizes committee activities from November 2012 to December 2013. The reporting period included part of the fourth session of the 39th parliament, under the previous committee membership. Committee activities in all of the first session of the 40th parliament are also covered in this report.

During this time the committee reviewed eight reports by the Representative for Children and Youth. We also met with officials from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to receive updates regarding their work to implement recommendations of the representative.

This report also mentions a special committee project underway to examine youth mental health. The committee will be holding three meetings this June to hear from stakeholders, experts, youth and their families. The committee is also inviting written submissions through our website, starting today.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the previous Chair, the former member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, Joan McIntyre, who served on the committee for several years. I'd also like to pass on my thanks to the current Deputy Chair, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. We've had a very positive working relationship. I look forward to working with her and all my committee members in the future.

In closing, I'd like to acknowledge the Representative for Children and Youth and her staff, as well as the Ministry of Children and Family Development and our Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd. On behalf of the commit-
[ Page 4326 ]
tee members, we thank you for the important work that you do.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

C. James: I also would like to express my appreciation, first to the Chair of our committee, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I would concur that we've had a very good working relationship. We've had an opportunity to bring forward some very difficult work around the committee and had the chance to be able to work through those reports.

I'd just like to emphasize the mention that the Chair of our committee raised around youth mental health. We will have an opportunity to be able to receive written submissions around the issue of youth mental health in our province.

I believe this is an opportunity for members of the Legislature, all members of the Legislature, to be able to let people in your community know that they have the opportunity to put in written submissions. You have the chance to be able to express that to groups, organizations, parents and youth themselves. I think the process will be richer by making sure that we hear all the voices in the community. I would encourage all members to make sure that you take the opportunity to pass that message on in your communities.

Finally, I just want to express my appreciation to all the committee members. As I said, we have had some very difficult work and some very difficult reports come forward, and I have seen around our committee a very respectful conversation and very thoughtful conversation on very difficult issues. I'm sure I speak for all members when I say that the hope of our committee is that we see fewer reports and fewer incidents and fewer challenges come forward in the future around our committee.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: Today I want to table the WorkSafe B.C. 2013 annual report and 2014-2016 service plan.

Petitions

D. Eby: I rise to table a petition with over 600 names and signatures asking the government to support the Pine Free Clinic and require continued uninterrupted operation of a dedicated youth health clinic for people under the age of 25 in Metro Vancouver.

[1505]

D. Routley: I present a petition from hundreds of Nanaimo region constituents who are determined to see a funding model for long-term care for seniors that does not force contracting out or the offering of re-employment to current employees at much lower wages and lower benefits. They are petitioning government to act now to provide a fair and equitable funding system on Vancouver Island that will allow for the continuity of care that our seniors require and deserve.

D. Donaldson: I rise to present a petition from the residents of Stewart, who were without power for many days in a row this winter, creating great hardships, with the temperature being as cold as it was and burning diesel. They're asking that B.C. Hydro provide their community with a looping — what's called islanding capability — between themselves and the Long Lake hydro station, which sits close by.

It's signed by almost 300 residents. Stewart has only about 500 residents, so we're talking about a pretty big uptake on this petition.

G. Heyman: I rise to table a petition with over 600 signatures of people who are committed to saving the Pine Free Clinic. They note that Metro Vancouver requires continued uninterrupted operation of a dedicated youth health clinic for young people under the age of 25, and they call on the members of this House to affirm our support for the continued operation of a dedicated youth clinic in Metro Vancouver for another 40 years.

Madame Speaker: The best for last — Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

N. Simons: Thank you very much, Madame Speaker. I appreciate that.

I have a petition here from about 6,936 individuals from throughout British Columbia asking the government to…. They respectfully request the government take urgent action to halt the commercial introduction of the genetically modified apple in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. I didn't want to interrupt the vigorous debate taking place during question period, but I wonder — I say this not wishing to point fingers at anyone; maybe both sides — if the Chair might wish to send a reminder to all members about Standing Order 47A, particularly, on page 141, the reference to oral questions and the anticipation rule re bills. All members might find that a helpful reminder.

Beyond that, in terms of the orders of the day, continuing second reading, in this chamber, on Bill 24. In Section A, Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Health estimates; and in Section C, estimates beginning with the Ministry of Finance and, thereafter, the Office of the Premier.
[ Page 4327 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

[D. Horne in the chair.]

On the amendment (continued).

J. Rice: I'm pleased to rise again today, to continue on from yesterday in the debate on the motion that Bill 24 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and, further, that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.

[1510]

I think referring this bill to the Finance Committee is the perfect committee, considering the amount of travel, which I've witnessed in my first year as MLA, that the Select Standing Committee on Finance certainly has — I don't know if endured is the word — participated in.

Yesterday I was talking about the importance of referring this important bill to a committee such as the Standing Committee on Finance because of the importance of maintaining democracy in our province. I was speaking about my first year as an MLA and, previously, as a city councillor. One of the reasons I was involved was my witnessing of the disengagement of our public in civic politics and politics in general and just the general negative attitude that people feel that their voices aren't being heard or their vote doesn't matter.

I think a bill of this magnitude…. Some things, such as the ALR and the ALC, are ingrained in the hearts and minds of British Columbians as such a valuable piece of legislation. It's prided upon, and it's looked at internationally as a huge accomplishment and achievement. Again, I cannot stress how important I think public consultation is on Bill 24.

I also just spoke about the definition of public consultation and reminded the House of what that looks like or what that doesn't look like. I think I can safely say that the way that we have gone about quickly passing this bill — tomorrow, I believe — is an example of poor public consultation, and it certainly demonstrates a lack of democracy.

I have the honour of having Joan Sawicki in my constituency. She's been a great resource to me. I've learned so much from Joan. I only met her recently passed partner, Gary Runka, once, but I must stress that I was so impressed with the amount of knowledge and passion they had for their work — not only as land use consultants presently, but in their previous work developing the ALR and the ALC.

To this day, Joan's unwavering dedication to the ALR made me suggest that she not actually retire from politics, considering the amount of passion and retained knowledge that she has for this work. Joan worked for the Agricultural Land Commission in its formative years in the '70s, when I was born. I think the ALR came into effect the year before I was born. I lived in Ontario, so it wasn't until I was an adult that I actually understood what the ALR or the ALC was about.

We know that she was a former MLA, Speaker and Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. She continues to work out of the Bella Coola Valley in a small community in Tweedsmuir Park, where she continues to do work as a land use consultant.

I find that Joan's words in an article…. Actually, it was an opinion piece that she wrote in the Times Colonist in early April. I really love her choice of words, because they really simplify this issue for the general public and for younger generations — I want to say, such as myself; I realize I can't keep saying that as I push towards 40 this year — people of my generation and younger who weren't necessarily around during the ALR and ALC formative years.

It really clearly explains the importance of this and some of the potential threats that we have by not actually doing the due diligence of giving this proper consultation. This is an op-ed that Joan submitted in early April. "When we opened the doors of the first Agricultural Land Commission office in 1973, there was a green carpet and dozens of telephones, hundreds of maps and little else." Actually, I had dinner with Joan and Gary Runka early after I was elected this year. They so vividly described the scene to me, with rolls of maps everywhere, sitting on the floor, diligently working away to form the ALC.

[1515]

She continues on:

"Over the next 18 months the five-member commission and a small staff oversaw the establishment of the original agricultural land reserve boundaries, based on the best science available, related to climate and capability of the land to produce a range of agricultural crops.

"It was an inclusive process. More than 300 public meetings were held throughout the province, and each of the 28 regional districts submitted their own draft ALR plans. A general manager who was a professional agrologist and commissioners who were well respected in their fields of expertise ensured that ALR boundaries reflected both the provincial perspective and regional agricultural differences.

"From the outset, it was recognized we also needed to protect the integrity of farm communities. That is why small pockets of non-agricultural land, whose development could negatively affect farming, were included within the ALR. So began what remains, at least until now, the most successful agricultural land preservation program in North America."

If I may add, I think we can go beyond the boundaries of North America.

"It has not been a smooth ride. ALR boundary reviews began almost immediately and continue, often in cooperation with local and regional governments. Subdivision, non-farm use and exclusion applications came pouring in, each of which has been decided on its own merits. From time to time, successful provincial
[ Page 4328 ]
governments have interfered with the independent Agricultural Land Commission.

"In recent years, however, the ALC has reset its course, and in response to government direction and an Auditor General's report, has modernized and demonstrated creative flexibility within its primary mandate to preserve farmland.

"Into this environment, government has now thrown Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, which puts this 40-year success story at risk. The proposed two-zone concept offends the principles of fairness and consistency. Where is the consistency in awarding some of B.C. farmers more ALR protection than others? Moreover, with relaxed criteria in zone 2, why would hundreds of landowners who have had their application refused and had to accept that, not now come back for reconsideration?

"How does eliminating a provincial commission in favour of six regional panels meet government's own test of 'effective and efficient'? The provincial ALR was established precisely because regional authorities could not be relied upon to effectively protect farmland from non-farm development. Operating six panels will surely be less efficient and more costly than funding one provincial commission.

"Yes, farmers have a legitimate complaint. The farmer support systems that were put in place as part of the social contract to preserve the land have long since been eliminated. This same government that has introduced Bill 24 has also cut the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture to be among the lowest per capita in Canada.

"By definition, 'zoning' restricts individual action for the greater common good. The last thing most dedicated farmers want to do is sacrifice the land that is the source of their livelihood. It is therefore not surprising that, traditionally, only about 5 percent of ALC applications have come from farmers.

"Unlike other kinds of zoning, the ALR was always envisioned as a permanent zone, not a zone of convenience. Its vision is long term, to keep the options open for future food production. Eighty-five percent of our best agricultural lands are within the proposed zone 2, where they will be less protected.

"Bill 24 is shortsighted and irresponsible. The NDP government made a courageous decision in 1973. Now, more than ever, with population growth, loss of farmlands elsewhere, increased transportation costs and the urgent challenge of climate change, we need to stay the course. Thus far, government has offered no core review analysis that demonstrates the ALR is broken and no credible explanation of how Bill 24 will fix that, fix what is perceived to be broken.

[1520]

"From government's own statements, it is clear they do not understand the scientific basis of the ALR, and they have not done their homework on potential negative impacts of their actions upon farmers and farm communities. They should pull back Bill 24 and rethink.

"If they do not, the only conclusion one can reach is that far from supporting farming in B.C., Bill 24 is a deliberate attempt to reduce the ALR to chaos. In that case, British Columbians who have consistently expressed their understanding and clear support for the ALR need to sit up and take notice."

Her bio here says that Joan Sawicki worked for the Agricultural Land Commission during its formative years from 1973 to 1981; is a former MLA, Speaker and Minister of the Environment, Lands and Parks; and is currently a land use consultant living in Stuie in the Bella Coola Valley.

I can really appreciate this opinion piece written by Joan. I think she hits it bang on when she says that Bill 24 is shortsighted and irresponsible and when she speaks about the short term versus the long term. This is one of the reasons I ran and one of the reasons I work so hard to engage the younger generation as an MLA: because so many younger voters talk about the fact that whether it's this or other legislation or other policies at any level of government, they are revolving around either election cycles or just short-term gain, and their futures are at risk.

She talks about climate change, and that is definitely an issue that's important to me and an issue important to younger generations. The threat to agricultural land because of climate change demonstrates to me now more than ever that we need to actually put more protections in place, not less, and not put important farmland at risk.

Before I go on, I have two other articles I really want to read into the record. The other actually quotes Joan Sawicki once again here. Many people are tapping into her vast knowledge and expertise.

This was written a couple of days ago in the Tyee, "Agriculture Changes Threaten $130 Million Farmers Market Sector." Actually, this is a letter, if I'm not mistaken.

"The provincial government is threatening a rapidly growing sector of the economy with its proposed changes to the agricultural land reserve, warns an open letter from the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets.

"'B.C.'s farmers markets work tirelessly in all corners of the province to strengthen local economies and provide British Columbians with fresh, healthy, local agricultural products,' wrote Jon Bell, the president of BCAFM, on behalf of the organization's board of directors in a letter to…the Minister of Agriculture.

"In 2012 such markets had $113 million in direct sales, an increase of 147 percent from $46 million in 2006, it said. 'Our ability to continue to deliver these benefits into the future, however, is tied directly to the availability of agricultural land throughout the province,' the May 26 letter said. 'Our member farmers markets in the north and Interior specifically have expressed concern that Bill 24 will directly threaten their regionally focused agricultural initiatives and thereby threaten the very viability of farmers markets in their area.'

"The government's legislation, which is expected to pass this week, splits the province into two zones and requires social and economic considerations to be given greater weight in decisions about what land is protected in the ALR in the north, Interior and Kootenay regions. It would also create regional panels to make initial decisions on applications to remove land from the ALR.

"The BCAFM represents 125 farmers markets and 1,000 small-scale farmers who sell at markets, but their views and opposition to the bill have not been considered, said the letter, which asks the government not to pass the bill and to consult with the wider agricultural community.

"'The proposed changes in Bill 24 not only threaten the viability of farmers markets; they threaten the economic and social benefits that markets deliver to the communities they support,' it said.

"Regional panels were used between 2002 and 2010 but were 'considered less effective than the current centralized administration and vetting of all ALR applications by the ALC, which ensures strong and consistent centralized authority,' it said.

[1525]

"'In an era of climate change, significant urban expansion, concerns about local food supply, food safety and sustainability, the B.C. government and the Agricultural Land Commission must look at ways to encourage farming,' the letter said. 'Permitting non-agricultural industrial activities on ALR land will only fragment and degrade remaining viable land, leading to greater challenges for farmers in accessing agricultural land.'"
[ Page 4329 ]

Regardless of your opinion on Bill 24, a stakeholder that is going to be directly impacted by this is actually calling for a proper consultation. They're calling for time to have a conversation about such important legislation. I think that's what this proposed amendment is just asking for — to give it the due diligence it needs.

It can't be too cumbersome to include it with the Select Standing Committee on Finance's work. They travel all over the province, even to many remote and rural communities. It's a perfect opportunity to have the public consultation that is much needed for this bill and is requested by so many people.

One other thing I wanted to talk about was just some of the ideas that you could have in a proper consultation, some of the considerations that we're missing out on by avoiding a consultation process. For example, we're missing out on a dialogue about initiatives like the Local Food Act supported by farmers and experts, whose purpose is to increase farming in the ALR for the benefit of our economy and environment.

B.C. farmers for two decades have faced unfair competition from heavily subsidized imports while both federal and provincial governments have looked the other way. Local food production and consumption significantly reduces energy required for food transportation and lowers crop loss associated with shipping and storage. In a controlled environment it can even require less use of pesticides. Curbing imports and growing local consumption — those are the kinds of steps this government could be looking at taking.

Another example: we could be reviewing our export market. Food growers, harvesters and producers in British Columbia have successfully established a market for traditional and innovative food products in North America and Europe. At the same time, we are rapidly increasing exports to growing markets in China, South Korea and India.

Our agrifoods industry, including seafoods, already exports $2.4 billion to 140 countries worldwide. Buyers around the world recognize us for our high-quality food products and strict safety standards. With a strong reputation for quality produce and a strategic location on the west coast of Canada, agrifood producers in British Columbia are in a position to continue profiting in a growing global market.

Agrifoods export opportunities exist around the world, and some key markets have the potential for increased purchases from our exporters. In 2011, 87 percent, $1.3 billion of the total value of our agriculture exports, went to these top five markets: United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan.

I'm not proposing that I have all the answers to these particular ideas. I'm just sort of trying to make a contribution on potential important conversations that we could be having by having a proper consultation on Bill 24.

We could be supporting research and training in green technology. In addition to food, all cities permanently require significant natural resources to meet their raw energy needs. However, alternative technologies — including solar cells, rooftop wind turbines, ground-source heat pumps and power plants fueled by domestic rubbish — could see future cities becoming at least partly energy-sufficient.

[1530]

Micropower generation may even extend to piezoelectric paving slabs to generate electricity from our footsteps, as well as hydraulic plates on road surfaces that would generate power as vehicles drive over them. I'm not an expert on these technologies, but again, I'm just encouraging the conversation.

In addition to producing some of their own food and power, future cities would also have to use fresh water far more efficiently. In part, this is because treating and transporting fresh water is energy-intensive. However, half of the world's population now lives in countries where the water table is falling. Future cities, therefore, need to capture and recycle water whenever possible.

In 1973, the year before I was born, when it was considered to be the most progressive legislation of its kind in North America, it was intended to permanently protect valuable agricultural land, which is among the most fertile soil in the country, from being lost. Despite having been in existence for nearly 40 years, however, the ALR continues to be threatened by urbanization and the land development industry.

The ALR has widespread popularity among British Columbian voters. Defenders of the ALR have been distressed in recent years at what they see as a weakening of the policy by the designation of golf courses as agricultural land and the removal of ALR-protected lands for residential, commercial and industrial development.

Sending this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance would help alleviate this concern. It would allow the government to attempt to gain a social licence for Bill 24.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair has been allowing certainly far-reaching discretion. I just remind people that we're currently debating the amendment to the bill. That's to refer it to a committee.

K. Corrigan: I do appreciate the Chair exercising some discretion and allowing our passions to run wild in this House, but I will try to remember that we are talking about a referral motion in this case.

Every once in a while bills come before this House that do matter a lot to the members and that do bring passions forward. There are a lot of bills that come to this House that we support. Most bills that come to this House we support, at least to some extent. There are some bills that come to this House that we don't support. There are some
[ Page 4330 ]
that are miscellaneous bills that perhaps are changing the wording — slight wording — for legal reasons.

But every once in a while a bill comes that would fundamentally change some of the things that we do in this province and things that we hold dear. This is one of those bills. I would remind those that are not aware that might be hearing this that what Bill 24 did was, essentially, from our perspective, dismantle or at least partially dismantle the agricultural land reserve, which has done what it was designed to do since it was brought in, in 1973. That is — and this is a fundamental thing — it was designed to protect farmland in this province.

We have a province that has a lot of pressure on the farmland in some areas, particularly areas like the Lower Mainland, where I live. There's great pressure, and if the agricultural land reserve had not been put in place in 1973, the Lower Mainland would have been a very different place and we would not have had, I believe, the ability to produce the food that we do now.

It was a visionary thing to do. It was a visionary thing to do 40 years ago, and it is a bill that governments of all parties, when they've been in power, have supported for the last 40-plus years. Everybody has recognized the importance of having a reserve of land in our province that is protected for farming.

[1535]

Certainly, the legislation recognized that there are appropriate times that land should be able to be removed, and I think for the most part that has worked as well. But it is a piece of legislation which is very dear to very many people.

When you have something that has mattered that much and has been such an important piece of legislation, such an important piece in our province…. When there is a bill that makes drastic changes and removes 90 percent of the land of this province from the protections that have previously been there in terms of protecting farmland and changes it very significantly and gives equal weight to things like oil and gas, certain types of development and economic concerns…. When they all have equal weight in 90 percent of our province, then when that happens, I would submit, it has to be done very carefully.

That is why we are asking that this bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services under Standing Order 83. The purpose of a referral. When something is referred to a select standing committee, in this case the Finance Committee, according to Parliamentary Practice, it is for the purpose of obtaining an opinion or observations. It is for getting more information, to hear from stakeholders, to hear from people around the province that they care, but doing it in a formal way so that that information is recorded.

We know that people do want to speak out on this. We know that many people who are ordinary citizens who care deeply about the agricultural land reserve or are stakeholders or experts — people who are farmers, people who live in urban areas, people who live in rural areas, academics, all manner of people — have been contacting us in great numbers. I've received many, many communications to my office from people who are concerned about the dismantling of the ALR and expressing deep concern, coming from a variety of perspectives.

A referral to the select standing committee of the House would be the perfect place, I would submit, for a further discussion, because obviously, the people of this province are not happy with the lack of consultation that has happened to date.

The thing to remember is that a referral to the committee does not kill the bill. It simply is a referral. The bill would remain on the order paper for second reading, but it wouldn't be proceeded with until the standing committee has considered and reported on the matter. I'm not sure how long that would be, but my understanding would be that there could be very lengthy committee hearings.

I think about what the committee hearings are like now for the Select Standing Committee on Finance. I think it's one of the two finest, perhaps, committees in the Legislature — another fine one being the Public Accounts Committee, which I sat on for many months.

The purpose of the Select Standing Committee on Finance is to consult with people, and I've got to say that that committee has done an excellent, excellent job. It is made up by all parties in this Legislature, or both parties in the Legislature. It has several members on it and, in fact, in the fall goes around the province, travels around the province — sometimes in small airplanes in snow and rain and so on.

But I've got to give a lot of credit to the people that sit on that committee and the committee work itself, because it goes all around the province, and it listens to people. It listens to people, and people can make submissions, either written submissions or in-person submissions. They do it in the Lower Mainland. They go to Prince George. I believe they've gone to the north, to Terrace, the Kootenays and so on. They really listen and then create a very thoughtful report with a lot of input that informs the deliberations about the budget.

[1540]

Now, I'm not sure how much it actually makes a difference, but I think it educates members on both sides of the House as to the concerns and creates a deeper understanding that is good for this place as a whole in terms of understanding the province and what matters to people.

I think it would be a perfect place, because we haven't had the deliberations about this bill. We haven't had the consultation, and people are starving for that consultation.

I've mentioned another committee, the one that I have sat on for many years, the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee receives the reports of
[ Page 4331 ]
the Auditor General and also looks at the audits of the financial statements of the province. That committee, as well, receives a lot of good information.

At committees like Finance and Public Accounts, it's an opportunity to enrich the knowledge and enrich the base of understanding from which all members, both sides of the House, can make a decision on. I think it would be the perfect place to refer Bill 24. As I said earlier, it would not kill the bill, but it simply would allow for consultation.

Now, apart from the fact that many of us are passionate and many British Columbians are passionate and feel like they have not been heard on this bill, there is a particular issue of credibility. Frankly, I think the government has lost credibility for a number of reasons, on this bill, and I think it's important to all of us in this House that that credibility be restored for the sake of the credibility of the institution itself.

Why do I say that? Well, for the first reason, I guess…. First of all, this legislation was brought in less than a year after the last election. But there was no mention of the agricultural land reserve in the 2013 Liberal election platform. In fact, in May of 2013, in a questionnaire from Country Life in B.C. magazine, the B.C. Liberal Party was asked if it would "work with the ALC" — in other words, the Agricultural Land Commission — "to ensure that agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not get used for port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development."

The Liberal Party's response was: "Yes." It was going to do those things. And it was very clear that it not be used for port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development, which are exactly the kinds of considerations that will now, under Bill 24, be of equal value in considering whether or not land stays in the agricultural land reserve or may be excluded.

There's strike 1 against the credibility of the Liberals, in terms of this bill. They said they were not going to do this. Less than a year later, they did do it.

Another concern about the credibility with regard to this bill is that the member for Kootenay East had promised that there would be consultation on changes to the ALR as part of the core review. I quote from a news release, September 24, 2013. The Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister Responsible for Core Review said: "The public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the…Committee on Finance and Government Services'…budget consultations."

The place was supposed to be then, was supposed to be before the Committee on Finance and Government Services' budget consultation — in other words, the select standing committee that we are now asking that there be a referral of Bill 24 to.

That sounds like another opportunity, that there would be consultation on the agricultural land reserve — the ALR — and the commission. That may have been in a press release, but that seems to have been the end of it. I know that members from this side of the House who were on the committee were not aware of the fact, were not made aware.

[1545]

There was no information out there indicating that the Select Standing Committee on Finance was, in fact, supposed to be the repository of submissions on the agricultural land reserve and other matters related to the core review, and it was very clear that the Agricultural Land Commission was part of the core review.

The Chair of the Committee on Finance and Government Services, the member for Penticton, had no idea consultation on the core review was part of his committee's mandate or terms of reference.

It was very unfortunate that that actually hadn't been advertised more clearly. I recall that there did end up being, last minute — I think one day's warning…. It was figured out at some point along the way that it was supposed to be the place where people made submissions on core review and, therefore, on the agricultural land reserve. There was, with one day's notice, a very thoughtful submission to that, but I don't know that there was any other, because I don't believe that people were aware of that.

To me, that's strike No. 2 in terms of credibility. The vehicle for which there was supposed to be consultation and a chance to submit ideas and thoughts about the agricultural land reserve — the place that that was supposed to happen…. Nobody was aware of that, including the Chair of the committee himself. So a bit of strike 2 in terms of credibility.

There are more than three strikes, actually, in this case in terms of credibility of this government. In March the minister, the member from East Kootenays, acknowledged…. He said: "I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa." That was in the Vancouver Sun on March 28, 2014. The way that remark was delivered — "and I take my mea culpa" — sounds, frankly, dismissive. It sounds to me like there really was no intention to consult in any way whatsoever.

But the greatest blow to credibility, the final blow to credibility that I've most recently heard and another very strong reason why I think it is very important in order to restore the credibility, the integrity and the stature of this place, this Legislature, is the fact that today we are aware from a story in the Globe and Mail that there were e-mails that went back and forth between the member for Kootenay East and other Liberal MLAs in the summer of 2012 that he and others were absolutely determined to have changes to the ALR that would allow more non-farm use of agricultural lands — essentially, the changes that would end up dismantling or potentially dismantling the agricultural land reserve.

Of course, the member for Kootenay East is the Minister for Core Review and the architect of the legislation that is dismantling the ALR. Another member
[ Page 4332 ]
that was involved in that string of e-mails became the Agriculture Minister. These two ministers made it very clear through their correspondence that the minister and others in the B.C. Liberal caucus — I'm quoting from the article — "were pressing the Agricultural Land Commission chair, Richard Bullock, to approve changes to protected farmland that would 'muster up some support for our team.'"

There were references in there as well to personal pressure on the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, Mr. Bullock, in order to change boundaries. There are references to the fact that it needed to be easier — I'm paraphrasing — to remove land from the agricultural land reserve.

[1550]

When you have two people who then, for whatever reason…. Presumably, the Premier of this province, when she put those two people in the key positions of Minister for Core Review and Agriculture Minister, surely was aware of the fact that these were two advocates for dismantling of the agricultural land reserve.

What that says to me is that not only do we have two key people that were involved and were therefore responsible in the redesign and dismantling of the agricultural land reserve, but we also have a government, in the leader of that government, that was condoning and, in fact, encouraging and signalling that the people who wanted to dismantle were going to be put in the positions of authority to do exactly that.

That, to me, creates a series of steps and evidence that indicate that it was this government's intention and the intention of individuals who had power within this government all along to dismantle the ALR, despite any promises that were made that there would be consultation. What happened was that there was no opportunity for that information, that input, to come.

The present Minister of Agriculture, after he became the Minister of Agriculture, said that there would be consultation, promised that there would be consultation. One day it was said that there would be consultation, and then the next day it was contradicted by the member for Kootenay East, of course, the Minister for Core Review, who essentially said that there weren't going to be any changes and that, really, the bill would go through. So it was a done deal. There was no consultation. It was a done deal.

What we have seen over the past couple of months is a reaction from the people of British Columbia. It makes it very clear to me, I believe, that people are not happy. Whether or not in the end, after an appropriate consultation, government would make the decision to go forward with the bill as it is, I don't know, but at least we would have had a chance to test that and to hear from people and, as I've said with regard to other committees, enrich the knowledge that members from both sides of the House have about the issue.

Frankly, it has been a real learning curve. I've had a visceral love of the agricultural land reserve, the principles of the reserve, over many years, as I think many other people have, but I've had to really do my homework. I've had a lot of people contacting me to help me to do my homework and teaching me about the agricultural land reserve. I've done a fair amount of reading as well. It has convinced me that we have not had all the facts before this House.

We have had academics, many academics, stating openly, with open letters and so on, that this is not a good thing for British Columbia. We've had ranchers, we've had farmers, and we've had citizens who live in urban and rural areas.

I live in the community of Burnaby. It is not a particularly rural area, but I appreciate that we have a farmers market. I think that many people in urban areas have had a greater appreciation of farming and local food. That's been a trend over the last few years. I think when you consider…. I think people are becoming more aware of the fact that we, perhaps, are in danger, that we are in uncertain times, when you consider the drought of the last couple years that has become particularly severe this year, with farmers not having enough water to be able to bring their crops to market.

[1555]

When you have a threat to the supply of food, when you have global warming, when you have ice shelves breaking up in Antarctica, all of these things I think would…. In a prudent jurisdiction it would be the time to be very careful about preserving the assets that you have in terms of production.

It's an economy, as well as the food. So it is an economy that it serves as well.

While I do believe that some development…. There could be short-term gain. Frankly, this is a government that seems to thrive on short-term gains, selling off provincial assets and selling off land that could be useful without really thinking about the best use of the land, but saying: "For this year we want to get in $150 million or $200 million, and to heck with the future." I certainly have good examples of that in my community.

So it's short term, short-term thinking. When we have something as important as the agricultural land reserve, I don't think we need short-term thinking. We need long-term thinking. Referring Bill 24 to the Finance Committee, I think, would allow us to take a step in the direction of more long-term thinking.

I was talking a minute ago about farmers markets. That's a group of people, those that bring their products to farm markets, as in my community that I love to attend…. We just recently opened our farmers market, and I'll be attending that regularly in the summer, as I always do. Those are individuals that should have an opportunity to be able to speak about this bill.

I think that part of the problem is that it takes a long
[ Page 4333 ]
time for the general public out there — a lot of coverage and a lot of people's voices being added to the mix before many people realize that there is an issue. I would say that this is one where it is important enough that we should be taking some time to make sure that more people are aware of it.

I know — as I've said earlier, I've had many, many e-mails and letters coming to my office, or people calling and so on — that it is a growing concern. Now, perhaps that's exactly what the government wants to avoid: any kind of discussion. But I think that when you consider how important this bill is and the impact of the destruction of the agricultural land reserve…. The fact that it might be a little bit uncomfortable or may make government rethink — well, that's just too bad, because it's important. It's important to the people of this province.

In my community of Burnaby we actually do try to preserve agricultural land, and we do appreciate the importance. I think people in my community appreciate the importance of having further discussion through a referral motion. I think they would because, in fact, in Burnaby….

I know there was a member from across the way who, when I was speaking in second reading, was laughing when I started talking about the importance of agricultural land and how it mattered to people in my community. The comment was: "Well, there's no farmland in Burnaby." In fact, it's not a huge amount, but we do have 234 hectares of land within the agricultural land reserve down in the Big Bend district, just down the hill from where I live. They are in the agricultural land reserve, and we are very proud of that.

I understand the importance and appreciate the ability to be able to go to those farms directly and get virtually all of my produce in the summer. It's a great luxury.

I'm also proud…. And here's the small piece that my city could do, the city of Burnaby, the small thing that they could do, because there was no opportunity, really, for any kind of input. There was no formal input before the bill was brought or during the process. They brought a resolution in. I'm sure the city of Burnaby, if this was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, would be pleased to be one of the many communities to come and make a presentation or a submission.

[1600]

Back in April, not too long after the bill was introduced, Burnaby city council passed a resolution in response to the alteration of the ALR by the provincial government saying:

"Whereas the agricultural land reserve was created as a provincial zone for the purpose of preserving agricultural land throughout the province and provided for technically based decision-making about inclusions and exclusions in the reserve…."

It goes on to express concern in the whereases about the possibility of "development on 90 percent of the land in the reserve and allowing the minister to set the goals for the reserve" and the fact that there were two zones created that would discriminate between regions, "potentially constraining their ability to achieve and sustain agricultural self-sufficiency and economic development."

It said: "Therefore be it resolved that the LMLGA" — this was being sent to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association — "send a letter to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition, with copies to all B.C. local governments, stating our opposition to the proposed alteration to the agricultural land reserve."

I see I'm getting near the end here. I just want to finally read one e-mail that I received in my constituency. It's very simple, and it's short. It was sent, actually, to Christy Clark; I was copied. It was from Ruth Lea Taylor. It says: "I'm gravely concerned…."

Oh, I apologize again. When it's in front of me…. "To the Premier." I apologize for that.

"I am gravely concerned by Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. This bill proposes fundamental changes to the ALR that could result in the permanent loss of protected B.C. farmland.

"B.C.'s farmers, ranchers and fruit growers have made it clear that they oppose this bill because it is not in their interest. It is being pushed through with no public consultation with the agricultural community, the Agricultural Land Commission or the people of British Columbia.

"Thanks to the ALR, British Columbia has maintained a steady number of farms while the rest of Canada has lost about one-third of its farms."

Deputy Speaker: The member from Port Moody. Port Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm rising, actually, because I still had 17 minutes from the last time that I was speaking on the motion on Bill 24. You were in the chair at that time, as I recall.

Deputy Speaker: And I remembered your riding name at that point as well.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to take the opportunity to continue my argument as to why we should refer this to a committee.

It would be a wise course of action to do. It would be keeping with the traditions and practices of this House that have occurred in previous years. It would be an opportunity for the government to reflect on this particular piece of legislation in a way that it hasn't — particularly when we have seen today in the Globe and Mail, for example, a number of e-mails that surfaced, about the attitude of the Minister for Core Review towards the agricultural land reserve and to the approach that should be taken.

I think that would be of concern to members of this House, particularly since the public explanation we have had as to why this particular piece of legislation is important is "to protect and promote and to encourage agriculture," yet the statements in those e-mails suggested
[ Page 4334 ]
something completely opposite: that somebody who is ideologically opposed to the land reserve wanted and, as said in the e-mails, looked the Premier directly in the eye about this issue and wanted to make sure she understands the issue.

It has nothing to do…. Nowhere in any of those statements was it about: "We can really improve the state of agriculture in British Columbia if we change this legislation." No, this was that they've got a long-term bent that the minister had in terms of the Agricultural Land Commission, the chair of the land commission and his determination to change the land commission irrevocably in the province of British Columbia.

I think that that would be of concern to members of this House, particularly members of the government, and that they would want to avail themselves of the opportunity to fully understand the implications of the legislation from the very people who actually work on the land, from the very people who are engaged in agriculture.

[1605]

The best way to do that would, of course, be to hear from British Columbians in agriculture in as broad a way as possible. The most effective and efficient way to do that is through the use of a committee.

We have, as I have said, plenty of precedence for that. The committee can be resourced. It has members not just of the government side but of the official opposition, potentially independents as well, and it would have the resources to travel around the province and to hear explicitly from the agricultural community, from communities in general, both in the Lower Mainland and on the Island, in the Kootenays and in the Peace River, the Interior, the northwest — all over British Columbia — about the impact of this legislation. The committee would then be able to come back to this place, to this House, with a report that they would be able to table to the House.

Then the government would be able to look at the work that had been done of the committee. They'd be able to look at the work that had been done at the committee and go: "Hey, wow. They did some really great work. Here's what people are really saying. Here's some recommendations that they have made in terms of how we can improve the agricultural land reserve," changes that we might make that would meet with the approval of the community, the agricultural community itself, and address a number of the issues that I laid out last time I spoke, hon. Speaker — address issues around marketing, address issues around security or the ability to access land.

All of those things could be addressed and looked at by a committee, a committee that, if it was given the resources and allowed to do its job, could do just that. That would be something that would be very positive to this Legislature.

And it's what the public expect. The public don't expect the backbench just to rubber-stamp whatever government says. They expect members to be able to stand up and say: "Here's what's happening in my constituency." People understand how a committee system works. They know that it's an opportunity for individual MLAs to be able to go out and to work on a particular issue, bring their own particular background, hear from experts and make the kind of good public policy that I think all of us in this chamber want to see take place.

All of us in this chamber are here to make British Columbia a better place, and to do that means good public policy, public policy based on actual needs, based on the best science and the best expert advice and by listening to people. When you do that, you do get good public policy.

But to have public policy, as we've seen with this particular piece of legislation, being made on the basis of a minister's ideological view and his own desire to…. I don't know whether it's to please one or two constituents in the riding or what it is. Not really understanding the importance of this piece of legislation to the agricultural community — I think, hon. Speaker — is not how public policy in this province should take place. The idea that a couple of members can get together….

You read those e-mails, and they say everything you need to know. They say everything you need to know about how this particular bill came to this House. The idea, reading them, that the Minister for the Core Review is saying, "The Premier was in the room, and I looked her right in the eye and said: 'This is what we're going to do,'" and the Premier just acquiesced…. The Premier just acquiesced.

We have no idea what the Premier said, why the Premier didn't say: "You know what? There is a…." Oh, you know what, hon. Speaker? I think it's important that in the record we actually…. And I am indebted to my colleague from Surrey-Whalley for….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: And he says….

Exactly.

And it says the following….

Deputy Speaker: I'm certain the member's going to….

M. Farnworth: Yes, absolutely. This is relating to why a committee needs to be struck to go out and hear from the people. Because I think most people would like to know that this bill came here…. When you see this e-mail, it says:

"You may recall a discussion we had in caucus when the proposed changes to your legislation were discussed. Myself and other rural MLAs made it abundantly clear that we agreed to support the legislation only with your commitment that the boundary review would proceed. Additionally, we made it clear we would not support fee increases until after a boundary review.
[ Page 4335 ]

[1610]

"Premier Clark was present, and very deliberately I looked her in the eye and made direct reference to the fact that she was present for this discussion."

Hon. Speaker, that tells you right there. And then after this conversation, the minister ends up in cabinet. So the question is: is the Premier really concerned about the state of agriculture, or was she just acquiescing? Was she being bullied by the Minister for Core Review into saying yes to whatever it is that the minister wants to do? What we've seen with this minister is….

We have a Minister of Agriculture who says: "No, I'm open to consultation. I'm quite happy to hear what people have to say." We thought: "Great. What an opportunity for a committee of this House to go out and to hear what the agricultural community has to say." Instead, literally not even 24 hours later, the Minister of Agriculture is shot down by the Minister Responsible for Core Review, who stated in this House publicly that he did not have an axe to grind when clearly, the e-mails show that that's not the case.

I think that in order to restore confidence in the process, to give the public an understanding of exactly what's taking place, it's important that a committee be established. We are saying the Finance Committee, because, again, as we saw earlier, the Minister for Core Review stated that the Finance Committee would be the place to hear issues and concerns around this particular piece of legislation.

The fact is that's not the committee's mandate and never was the committee's mandate. People could go and speak to it, but the committee had no real mandate. In fact, it stuck to its mandate, which was the right thing to do, and that's a credit to the Chair of the committee for doing that. That is that we were there to deal with the finances and the budget process.

In reality, what the Minister for Core Review should have understood…. This is the interesting point. Clearly, he recognized the value of a committee to get and gather public information when he told individuals who wanted to talk about this issue that they should go to the Finance Committee to do that. It was fine for him last summer, but now it's like: "Well, no, no, no."

The committee didn't get the opportunity to do what he wanted, but what we do have is an opportunity to do it properly, to actually construct, to charge a committee of this House to go out and hear the issues around Bill 24. We have plenty of time to do that. We could do it over the summer, and we are going to be coming back in the fall. The Premier herself has made that clear.

We'll be back for at least six weeks, is my understanding, this fall, which I think is something that all of us in this House are looking forward to. I know I certainly am. I know my colleague from Surrey-Whalley is. I see the minister from Comox chuckling away. I fully expect that he will be looking forward to it.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: He says he will be here. I know that on this side of the House we will have a lot of questions for that minister about issues that we have raised in this House this past session. We'll be looking to see during the ensuing months that the House is not sitting whether consultation has taken place on a number of those issues and whether or not the minister, in fact, will be back in this House prepared to share the results of those consultations, hopefully having undertaken some positive initiatives to make some important changes on those issues that we have been asking him about over the last number of months.

But I digress.

Deputy Speaker: Yes.

M. Farnworth: I digress, and I want to bring it back to the key point, which is the issue of the committee. I point to the minister because it is an example of…. Look, we are dealing with important public policy issues. They don't all have to be dealt with immediately, right now. We have a legislative calendar in place.

[1615]

We have a break over the summer that affords the opportunities for MLAs to get back out into their constituencies, their ridings and their regions of the province. At the same time it allows committees to go and do their work. We're going to have the Finance Committee in the fall. It will be out touring the province on dealing with financial matters and the upcoming budget for next fiscal year. At the same time there's nothing to stop it from being charged to also go and listen to agricultural issues around Bill 24.

But if the government would like…. I am quite sure that this side of the House — the independents, as well — would be more than willing to entertain an amendment or a change in tack that says: "Look, we think the Finance Committee is going to be really busy this fall. To say to them that they really should deal with Bill 24 is not something that we think is fair to that committee."

We wouldn't have a problem with that at all. We would not have a problem. We would be quite happy if the government felt that the solution was to constitute the Standing Committee on Agriculture and have them go out and listen to the public. But we've heard no such thing from the government side. We've heard no interest in that from the government members.

I really do find it hard to imagine that there are not voices on the government back bench who are saying to the government: "What's wrong with going out and hearing what people have to say? What's wrong with going out and talking with people?"

I hear the Premier say…. I remember the Premier once said why we didn't sit so much last time, last year.
[ Page 4336 ]
Remember, it was almost 200 days that we didn't sit in this place. And the Premier was going: "You know, we don't need to be in Victoria. We should be out talkin' with people." She likes to drop the "g" when she talks sometimes, I've noticed. "We should be talkin' with people. You know, that's what we've got to do. You know, we should be talkin' with people." The Premier likes to say that.

You know what? I have to agree with her, particularly on important public policy issues. That's what we should be doing this summer on this break. The committee should be out talking with people. I see that the Minister of Education is deep in thought. I will be grammatically correct and use the term "talking" with the "g," as opposed to "talkin'" and "you know."

But there is a unique opportunity, and I'm sure that the Minister of Education would understand the value of consulting with people in communities, just as the Premier said last year that that's what was important.

Hon. Speaker, I see that my time is coming to an end. I would like to thank you for being present for both of my speeches, if you like…

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. He arranged his schedule to do it. I appreciate that.

…and to say: "Look, it is not too late, hon. Members on the government side. It is not too late to seize the moment. Seize the opportunity. Show your constituents the real reason why you're here, which is to do good public policy based on sound input from the people impacted and affected by the legislation that you are proposing to put in place."

There is no need for Bill 24 to pass today or tomorrow. There is nothing wrong with stepping back and, as W.A.C. Bennett once said, taking a famous second look. Take a second look. You do that by striking the committee to go out and talk with individuals, talk with communities across the province and come back and then tell ministers, who have driven this piece of legislation solely on the basis of ideology, without a real consultation process: "Guess what. It's not on. We're going to make some changes."

If you would do that, you would do more to restore confidence in your own government, confidence in the work that you do as individual MLAs, than anything else you could do.

With that, I will take my seat and say thank you.

B. Ralston: It's my pleasure to follow the member for Port Coquitlam. I will continue somewhat in the same vein but perhaps at a lower amplitude.

[1620]

We are speaking to an amendment. I think it's important, just to focus the debate, that I read the amendment. The amendment that we're speaking to is "that Bill 24 not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further, that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

I have been in this place for a while now, elected a couple of times, and it is notable that important pieces of legislation where there are significant issues at stake, where there are a number of important stakeholders, often take a long period of time to come through the legislative process. There is widespread consultation on many bills.

I can think, for example, of the Insurance Act. An allegedly pro-business government took seven or eight years to bring about changes to the Insurance Act. There was a white paper. There was a consultation process. There was draft legislation. It wasn't brought forward beyond introduction. It went back. Ultimately, there was a debate. The bill was passed, and then there was further consultation on the regulations.

Admittedly, the Insurance Act, as an important piece of legislation, regulates the operation of private insurance companies in the province. There was an effort to be consistent with the act in Alberta and to modernize the act. Indeed, there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that pointed to some of the very legislative problems in the old act, because it had been originally passed in 1926.

Consultation to make legislation better, to have it achieve the goals that citizens would wish for it, is really almost mandatory for important pieces of legislation. One can even see where some minor legislation will go off the rails if it's not thought through carefully.

I can think of other examples where consultation on important legislation took a very lengthy period of time similar to the Insurance Act — the Water Act. We just, earlier in this session, debated the Water Act, but the Water Act had been pointed out at least ten or 15 years ago as an area where legislative change was important.

There was a committee that was struck to deal with the Water Act. There was, indeed, a parliamentary secretary responsible specifically for that, and there were drafts of legislation, widespread consultation, particularly with the water districts in the Okanagan, environmental groups. An important public policy issue produced a really thorough bill. I think, for the most part, both sides agreed on that bill. That was the effect, the result of very effective consultation.

Clearly, there's nothing urgent about this bill. There's nothing urgent in legislative terms, in policy terms. There's no compelling reason to push this legislation through.

Now, we've seen from some of the e-mail that's been released and been reported publicly that there may be a compelling political motive by the member for Kootenay East to push this piece of legislation forward. He has
[ Page 4337 ]
some cronies in Kootenay East, in his riding, that he appears determined to satisfy. The former Agriculture Minister spoke about doing something for…. I just want to get that correctly: "Here is an opportunity to actually muster up some support for our team."

Now, these are not the reasons for pushing legislation forward. These are compelling reasons to refer this piece of legislation to a committee and have the committee consider it. An important part of the amendment is also to empower the committee "to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

There is a formal charging of the committee with its responsibility to invite witnesses to appear. There would be a record of those deliberations. There would be an opportunity to question witnesses.

[1625]

In our committee process here, that opportunity doesn't arise very often. It's very common…. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, from your time assisting the Speaker in another capacity in Ottawa, the committee system for legislation in Ottawa is very different. In fact, there's an opportunity when bills come forward for the parliamentary committees to call witnesses forward, to have them comment on the legislation.

Often the result is perhaps not so much laterally, because it's a much more highly charged partisan environment…. Even then there is the opportunity to change and alter legislation to make it more effective, to serve the public purpose better and not to rush things through at the simple political behest of one or two powerful voices in a caucus where they perhaps outshouted or have overridden other members of their own caucus.

This committee is a particularly important one, the Finance and Government Services Committee. I served on that committee for seven consecutive years. Its job is to receive public input, to meet with people, to hear their concerns, and a record is kept of that. The government, I think, would agree that one of the ways in which the government is able to receive new ideas, to alter its legislative direction, to measure public opinion, to gauge public outcry or displeasure on certain issues is through that very committee.

I think it's a very wise choice in the amendment to send it to that specific committee. Indeed, ideas that come forward from that committee often bubble up to the top in terms of legislative priorities for future governments. I've seen that take place over that time. Often deputy ministers will take the results of the consultation and analyze that, report to their ministers, and new political priorities are set. This committee is, potentially, a very effective way of dealing with this piece of legislation.

There is no urgency. In fact, all the urgency is the other way, when one considers the renewed priority on food security and the contribution of agriculture to food security. When we look outside our province, and it's important not to be parochial on these issues, roughly 50 percent of the food consumed in British Columbia is imported from somewhere else. Historically it has often come from California.

California is in the third year of a very advanced and debilitating drought with consequent fires and all the concerns that that bring about permanent climate change to the state of California. The Imperial Valley and parts of intensely farmed areas like that are important for the production of food that often comes to British Columbia by truck.

There's no urgency to push this piece of legislation through, if one is thinking about the broader context. In fact, I think there's an obligation to consult more widely and understand the implications of what is being done.

Now, there was an effort. The member for Kootenay East, in charge of the core review, did direct some people, in a news release, to the committee last fall. There was a news release of September 24, 2013: "The public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services budget consultations." That was in the release.

This was not communicated or known, oddly enough, to the Chair of that committee, the member for Penticton. The Chair of that committee, the former mayor of Penticton, didn't know that the minister, to whom he was the parliamentary secretary, had directed people to his committee to give input on the core review — colossal, I would say, mismanagement and, at the very least, miscommunication, crossed wires, however you want to characterize it.

[1630]

But I think there was a recognition in that gesture, however ineffectual it was. As someone who has been in this place will know, when a committee is created, the Legislature charges it with a series of instructions, and that constitutes the jurisdiction of the committee. So a committee can't go out and just do anything on its own. It has to adhere to the directions that it's given by the Legislature.

For the Minister for Core Review to offhandedly say, "Well, I want this committee to look at this as well," really flies in the face of the parliamentary authority of the committee and completely misunderstands what the obligation of the committee was. They couldn't consider it because they didn't have the jurisdiction for it, because ultimately the Legislature is responsible for setting out the terms of reference for the committee. So a complete misfire.

In that gesture there was a recognition that consultation was required. But it couldn't take place there. In fact, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who spoke on this issue earlier, was the vice-Chair of that committee and still is the vice-Chair. She told me, phoned me up when this issue arose before the committee: "How can we be doing consultation when the Chair of the committee doesn't even know and it's not in our terms of reference?"
[ Page 4338 ]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That opportunity to consult, I think was, in a very muted way, recognized but wasn't carried out at all. No remedial measures were taken after that. There were other ways in which that consultation could have been accommodated, but we now know, from some of the e-mail that's been released, that there was another underground, subterranean agenda going on.

While ostensibly, on the surface, there was a professed desire to consult, which was frustrated through some bureaucratic ineptitude or political mismanagement, in fact the real agenda, the fast-flowing underground stream, was to take a real whack at the Agricultural Land Commission and open up agricultural land for development purposes.

We heard, indeed, the Minister of Agriculture in question period earlier today say — and I think this is something that certainly wasn't a widely expressed view, probably not known as the view of the Minister of Agriculture — that there would be nothing wrong with taking agricultural land and having the right to park a few trucks on it if that was needed to help an individual farmer, so never mind zoning, that somehow the commission and its duty to provincial obligation, the provincial interest to preserve agricultural land, stood in the way of that. Part of the effort here, apparently, is to make initiatives like that easier to take place.

There does need to be consultation, and this committee is the perfect vehicle to do it. Calling witnesses and keeping a record is also important, because sometimes one hears in consultation, while we talk to people….

I've been to some public processes where one can go into a room to talk about a project. I think most recently it was the B.C. Hydro long-term acquisition plan. You go into a room. There are a number of storyboards on the wall. You're invited to speak individually with staff.

But there's no opportunity to have a group discussion or a collective discussion, and there's no record kept of your actual words. There are, perhaps, some notes taken, interpreted by the staff person, but not your actual words. Sometimes, if there's a predetermined conclusion in the consultation, then that way of doing things doesn't produce a fair result and a fair record.

[1635]

The suggestion, the words in this amendment, that "the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations" is a very important one, because those witnesses would be recorded in Hansard. There would be a record, and the committee, when it came to make its decision, could refer back. That's certainly the process that I am familiar with on the Finance and Government Services Committee, when we sit down to deliberate after our tour around the province.

Often we would go to 25, 30, 35 different individual locations throughout the province — very widespread — take all that input, look at the Hansard result, get a summary of it, have our own notes and then sit down and decide what we think are the priorities of that committee and what should be recommended to the government.

That process is a significant one, is an important one, and having spent those seven years on it, I well recognize its value. Therefore, that's why I think it would be an important step to take.

There are people who are professionals in the process of consultation who help companies — not just public processes but individual companies. I was reading an article in something called the Douglas, which is a business magazine that's circulated here in the lower Island, and there was an article there about the art of community consultation.

One of the things that this article talks about is how for public projects — they gave an example of some development projects — it's important to set goals for the process and how important it is to…. I'll read from here: "In order to have an effective consultation," it says, "do not enter into community consultation with a set-in-stone plan, or your stakeholders will feel you are wasting their time and discounting their opinions."

Clearly, the idea from the Minister of Agriculture…. He said that he's not going to consult before the legislation is done here in this place. I expect his goal is to have the legislation passed — although one would be optimistic that there might be some internal discussion in the Liberal caucus and that that wouldn't come to pass. But what he seems to think is that there should be consultation after the legislation passes.

Now, you talk about: don't enter a community consultation with a set-in-stone plan. That would seem to be the very opposite of what's recommended by these experts in community consultation — pass the legislation, which will change section 4 and section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act completely, and then you will go out and consult. The time to consult is not after the legislation is passed; the time to consult is now, before the legislation passes.

For government members and for those in the public, this amendment, if it were to pass, wouldn't kill the bill. It would simply send it off to the committee, where the committee would engage in its consultations and then, presumably, report back to the Legislature. Then whatever changes might be necessary and that they might recommend to the bill could be made, or the bill could be withdrawn and something else started over again.

This process is an important one, and it would seem that experts also say that the way in which the government is going about it thus far is not the preferred one. They also say — these people I'm talking about in community consultation…. I know the Minister of Agriculture said he's reading his e-mail.

What they say here — again, experts in community consultation — what they recommend is: "Do not let
[ Page 4339 ]
surveys and social media replace in-person communication." That seems to me exactly what the Minister of Agriculture has publicly admitted that he's doing. He's reading e-mail and monitoring some social media, and that is strongly not recommended by these experts in community consultation.

[1640]

The steps that need to be taken are fairly clear. This matter should be referred to this committee, and the committee could undertake those processes.

Now, the further dimension that I think is important here is that one of the…. I suppose in a democracy the ultimate consultation is the election. On this issue, typically, parties put forward their platforms, and the public is invited to comment and choose. That, presumably, in some cases, in many cases, factors into the decision that people make about the election.

As some on this side have pointed out, Country Life in B.C., a well-known newspaper that covers and has been covering agricultural issues in the province for many years — I think it's almost or over 100 years — prior to the election asked each party what their stance on the Agricultural Land Commission was.

The question that was put to the parties in the Country Life in B.C. May 2013 issue was this: "How will your party balance competing interests for agricultural land and water? Will it work with the Agricultural Land Commission to ensure agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not used for port, dam and transportation, industrial and residential development?"

That's a fairly direct question. We've had, I think, a partial response from the Minister of Agriculture today. He thinks that parking a few trucks on agricultural land is a legitimate role for the Agricultural Land Commission.

But the response from the Liberal Party there is: "Yes, we will maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC. We will spend more money to support the Agricultural Land Commission for increased oversight of the agricultural land reserve." And "We will work more closely with farmers, ranchers and organizers to preserve agricultural land and encourage farming."

There are some other things that are dealt with here, but in that consultation, clearly, what was communicated, what was said, was that the B.C. Liberal Party had no intention of bringing this type of legislation forward — none whatsoever.

Given that, I think it important, then, that before this legislation is considered finally here in this House, a genuine consultation take place to go out and have some explanation and some input from people on why these noble objectives — these very definite responses in writing here in Country Life in B.C., the position of the B.C. Liberal Party before the election — are not being followed, why those promises are being broken and why there's a need to change direction on this particular part of the government's platform at this time, as opposed to later.

The shift that's…. The consultation is further required because, in fact, the change in the legislation that's proposed here is a fairly momentous one. It is a big deal. I'm going to quote from a letter from a number of soil scientists. I won't list all their names, but it's an open letter to the Premier on serious concerns regarding Bill 24. Let me quote from the letter here, because I want to elaborate a little bit more by some reference to the statute itself.

"Bill 24 divides the province into two regions and removes the primacy of agriculture within zone 2 — the Interior, Kootenay and north panel regions. Bill 24 places economic, cultural and social values" — that's section 4.3(b) — "on an equal footing — i.e., 'must consider' — with agricultural considerations in zone 2. This is a fundamental shift from the original intent of the ALR." They have the words "fundamental shift" underlined.

Essentially, Bill 24 would restore the situation provincewide to prior to 1972 "when the annual loss of agricultural lands was ten times the loss we have experienced post-ALR. We question whether this is sound policy and direction in a province with a very limited land base capable of food production."

[1645]

What I think the committee in its consultation would want to do is to look at the change, as they've said, that this section…. This is in the amendment act that we're speaking to the amendment on.

What the current section 6 says is that the purposes of the commission are: "(a) to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies."

What this amendment does is…. It says it directs to the tribunals that would be considering, in particular, applications to exclude land from the agricultural land reserve. It says: "When exercising a power under this Act in relation to land located in Zone 2, the commission must consider all of the following: (a) the purposes of the commission set out in section 6…." Those are the strictly agricultural purposes that exist in the act right now. But then this amendment would add "(b) economic, cultural and social values," second.

Rather than considering agriculture in an expanded sense as the primary purpose and the only purpose of interpretation, the panel would be entitled to consider economic, cultural and social values and "(c) regional and community planning objectives."

If, for example, we had…. Back a number of years ago in Abbotsford, around the Abbotsford Airport, there was some land in the agricultural land reserve. The local community plan had ideas that it should be industrial land, notwithstanding its agricultural capability and the
[ Page 4340 ]
fact that it was in the ALR. This revision, this proposed amendment, would make that kind of consideration for exclusion that much easier because it would meet with, presumably, regional and community planning objectives and not agricultural values, but that would still be legitimate.

The other proposed amendment which I think this committee in its consultation would want to consider very carefully — I don't think it has been given any attention in this debate or any particular attention — is that "the commission must" — and the word is "must" — "consider all of the following." In addition to the first three, there's "(d) other prescribed considerations."

Now, that is very vague. What that means is that by regulation, the cabinet…. The member for Kootenay East in cabinet, if he was able to persuade his cabinet colleagues of a regulation, could make that a mandatory consideration by the commission in considering an exclusion application. This is basically an open-ended invitation to the cabinet to impose its own criteria on the reasons for excluding land from the agricultural land reserve.

I would say it's relatively…. It's unprecedented in the entire history of the Agricultural Land Commission from its inception to the present day. This is why, despite all the protestations of the minister that everything is normal and he's committed to preserving agricultural land, this is — I suppose the metaphor would be — the legislative option through which one could drive many trucks. One could build a subdivision on agricultural land based on this simple subamendment alone.

The process of a community consultation that's mandated by this amendment is, I think, vital for the long-term future of agricultural land in the province and for public awareness. I think it's a wise policy choice at this particular time.

I would urge on those members in the government caucus, where louder voices are prevailing, to speak up and to consider the future of agricultural land in the way that this amendment proposes.

[1650]

N. Simons: It's my duty and partially a pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of my constituents — actually, that part is a pleasure. The part that's a little bit less easy to take is the fact that we're still debating this bill which should have been withdrawn a long time ago.

However, this opportunity to speak on the motion to refer this bill to committee prior to letting it pass… I think it is eminently reasonable, appropriate and cautious in the nature of the type of politics that we should be working under in this House. Unfortunately, it's not the cautious approach that we have here; it's the steamroller approach. When you have a steamroller on agricultural land, you've got, usually, some bad results.

In this particular case, the need to refer this bill to committee is reflected in the concern of thousands and thousands of British Columbians who have expressed their concern to us, some through form letters, some through e-mails, some through direct letters. We've had petitions from different organizations. We've seen rallies. We've seen a significant amount of concern about this legislation.

For that reason alone, one would think that the government would have the interest of the community in mind and recognize that legislation shouldn't be passed without consultation with the public. Unfortunately, this is a pattern that we've seen with this government. This is probably the most egregious example of that.

In fact, what we're talking about referring to committee was something that the government promised they wouldn't do before the election. Before the election — we have ample evidence to inform anyone — the government was actually intending to strengthen our protections of agricultural land and, in fact, to adhere to the recommendations of the Auditor General and of the commission itself to put in place some changes that would adequately deal with some of the concerns that have been raised.

I would just point out that the legislation should never have been conceived. It should never have been drafted. It shouldn't have been tabled here, and I certainly hope that it doesn't pass. My wagering self would not necessarily be interested in partaking in that. But I would say that if there were six people or a few people on that side who recognize that their constituents will have a long memory — and, I hope, not as forgiving as in the last election…. I think, perhaps, the concern of members opposite should be acute.

This is not a piece of legislation that will simply pass and fade into the memory of legislators and the public. It's going to be a piece of legislation that we're reminded of on a daily basis and every time we hear about the loss of agricultural production in California, every time we hear about the challenges facing the farmers in the southern United States or in Mexico.

When we hear of the extreme climate conditions in many of the food growing regions of this country and of the world, we will probably be a little chagrined. We should have probably thought about that. We should have probably done more than thought about that. We should probably be doing something in order to ensure that our future generations of British Columbians and Canadians will have not just adequate access to food but adequate access to the places where we grow that food. This is the kind of thing, when it's not considered by government, that causes me as a legislator a significant amount of concern.

The Sunshine Coast has a fair amount of agricultural land, and it's used well. I certainly do hope that we all strive for finding some self-sufficiency in our food production. We look for it in energy. We seem to think that
[ Page 4341 ]
we can count on a continued full supply of food from foreign jurisdictions. The drought in California right now is not severe, not extreme; it's extraordinary. It's beyond the extreme level of drought, and because of that, it should cause us to think twice before we do something as reckless as remove any of the protection we have over agricultural land.

[1655]

It's not just that we were promised the opposite of this. It's not just that the government made no attempt to inform the public that they were going to weaken the protections we have for agricultural land. It's that they're doing the exact opposite, without a mandate to do so. I don't think being elected lets you become a dictator and make up rules and change the fundamental character of our province without having said something about it in an election.

If in fact the government had confidence prior to the election to say that they were planning to weaken our protection of agricultural land, I don't think they would have had the result that they did in this last election. I would just say that in the next election, we're not going to just rely on people to remember for themselves. We will ensure that we remind folks that in this dark day of British Columbia history, we are doing something…. We're going backwards.

They laugh on the other side, and it's fun to see them smiling, because they haven't got a lot to laugh about today, considering the embarrassing behaviour of their colleagues. But I do think that they should recognize that 40 years ago it wasn't because of the sacrosanct nature of the legislation. It was because of the quality nature of that legislation. We brought in legislation 40 years ago by people with foresight, people with thought to the future. They said: "We'll need to protect land for future generations. We're losing it at 6,000 hectares a year. We've got to do something about that."

Everybody realized it at the time. Everybody in the '70s realized we were losing a massive amount of farmland at a rate that was not sustainable in order to protect the valuable and rare asset that we have here.

For those who understand soil science, and I'm not an expert, we only have about 0.6 percent of land in British Columbia that's class 1 land. You think about classes 1 to 3, and you can grow a variety of crops. We have a desperate need to ensure that we protect that land, because if it's gone, it's going to be gone forever.

We cannot compromise when it comes to protecting our land. There are a few things that we shouldn't compromise on, and I think agricultural land representing 5 percent of the province should be protected.

The water supply that we have, the drinking water…. We need to protect our drinking water. This is the lifeblood of human existence, and without those protections, we are certainly causing ourselves potential challenges in the future.

I'd like to point out how every time someone has a new grandchild — and it's a beautiful, wondrous thing — people stand up in this House and announce it to it everyone. We clap, and we think about cute babies and how wonderful it is. I think a little bit further, and I say: "Okay. Those kids are going to have grandchildren one day, and maybe they'll be standing in this House. What will those grandchildren's challenges be?"

I think one of the challenges will be the adaptation to the climate change that we are beginning to experience and will continue to experience. The previous Minister of Agriculture was not a firm believer in climate change. I hope the opposite side of this House has come along a little bit and recognizes that climate change is something that we have to acknowledge and have to adapt to.

I look at it from a hopeful perspective. If we take the necessary steps to strengthen ourselves against what may or may not be coming but is likely to come, and that means serious climactic events that will have an impact on our ability to produce food…. If we're doing the right thing, we're preparing our future generations.

I think about two generations from now, that they'll look back and wonder…. It's not like we're asking for government to become progressive. No one is saying that the government should be proactive in ensuring that we protect more and more agricultural land or make it even stronger. We're not even arguing that today.

What we're saying is, at the very least, leave it as the status quo, because what's being planned is already a problem. What's being planned is going to allow for land speculators to think: "Maybe the next government is going to reduce these protections a little bit more."

Now that this government, through their ill-conceived plans and their scheming before the election…. Maybe they'll be able to get to another pre-elected government and say: "These two zones — they don't really reflect British Columbia as growing capabilities. Maybe there should be five zones or six zones." We're going to be into this situation where nobody will know what the other zones are doing.

[1700]

We need to protect agricultural land as a province from a provincial perspective. I think that's the fundamental weakness of this legislation, that in fact what we're doing is saying that some land of good agricultural quality is more important than other land of good quality. I have to beg to differ. I think the arguments that the government has used to create this legislation are misinformed. I think it was pushed through with a boorish kind of aggressiveness that probably convinced some of the newer members of the government caucus to acquiesce.

In fact, this is really the single-minded goal of a minister who had a bad run-in with the Agricultural Land Commission or who has constituents who have a habit of complaining to him about decisions that don't go in their favour. But the reality is that most applications for
[ Page 4342 ]
exclusion or non-farm use do get approved, so the false arguments that the government uses to justify this legislation, I think, are a problem.

I don't think it's fair to the people of the province to be given arguments, straw man arguments — straw person arguments, I suppose, in the parlance of the day — to use to convince people of new legislation like this. For example, when we had members from the very few….

I point out that we've debated this for ten days. This is our tenth day debating the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, and we've had exactly nine members of the government caucus speak on this bill. There are 40-something of them, and there are 30-something of us. We've all spoken at least once. We've all spoken at least for half an hour, trying to convince the government of the error of their ways. The best they could do was stand up, nine or ten of them, with straw man arguments and, obviously, message-box lines about how this is going to improve farming.

If this was a bill about farming, if this was a bill about agriculture, they would have probably talked to the Agriculture Council. They probably would have spoken to the Agricultural Land Commission. They probably would have spoken with stakeholders and food security experts and soil scientists and those who take an active and a conscious interest in how we protect our farmland and our ranchland and our land that's suitable for agriculture, but this is not a bill about agricultural land.

We need to ensure that by referring it to committee, we can certainly make sure that the intentions towards agriculture are addressed. That being said, a referral to a committee would allow the impacted stakeholders…. I would say that's the entire province of British Columbia, because we all eat. It would allow for the experienced folks in the sector to have their say.

I don't understand. If we were pulling a fast one, this is how you'd do it. The recipe to pass a bad law, I think, has just been written by the joy of legislation over here. The recipe included: create a false problem, create overreaction, create hysteria and anger towards an organization or a commission, and then recognize that people's responses are just what to be expected. If they think something is really bad, or if the government actually manages to do what they did and gut the commission's funding, sure, they're going to have problems.

But this is the fundamental problem — that the law that's being debated here today is simply an attempt to allow for the minister responsible, the Minister for Core Review, to get his way.

He's had this anger on about the Agricultural Land Commission for a long time. He claims he doesn't, but there are a lot of things he claims that don't really reflect what he's previously said, so I think we have to figure out what position he's going to land on today. He claims to be supportive of the protection of agricultural land, yet he's proposing legislation that has been watered down twice and is still egregious, in my opinion.

[1705]

One would have thought that prior to tabling legislation, the government would have done the consultation instead of waiting for a referral motion to bring it to a committee to study. It should have been studied before. Anyone who understands the basic elements of politics, who understands the importance of democracy and of debate, would say that when you bring in legislation, it should be based on something that's requested from the public, generally accepted by the public, will benefit the public for today and for the future.

But the legislation before us today does none of that. It does none of that. The impacts of this legislation we know will be very negative, but we still don't know the full impact. That's why a committee to study the effects and the impacts of this legislation is essential, in my view.

I'm just going to read from some prepared notes to ensure that I cover some of the topics that I wanted to. Half an hour goes by awfully quickly in this place, unless you're sitting listening. My apologies.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah, thank you. The Minister of Jobs is going to disagree with that. That's sweet. I expect nothing better. But maybe I do expect something better.

We've talked about when the Minister of Agriculture met up with the Minister Responsible for Core Review. They had a plan, and their plan was quite clear and quite simple. It was to denigrate the Agricultural Land Commission through a tour of the province and, subsequent to that, prepare a document that would cause….

Well, it has subsequently caused a lot of concern when it fell out of someone's briefcase and was picked up by a reporter. When the reporter picked up that little piece of paper, they realized the government wanted to throw the Agricultural Land Commission in with the Oil and Gas Commission. Well, that certainly did not go over well with the public.

So the bill went back and got a bit of a tune-up and came back into this Legislature at the end of March and was proudly put before the public by the Minister Responsible for Core Review — who, by the way, had nothing to do with it, really. He's just doing his job. He's just presenting it. Let's not pretend. We don't want to pretend that the minister from Kootenay East really had anything to do with it. He's just the Core Review Minister. The ministers come to him and tell them what they want, and he'll just say yes or no.

Well, it stretches the bounds of credibility to believe that that was the story. Factually, I mean, it's obvious to everybody in the province that the Minister Responsible for Core Review is the architect of this legislation. He obviously had accomplices. He obviously was given the means. He obviously was given the opportunity — very
[ Page 4343 ]
deliberately, in my view and in the view of any person who pays any attention to this, and against the majority of British Columbians' wishes.

I don't understand that. This is the way they do things. Sure, they've got three more years to make sure their poll numbers go back up, and they're going to hope like heck. They're going to let everybody forget about this and have something shiny so that we can all get distracted by it.

This is the kind of legislation that goes deep in the core of British Columbians, and if that's not understood, I think it will be. This legislation — some have compared it to Canada's health care system, something that's fundamental to the existence of Canadians. Agricultural land protection — far before its time in the '70s.

They said: "We need to protect land for future generations." We didn't say back in the '70s, when I was nine, that we were doing this for us in those days. The farmers were upset. There were a lot of people that were very, very upset about this legislation at the time. There were huge rallies on the lawn. Farmers threatened to not plant their crops.

But within a few years this…. The Agricultural Land Commission, the reserve — I mean, it's one of the most popular pieces of public policy in British Columbia. I think it has an approval rating of over 90 percent consistently over time. It took a brave government and it took a government like a dog with a bone. They were bent on doing this, come high water or the alternative.

I think that, clearly, they've hit the wall with this. This is what they want to do. They're going to do it. They're not going to think about anything else other than their single-minded desire to get this bill passed.

Every opportunity existed for this government to take a step back. Every opportunity was given to them, and they slapped every opportunity down. The minister who presented this bill in the House, the Minister of Forests, did so reluctantly, in my view.

It was put forward. It was tabled, and it was immediately met with outcry from the public. The media clearly spoke about the concern of the public, and the government went and wrote some amendments, hoping to put lipstick on a pig. Well, the lipstick has run, and I think that the pig isn't even any happier now than he was before.

[1710]

We have so many letters from so many different sectors that it's hard to know where to start with opposition to this bill. The government will say: "Oh, the Agriculture Council has come around." If you tell somebody that you're not going to change your mind whatever and, "You can either join us to do the regulations later or not," what are they supposed to say?

This is a government that's got the sector's arm behind its back. These are agriculture industries that do rely, in some respect, on government policy, and there's not a great appetite to upset the people that could cause you a heck of a lot of problems. But let's be clear. Let's be absolutely clear. The Agriculture Council would prefer that this bill was withdrawn. There's no doubt about that. Any suggestion to the contrary would be misleading this House.

The consultation on regulations after this bill is passed is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the agriculture sector, and that's just talking about the agriculture sector.

What about British Columbians who buy their food at local farmers markets or who have family who ranch in the north — people who have been denigrated by this government through their arguments about the poor quality of land in the north and the unviability of ranching in the north and the economy of decline, as it's been referred to? Ranchers belong in a sector that is in decline, and they're not going to manage an economy of decline.

This government doesn't want to talk about things that aren't going to make them a quick buck now, because a quick buck now certainly trumps long-term economic and social interests, not to mention the agriculture interests of future generations — ill-conceived, based on false arguments.

I was mentioning the tour that the minister went on with the new Agriculture Minister. He took him under his wing, and they went around the province, and they talked to farmers. They picked farmers and ranchers who had particular concerns with the Agricultural Land Commission but actually gave no examples of where the commission has caused any problems.

There's a myth out there about dissatisfaction with decisions from the Agricultural Land Commission that the government likes to spread. But this is from ministers who have been caught and given a slap on the wrist for trying to interfere with an independent commission. So question the source when you hear complaints about the Agricultural Land Commission and the need for legislation to change their mandate.

Their mandate, by this legislation, is changing. Their mandate is changing. The protection of agricultural land that was paramount in the previous legislation has been watered down. It has been diluted. There's no question about that. And if not, then why is the government so insistent that this is going to somehow help farmers? This is the joke in it.

How can they, with a straight face, think that this legislation that they've passed — behind the backs of farmers, without consultation with the public and with as little opportunity for public input as possible — is going to be good for farmers? If that were the case, you'd think they'd put it out on their clothesline for everyone to see, but I don't think they're doing that. They're shoving it in the basement, and they want this to go by as quickly as possible.

That's probably why they're not debating. That's probably why members from the government side are not standing up to talk about it. They want it to go by as
[ Page 4344 ]
quickly as possible, and we on the opposition side are trying to drag it out as long as possible so that they don't forget. We don't want them to forget.

Bill 24 was bad when it was conceived, it was bad when it was tabled, and it'll be bad if it gets passed. I certainly hope it doesn't get passed, and I don't think I'm alone in that. In fact, judging from the response from the public, I am absolutely certainly not alone.

Let me just read a few examples of how the illegitimate argument may or may not have helped the government. We asked, by the way, through freedom of information, for documents relating to discussions around the core review, whether it's related to agriculture. I think we got three pages, blanked out. I mean, that's the extent of the consultation that went on with respect to agriculture and the core review.

[1715]

Let me quote from some people who, I think, even some of the members opposite would consider important and valid or valuable in terms of their opinion. A news release from the Pacific Regional Society of Soil Science. Now, not everybody in their day-to-day life comes into contact with the soil scientists group. It's a group of people who are highly concerned about ensuring that we know as much as we can about the land and we know as much as we can about how we can grow food, where we can grow food and what we can do on different types of land. They're very, very concerned about Bill 24.

I'm sure they would appreciate an opportunity to provide testimony to a committee — the Finance and Government Services Committee, as our motion currently states. I think they would have a really…. It would probably enlighten a lot of the members opposite who have been relying on a couple of members in their caucus who have a single-minded dislike for the Agricultural Land Commission, as opposed to an open-minded, balanced view of what the commission has done.

Let me just quote from it. They had a recent convention, and they thought that it would be important that government realize that science-based decision-making should be used when determining issues around land and land use. Let me quote from this press release from April. It's entitled "Losing Ground: Soil Scientists Raise Concerns About The Potential Loss Of Agricultural Land."

"With the introduction of Bill 24 just two days prior to the…workshop, there were serious concerns expressed by several senior professionals that the splitting of the province into two zones, one of which would receive less protection than the other, and the breaking apart of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission into six regional panels, would take B.C. backwards."

For the record, the panels did exist already, but they were not mandatory. What this legislation is doing is requiring panels to be the decision-makers in the local areas, again taking away from the provincial oversight of the commission.

"'With Bill 24,'" it continues, "'we will not only lose ground in the literal sense but also in the public policy sense,' said Dr. Art Bomke, professor emeritus of the UBC faculty of land and food systems. 'The ALR was established because local and regional authorities could not be relied upon to protect our scarce and irreplaceable farmland from non-farm development. The six-panel system contained within Bill 24 potentially takes us right back to the 1973…that gave rise to the establishment of the ALR and the provincial land commission in the first place.'"

Now, I can tell by body language that there's not a lot of pickup on the government side, from this information. It could be the way I'm reading it. I should have read it with more of a lilt in my voice. I will again, if…. The member can check in Hansard.

This is just one of the many, many press releases issued by experts in British Columbia — experts who the government is choosing to ignore, I think, at their own peril.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah, you know what? My good friend from Saanich South, who has been absolutely helpful and absolutely passionate in this debate, points out that she believes that the government believes they're the experts. We all know the danger of that. They aren't speaking on this bill, so they don't show their expertise. They'd rather plead the Fifth or whatever it is here. They don't want to say anything. Don't move….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah, wrong country. Well, we talked about the elements of the crime — mens rea and actus reus. This is exactly what it is — that the intent was there before this legislation passed. If the act happens today, we've got the complete elements necessary for a criminal act in this province. It behooves this government to look more closely at the legislation they're passing.

I think they are neglecting the people of British Columbia. They are doing a disservice to their grandchildren, who they proudly talk about in this House. I hope that their grandchildren one day will say: "What the heck were you thinking when you decided to reduce the protections we have on farmland? What kind of possible logic were you using?"

You can't make this stuff. There's five percent of it in the province. Protect what you've got; don't get rid of it. Don't build on agricultural land. It's as simple as that, and this government is going the opposite way.

Unfortunately, when the barn doors open, these people will come out and say, "There's no farm left," and I worry about that. I worry about that not just for me and my friends and their kids but for future generations that I don't even know.

[1720]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, we have a motion in front of us. The motion reads, for
[ Page 4345 ]
members' information: "That Bill (No. 24) not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Members, please take your seats to assist in the taking of the division.

[1725]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

Madame Speaker: Speaking on second reading, Surrey-Whalley. [Applause.]

B. Ralston: I thank my colleagues for the support. I hope my speech will merit that kind of support when I'm finished.

[1730]

It's my opportunity today to speak to second reading of the bill, the amendment having been voted upon and now disposed of, regrettably. Not a positive result, in my view, but we're back on second reading.

I want to address some of the main concerns that this bill gives rise to. What is clear in this bill is that it changes, in a very profound way, the operation of the land commission and, in particular, mandates its consideration of applications to exclude land from the agricultural land reserve.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, as it is now, reads as follows. "The following are the purposes of the commission: (a) to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies."

The mandate, the purpose of the commission, is to encourage agriculture in a broad sense within the province. That's its legislative obligation, and that is used as an interpretive guide when considering applications to exclude land from the reserve.

What the principal, the major, amendment in the bill does in so-called zone 2, which is all…. Zone 1 is the Island panel region, the Okanagan panel region and the south coast panel region. Zone 2 is everything else. What it does…. In proposed section 4.3 it says: "When exercising a power under this Act in relation to land located in Zone 2" — that is when exercising a power would be in considering, for example, the most obvious case, an exclusion application —"the commission must consider all of the following…."

This is a legislated mandate. These are instructions to the regional panel that would consider these applications to exclude. So rather than focus on the obligation to preserve agricultural land, to encourage farming and encourage local governments and other entities to promote agriculture, this amendment would require the commission to consider all of the following: "(a) the purposes of the commission set out in section 6." That's the existing section 6.

But it would add the following: "(b) economic, cultural and social values." There's no weighting as to economic, cultural or social. The commission is obliged to consider economic values. When coming forward for an application for exclusion, if economic values are considered — and presumably that's a code word, the way in which it would be interpreted — if excluding it would increase the value of the land, if excluding it to commit it to indus-
[ Page 4346 ]
trial purposes or to residential purposes would generate economic activity, that would be given equal weight with the agricultural purposes.

Thirdly: "(c) regional and community planning objectives." What was very clear in some documents that were leaked to the media back in November was that one of the dissatisfactions of the member for Kootenay East and the then Agriculture Minister was the role to which local governments felt that their concerns, their desires, their plans for land weren't being considered by the Agricultural Land Commission, that the Agricultural Land Commission, in pursuit of its overarching public interest duty to promote and preserve agricultural land within the province, wasn't listening to them or wasn't giving their opinions due weight.

This will give equal weight now to regional plans and local government plans. So if local government has planned, for what is now agricultural land, residential uses, industrial uses…. If that's in their plan, notwithstanding that it's in the agricultural land reserve, if an application for exclusion is brought, then the commission would be obliged to consider that and give it weight when considering the application for exclusion.

[1735]

It turns the legislative mandate and considerations of the commission upside down. It is a profound, profound change, and all the assurances that one gets from the Minister of Agriculture either suggest to me that he's willing to gloss over this or he doesn't fully understand it. But it's very clear that in changing this section, this brings about a major change in the way that exclusion applications will be considered. In fact, if this passes, in some jurisdictions in zone 2, the gold rush will be on. I mean, there will be a stampede to bring exclusion applications, to get land out of the reserve for these other purposes.

Finally, not only is there consideration of economic values, the plans of communities, no matter how contrary they are to an existing agricultural land…. The final consideration would be what's called: "(d) other prescribed considerations."

The legislation, not satisfied entirely with those considerations, gives the power to cabinet by regulation to say that the commission must consider this purpose, this consideration, in deciding whether or not to exclude land.

If these changes don't do the trick, if they don't unleash the avalanche of exclusion applications and successful exclusion applications that is anticipated and wanted…. We've seen the undercurrent in recent e-mails released. The member for Kootenay East — it's very clear what he desires for that. The minister will be able to prescribe considerations which will even further accelerate, so mandate to the commission what it should do by order-in-council — that is cabinet direction, rather than by legislative direction. That is a profound change to the legislation and to the entire direction of the land commission that's taken place over the last 40 years.

Indeed, in a letter to the Premier, a number of experienced soil scientists expressed this in this way.

"We have serious concerns over the substantial change in direction embodied in Bill 24, presented to the Legislature in March, 2014. For the past four decades preservation of agricultural lands has been a provincewide priority aimed at protecting existing farmlands and lands that have the potential for future agricultural use.

"Some of those future agricultural lands are now forested, and until such time as they are needed and developed for agriculture, they will contribute to wood and fibre production and thereby to the provincial economy.

"For such lands not currently farmed, the objective is to keep the option open for future agriculture. We consider this to be a prudent course of action in the face of an uncertain future."

By "uncertain future," they speak of climate change and the considerations that are taking place. One only has to read the newspapers and be familiar in a very passing and casual way with what's taking place in California. California, historically…. The Imperial Valley has provided, in the winter particularly, much of food that's trucked up to British Columbia. British Columbia only produces about 50 percent of the food that's consumed in the province. It's in the third year of a very advanced drought.

Is that a signal of long-term climate change? Many reputable, serious scientists with international reputations think so. They think these changes herald the beginning of significant climate change in North America.

That's the reason why this bill is so rash, so shortsighted and such a dramatic change that's completely unwarranted and unjustifiable by the current situation that we're in.

These climate scientists go on to say:

"This is a fundamental shift from the original intent of the ALR."

Essentially, Bill 24 would restore the situation provincewide to prior to 1972, when:

"The annual loss of agricultural lands was ten times the loss we have experienced post ALR. We question whether this is sound policy and direction in a province with a very limited land base capable of food production."

[1740]

They go on to talk about the ALR. But the approach that they talk about…. They say this:

"This approach indeed has proven to keep future options available. For example, if the poor economic performance of tree fruit production in the Okanagan Valley of the 1970s had taken precedence over the inherent capability of many Okanagan Valley soils to produce both tree fruits and grapes, and had such lands not been protected in the ALR, the vibrant wine and associated agritourism industry we have today would not have been possible or, at the very least, would have been much diminished."

What they are saying is that given an uncertain future, as they describe it, given the likelihood of climate change, taking a long-term view…. That example is, I think, a very powerful one. The option was there. Had some of that land in the Okanagan Valley not been protected in the agricultural land reserve, it wouldn't have been there as a possibility for what is now a very vibrant wine industry. It didn't exist before. There was some wine but certainly not of the quality….

The wine industry has taken off. Indeed, we hear from
[ Page 4347 ]
the government how they are off promoting it around the world, in China. We have Mr. Ben Stewart, a former minister here, off promoting B.C. wine in China. But the very land base that makes the growth of that industry possible, had it not been for a more farsighted and visionary use of the agricultural land reserve, might not have been available for the industry to grow in.

That's exactly what these soil scientists say. The vibrant wine industry and the associated agritourism business that we have today would not have been possible or, at the very least, would be much diminished.

That's the kind of thing we are attempting to consider here. That is why this bill and the changes it brings in section 4.3, where it will completely turn on its head the considerations that are required to be directed to exclusion applications, will lead to a rush of exclusion of land from zone 2.

These soil scientists also go on to say…. These are people who know, I would suggest, what they are talking about when it comes to soils and soil capability. They say:

"Bill 24 creates a two-tiered ALR, and a lower quality of agriculture lands and climate in zone 2 has been stated and assumed several times. However, these assertions are patently false when examined in the light of objective soil science data and agriculture capability ratings, ratings that incorporate a substantial body of climate data gathered during the Canada land inventory.

"In actual fact, there is far more class 1 to 4 land in zone 2 than in zone 1. About 85 percent, or two million hectares, in zone 2 versus only 15 percent, or 350,000 hectares, in zone 1 — Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, 1978."

Of course, lands of the same capability are not directly comparable.

"A class 3 soil in the Fraser Valley is different from a class 3 soil in the Peace. Capability based on the range of crops needs to be considered along with the suitability and productivity of individual crops on specific soils in specific local climates.

"Lower-capability soils can be highly productive for a particular crop. For example, a capability class 5 soil that is restricted to producing a forage crop — hay or silage — is often highly productive for that one narrow cropping option.

"It is for this reason that class 5 lands are included in the ALR, where they form the basis for some types of agriculture — important forage production lands in ranching areas and class 5 organic bog soils suited to the production of blueberries and cranberries.

"Similarly, some class 6 lands are important components of livestock production, notably the natural grasslands of the southern Interior. These provide the often limited early spring and fall grazing…reducing both the labour and feed costs of ranchers."

The argument that's made — we've heard this in some shorthand ways and some efforts to, I suppose, strike a more populist pose on these issues — is: "This land in zone 2 is lousy. It's not good for anything. Let's put some trucks on it." We heard the Minister of Agriculture say that today. "Let's park a few trucks on it."

[1745]

That approach really flies in the face of science and of evidence-based decision-making. It's very shortsighted and, I think, deleterious to the long-term economic health of the province because agriculture, as members opposite like to say from time to time, is an important industry and a growth industry here. The degree to which you remove future potential agricultural land, in an uncertain era, from production is the degree to which you're shortchanging yourself economically in the long run. That is a profound concern about this legislation.

I want to talk a little bit about the other motivation here in this legislation, because some of the e-mail that has surfaced has made very clear the animus of the member for Kootenay East and some members in the Liberal caucus towards the present leadership of the Agricultural Land Commission, Mr. Bullock, and the direction that he's taken.

But in 2002, when the B.C. Liberals first came to power, one of the things that they did was restructured — I use that term advisedly — the commission to strengthen regional representation. The Agricultural Land Commission was composed of six regional panels with three members each. The regional restructuring meant that decisions impacting a particular area would be made by commissioners residing in that location.

The change was intended to ensure that decision-makers understood local issues. Some expressed — and rightly so, as it turned out — concerns that local commissioners would be more prone to pressure from developers and outsiders. In fact, there are some very good examples of the degree to which that took place.

What has happened with Mr. Bullock…. When the now Minister of Forests was the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Bullock completed a report and also assumed direction as the chair and CEO of the Agricultural Land Commission. In his report he made very clear his concern about regional panels. He says in the chair summary of his report, which is dated November 26, 2010:

"Furthermore, the existing governance structure has given rise to six regional commissions, with little evidence that the panels maintain any provincial focus on the agricultural land preservation program. Moreover, there is very limited or no training and education provided to new commissioners…. New commissioners are required to start performing their duties without any meaningful awareness of their job, their roles as members of an administrative tribunal or the decision-making process."

He expresses that concern about regional representation. While in some simplistic readings it sounds, I suppose, congenial to have regional representatives who would reflect their communities and, presumably, be more knowledgable, the degree to which that knowledge is reflected in good decisions is really a matter for debate.

I want to give an example of that. There was a case which came before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The petitioners are Elvin Gowman and Anne Clayton, and the respondent was the provincial Agricultural Land Commission.

What the petitioners did was…. They owned property within the agricultural land reserve. An application was made for exclusion, by a company calmed Nodes Construction. Nodes Construction had property in the village of Pouce Coupe. They made an application to exclude from the ALR 15 acres in the southeastern portion
[ Page 4348 ]
of a larger 111-hectare parcel in order to consolidate their business into a single location.

There was a residential subdivision separated from the 15 acres that are the subject of the exclusion application by a public road known as 57A. John Kendrew was the commissioner who was a member of the regional panel.

I'm quoting from the decision: He is "the registered owner in fee simple, as a joint tenant with Patricia Dell Kendrew, of a property located immediately to the east of and adjacent to the 15 hectares that are the subject of the exclusion application. As an adjacent landowner, he received a copy of the notice and a copy of the exclusion application." Now, the petitioners didn't get a copy of the notice, but Mr. Kendrew did.

[1750]

The significant thing about Mr. Kendrew is that Mr. Kendrew was sitting on the…. He owns property adjacent to the exclusion application. He was served with a copy of the notice and a copy of the exclusion application prior to his participation in the resolution. He also sat on the Agricultural Land Commission panel that considered the very application.

The property is next to his property. He's served with a notice. His land is adjacent to the 15-hectare parcel for which the exclusion is sought. When this went to the B.C. Supreme Court, the judge pointed out that Commissioner Kendrew is not merely an individual who happens to own land in the ALR, in the vicinity of the applicant. He had to be served with the notice. He's that close. He's right adjacent to it.

Nonetheless, he was served with a notice. His property is right next to it. He sat on the decision to exclude the land. The judge said: "However, as stated above, I am of the opinion that Commissioner Kendrew should not have participated in the resolution, and accordingly, it would be inappropriate to leave it to the commission to determine whether a reconsideration of the original decision is appropriate."

There you have a member of the commission, property right next door to the exclusion application — still feels it's appropriate to sit on the very commission deciding the application, even though he has been served with a notice and his property is next door. Certainly, one could well understand that Commissioner Kendrew had a keen understanding of local conditions. In fact, he should have excluded himself. That's what the court said. He didn't. He thought that he would simply sit in on the decision and make a decision to exclude the piece of land from the agricultural land reserve.

That's part of the problem of local representation. That's a very graphic illustration of it. There are other examples. After 2005 I was the critic for Agriculture here in the Legislature. Some of the same problems that this example illustrates in terms of regional panels were ones that were…. There were other illustrations of that.

Post-2005 I think the appointment process changed. For example, in 2005 there was an appointment made to one of the regional panels — John Tomlinson. He was a friend of the Minister of Forests and Range, now the minister responsible for LNG.

He worked in that minister's 2001 election campaign and is the former B.C. Liberal Riding Association president for Fort Langley–Aldergrove, the same minister's riding. He donated over $12,500 to the B.C. Liberals together with his wife. He even starred in a B.C. Liberal election commercial as a business owner. He was certainly knowledgable about the local region but appointed to this regional panel with an abundance of political connections that far outweighed any apparent expertise he might have brought to considerations on agricultural land.

There were others who were appointed. There was an appointment of a Mr. Bill Jones. Bill Jones was an interesting appointment back then because at a public meeting…. There was a public meeting about exclusion of what are called the Garden City lands in Richmond from the ALR. That's a big piece of land, very close to the city centre, that has been not built on for many years and used to belong to the Department of National Defence. Mr. Jones went to a public meeting and expressed his view that this land should be excluded from the agricultural land reserve, and then, two days later, was appointed as a regional commissioner to the south coast panel.

[1755]

Now, that was something that was the subject of debate. When that became apparent, the minister of the day was obliged to rescind the appointment of Mr. Jones because even by the very loose standards then, his impartiality was clearly in question.

These illustrate some of the problems of the regional panels. I know, for example, that the member for Kootenay East has a very close relationship with a man named Carmen Purdy. Carmen Purdy was on a regional panel. When this legislation passes, and I want to make this clear, my prediction is that he will be appointed to a regional panel in the Kootenay region because of his connection with the member for Kootenay East.

Clearly, what's expressed here by Mr. Bullock is a concern about the effect of those regional panels and their efficacy in maintaining a provincial focus.

At this point, given that my time here is expiring, I do want to move an amendment to Bill 24. The amendment reads as follows:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 24) intituled Agricultural Land Commission (Amendment) Act be amended by deleting all the words following the word "that" and substituting therefore the following: "it is not in the best interests of agriculture, food producers, the public, nor those of future generations of British Columbians for the government to change the legislated protection that exists over land in the Agricultural Land Reserve without first determining the possible impacts of those changes to agriculture in our Province."]

I have a copy for the Clerk.

If I might, then, I'd like to continue speaking to that
[ Page 4349 ]
amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member. It's in order.

On the amendment.

B. Ralston: Speaking to the amendment, what the amendment speaks to is, again, the importance of a long-term consideration of what the impact of this legislation might be for agriculture, food producers, the public and future generations of British Columbians.

What Mr. Bullock spoke of in his review…. He did do what he called an environmental scan of the problems for agriculture and the challenges for agriculture in British Columbia. I want to briefly review that as we take what I suggest is a longer-term view that's required of agriculture and its challenges here in British Columbia.

In his report he spoke of the following concerns, and I will enumerate them and quote from his report in a loose way. He spoke of an environmental scan.

One of the first things that he was concerned with is the increasing growth pressures on agricultural land. Certainly, that is very much the issue that this amendment seeks to ask the Legislature and the House and members to consider in a more long-term way, rather than as a short-term fix to some of the immediate political objectives of the Premier and the member for Kootenay East.

There are "pressures to convert ALR land to residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, conservation and other community uses." There is the concern about the economics of farming, concern about access to water. That's a debate that we've had here in the Legislature not so long ago, in terms of passing a new water act. But in the irrigation districts in the Okanagan…. And as climate changes, irrigation in other parts of the province, particularly the north, will increasingly be an issue — and access to water.

The other challenges for agricultural land are unlawful use of agricultural land. It's been a problem since the inception of the ALR, but it's now manifesting itself to a far greater degree, which, if left unchecked, can result in the permanent alienation of good agricultural land.

[1800]

In fact, in the promises that were made by the B.C. Liberals in May 2013 in Country Life in B.C., they said: "In addition to the funding, we've also increased the number of provincial government officials authorized to investigate and respond to ALR violations to approximately 30 through coordinated multiministry enforcement."

So there's recognition there that at the existing level of exclusions and the existing level of staffing, there's enforcement that's required. So if this legislation were to pass, the pressures on enforcement would dramatically increase, I suggest, and be incapable of keeping up with the demand to resist alienation of agricultural land through unauthorized use.

By unauthorized use…. I don't think there's any magic. In my area of Surrey people would sometimes dump illegal fill, whether it's concrete blocks or construction waste or sawdust, onto agricultural land. If it's not checked and is left there, then, ultimately, there's more put on there. Then, ultimately, an application is made to exclude the land because, presumably because of the fill, it has diminished or no agricultural value. So it is also a back-door step towards ultimate exclusion from the ALR for other purposes.

One of the other things that Mr. Bullock mentions in his report is there's a renewed priority on food security and the contribution of agriculture. To the public, the issue of food security — certainly, among the younger generation — is a growing one. People are concerned about the quality of their food and its origins.

One only has to look…. I know that many members speak of the economic colossus that is China and the economic opportunities that exist there. But one of the real concerns among Chinese citizens, at a popular level, is adulterated food — food that has toxins in it, food that doesn't meet basic health standards. One of the selling points of B.C. produce in the China market is that it's organic. It's clean, it's pure, and it's eatable.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We don't have the same concerns here, luckily. Fortunately, because of our food inspection system and because of the quality of our produce and the way in which animals which are slaughtered here are raised, we don't have the same concerns. So the concern about food security and healthy food…. That's not just simply food that looks good to eat; it's food that genuinely doesn't have toxins and unhelpful matters in it. That is a real concern.

I think that contemporary views on food security are only going to increase in intensity as people, particularly in other parts of the world, consider that issue. Inevitably, that's an issue that people here are going to pay more attention to as well. Indeed, those steps are underway as well.

There are also a number of concerns with the impact of how the commission operates on the future viability of farmland in the province. But the short-term view that's being taken by the creation and re-empowering of regional panels and the complete reversing of the legislative option in considering exclusion applications will be dramatic.

The application process that Mr. Bullock speaks of in his report is something that is a deep concern to him and to the future operation of the Land Commission Act. What he says in his report — I can see, again, why this would provoke the kind of reaction from those who seek short-term exclusion for economic gain — is this.
[ Page 4350 ]
He says:

"Another observation is that the application process appears to be directly opposed to the objectives of the Agricultural Land Commission Act of preserving agricultural land and encouraging farming. Where an application is for exclusion, subdivision or non-farm use, the application process fosters and perpetuates speculation to the detriment of the ALR.

[1805]

"For example, the act provides the opportunity for an individual to purchase prime agricultural land today and apply to remove it from the ALR the next day. Land speculation remains high after nearly 40 years, and there is still a pervasive attitude among many that agricultural land is simply holding property until a 'higher or better' use is identified.

"In addition, an inordinate amount of resources are consumed in dealing with these proposals. Refocusing the legislation away from application towards long-term planning, ALR boundary reviews and the needs of bona fide farmers and ranchers would go a long way towards addressing the continued speculation to convert agricultural land for some other purposes."

He goes on to say:

"Following my review, I can confirm that the ALC is extremely challenged to meet its mandate. In my opinion…has done an admirable job despite financial constraints. After nearly 40 years I believe the ALR is looked upon as a solid foundation for the business of agriculture in B.C.

"Regrettably…the foundation has suffered erosion to the land base and loss of support from bona fide farmers and ranchers but, thankfully, not to the point that it is irreparable. Continued government support and adequate funding and resources will allow the ALC to meet its challenges."

He does express the concern about the Agricultural Land Commission. He does express concern about regional panels. And he does express the concern about exclusion applications. One can see that expressing those concerns in that way would inevitably — and, in fact, it has — have led him into direct conflict with those in the Liberal caucus whose priority is, as the former Minister of Agriculture said: "Here's an opportunity to actually muster up some support for our team."

By doing that, it's to up the ante and to make it easier to get land out of the ALR for other non-agricultural uses. That will serve to support and, as he says in his e-mail, "muster up some support for our team."

That seems to be the priority, and that's a very short-term priority. Now, admittedly, this was written before the election. Maybe the prospects of the election were uppermost in the mind of the former Minister of Agriculture at that point. But certainly, that speaks to the kind of political considerations that are motivating this bill, rather than what I submit should be the legitimate long-term concerns about the commission and its operation.

One can see that clash very directly in an exchange…. Perhaps I'll just introduce the letter. This is a letter from a woman named Noreen Thielen. She writes from the Charlesworth Ranch, Newgate B.C. She describes herself in this letter in the following way:

"I'm a long-term member and current director of Waldo Stockbreeders Association, an over-100-year-old agricultural organization representing farmers and ranchers in the southern part of East Kootenay Valley and Elk Valley. I'm a long-time member of the Kootenay Livestock Association, KLA; and B.C. Cattlemens Association, BCCA; a member of the regional district of East Kootenays agricultural advisory commission and the agricultural plan steering committee; and a tenacious agricultural advocate.

"A few years ago two of the current 'anti-Richard Bullock leadership of the ALC' members running the KLA were representatives on the AAC" — which is the Agricultural Advisory Committee. "As such, they were supposed to represent agriculture and agricultural interests and not developers.

"When there was an application to the ALC to use a key piece of our limited native bunchgrass Crown ALR land to move a houseboat operation and storage parking lot onto it and build a boat launch over our cattle's main and safest access to water on the north part of that range pasture, they claimed: 'There's nothing we can do about this.' This area also happened to be Class A ungulate winter range.

"This application to move this operation from part of Marcer Ranching's operation aided in the exclusion from the ALR and subsequent sale of the Marcer Ranching property for a residential development of hundreds of houses in a small townsite on Lake Koocanusa reservoir. This ALC decision is causing urban sprawl in the middle of nowhere, and we all know or should know that that increases community service costs and taxes.

[1810]

"The houseboat applicant assured us: 'All of our impact will be out on the water.' Since then everything has changed, and we have learned that his word is worth nothing. His houseboat business was not adequate for his aspirations. It has mushroomed into an illegal RV park, which he intends to expand further onto our limited native bunchgrass, open rangeland, an area that includes our cattle's last remaining access to water that is unoccupied by people on the northern half of that pasture."

So there's a very outspoken advocate, a longtime farmer, a rancher in the Kootenays.

In the e-mail that was released, the member for Kootenay East says the following: "I do not know who tried to send you to see Noreen Thielen, but as you discovered when meeting with the KLA, even second-generation ranchers completely committed to the ALR told you she has a very biased view of the world and does not represent the larger majority of ranchers in this region."

Clearly, the minister is fighting his own internal political battles in Kootenay East, and I think the fairly detailed comment that Ms. Theilen made and her long experience in ranching seem to be dismissed by the member for Kootenay East, I suppose largely because she doesn't agree with him.

That, I suppose, is a measure of the depth of the debate and the degree to which Mr. Bullock — she refers to the anti-Bullock faction — has polarized debate within the agricultural community. This legislation is designed to get even with Mr. Bullock, I would submit.

Mr. Bullock was commissioned to produce this report by the now Minister of Forests, who was the executive director of the Agriculture Council for many years. He comes from a family that has been involved in farming in the Okanagan for 100 years — very knowledgable about farming. I dealt with him before he went into politics. When I was the Agriculture critic, he was the executive director of the Agriculture Council. He was very reasonable and approachable to deal with and had what I judged to be a sincere and profound commitment to agriculture.
[ Page 4351 ]

He brought in Mr. Bullock. Mr. Bullock was installed in the Agricultural Land Commission. There is now an internal battle being waged by some in the Liberal caucus against Mr. Bullock. That's what these e-mails clearly and graphically chronicle — the internal battle that's being fought against Mr. Bullock inside the Liberal caucus. The result is that the Premier has apparently acquiesced and let this piece of legislation go forward.

It will have a very dramatic effect. I gave you some examples. I gave some examples of what the effect of the regional panels was back in post-2002, in the earlier part of the last decade. This will very much and very dramatically open the floodgates for exclusion applications. Is this a good thing? Is this something that is valuable to the province? Is this something that we want to countenance here?

The Agricultural Land Commission has been the subject of other studies. Certainly, the study by the Auditor General of the obligations of the Agricultural Land Commission made some suggestions about how the commission might be more effective. But certainly, Mr. Bullock's conclusion in his very lengthy report is that, generally, the commission has done a pretty good job, given that budget constraints limited its ability to do a number of things in a recent period.

But the volume of applications will dramatically increase. In fact, in his report Mr. Bullock spoke — and again, one can see why his leadership on these issues is being rejected — very clearly about the impact of these applications on the work of the commission. He says in his report, in analyzing the existing Agricultural Land Commission Act, section 30:

[1815]

"What the aforementioned sections regarding exclusion applications make clear is that anyone can apply to the ALC at any time regardless of the quality of the land. In the prior iterations of the section regarding exclusion applications, the focus was primarily on the evaluation of the agricultural merits of the land being in the ALR. However, the current version of the act moved away from this focus and now provides that a landowner can apply regardless of the agricultural quality of the land. In other words, the landowner purchasing prime agricultural land today may apply to remove the land from the ALR tomorrow. The same scenario also applies to subdivision and non-farm use applications."

There's no legislative barrier to exclusion applications coming forward. With the change in section 4.3, where the purposes of the commission in interpreting this section will include economic, cultural and social values; regional and community planning objectives; and other prescribed considerations, it will make it all that much easier, in the view of applicants who want land excluded, to find what they would regard as a favourable decision.

It's clear that the way the commission operates, these applications consume a tremendous amount of the resources of the commission. I'm going to quote again from Mr. Bullock's report.

"It's also apparent that applications consume an enormous amount of ALC resources, as it receives between 500 and 700 new applications annually. The work of the ALC has migrated to being application-driven at the expense of more meaningful activities, such as long-range planning, ALR boundary assessments and dealing with emerging issues related to agriculture. The ALC has been relegated to a purely reactive role with little or no ability to be proactive.

"I believe too much prominence has been given to the application process. In order to reduce the number of applications received by ALC, the following options could be considered for implementation: a landowner may not submit an application for five years after the purchase of the property; private land owners may not make an application to exclude land from the ALR; during the ALR boundary reviews, applications may not be submitted to the ALC; if an application is refused, another application may not be resubmitted for ten years; and a risk-based referral process for farm enhancement from bona fide farmers and ranchers."

One can see, given these views, that too many of the commission's resources are consumed by dealing with exclusion applications. The commission has no ability to control them. The volume is unceasing. The legislative restrictions on bringing applications are very limited and now will be accelerated dramatically were this legislation to proceed.

How, in the words of the amendment brought forward, can that be in the best long-term interests of future generations of British Columbians, given what reputable soil scientists regard as an uncertain future for agriculture and food production here in British Columbia, given climate change and all of the other pressures on agricultural land?

It seems to me that the intent of the legislation is very, very shortsighted and will accelerate the negative tendencies within the commission, drive more and more of its work to consideration of individual exclusion applications, and there'll be less time for the other more broad objectives that most people would see as being important in the long term.

What Mr. Bullock recognized as what should be the priorities for the land commission are set out very clearly, I think, in the summary of his report. He recommends that the commission…. And this would appear to be the very opposite of the direction that the commission is now going to be heading, should this legislation pass. He suggested several of what he called, strategic shifts to set the Agricultural Land Commission on course for the next 40 years: an ALR that has defensible boundaries, an ALR that places agriculture first.

[1820]

Think about that — an ALR that places agriculture first — with the amendment to section 4. Rather than have agriculture as the first consideration, land in zone 2 in the ALR will be subject to consideration of economic, cultural and social values; regional and community planning objectives, other prescribed considerations that the Minister of Agriculture and the cabinet of the day might impose upon decision-makers at the commission.

Rather than placing agriculture first, the commission will be kind of — I don't know — a way station for the consideration of applications to remove land from the reserve and use it for other purposes. That tendency, given
[ Page 4352 ]
this legislation, should it pass, will only accelerate. This is a profound, a major, a sweeping change.

It's not to be brushed off or dismissed in the way that the few members of the government who did enter the debate, many days ago in a very brief way, were dismissive of any concerns that those of us on this side of the House are raising and, indeed, that many organizations are raising publicly, whether they are consumer groups, restaurant associations, organic farmers, the Cattlemen's Association or other major reputable agricultural organizations, consumers or people simply concerned about the future of climate in the province and its impact upon agricultural land.

Those considerations are not going to be foremost in the minds of the new commission. The new commission, the reconstituted commission if this legislation passes, will be increasingly, in a way even beyond the way in which…. Mr. Bullock has expressed concern with the flood of applications detracting from any other opportunity to do any other work. That will be the focus of the commission.

He goes on to say his goal is — I'm quoting again from his strategic shift suggestions — "an ALC that evolves to a proactive planning organization and moves away from being reactive and focused on applications." Well, I think I've summarized that concern. That is contrary to a long-term direction for and certainly not in the best interests of agriculture, food producers or the public.

He also goes on to say his view…. Again, one could see how this would bring him in direct conflict with some members of the Liberal caucus, such as the Premier and the member for Kootenay East and some others.

"An ALC that places priority considerations on bona fide farmers and ranchers and issues that may impact, positively or negatively, bona fide farmers and ranchers…. An ALC that builds strong alliances with farm and ranch groups and…organizations to identify and cooperatively address emerging issues that may impact, positively or negatively, bona fide farmers or ranchers."

Obviously, there's a legitimate role to take the issues of farmers and ranchers seriously. Indeed, that's what he advocates for. But the opportunity for land speculation at the expense of bona fide farmers and ranchers is something that he regards as a lower policy priority — indeed, not a policy priority at all. That appears to be very much the opposite of what is intended by this legislation. That's what we're, I think, going to see, should this legislation pass.

I'm going to go back to Ms. Thielen and speak about her view of why she thinks there are Bullock and anti-Bullock factions within the agricultural community and the politics at that level within her region. She says the following about Mr. Bullock. "Frankly, I think given what has been said in these e-mails, what the direction of this legislation is, I can confidently predict that not only will Carmen Purdy be appointed to a regional panel; but if this legislation passes, Mr. Bullock will be fired fairly shortly thereafter."

[1825]

Here's why I would think that some members in the Liberal caucus object to Mr. Bullock. Let me quote. From Noreen Thielen again, the Charlesworth Ranch, a Waldo stock breeder.

"Mr. Bullock has brought an encouraging and refreshing direction to the ALC. He and his direction have given us hope for a positive future for agriculture, one I haven't felt or seen in years or even decades. I speak from years of experience in agriculture.

"We are receivers of numerous negative impacts of ALC decisions in our area, made under the leadership of the chair prior to Mr. Bullock. These past ALC decisions speak to the failure, from an agriculture perspective, of the regional panel system. These negative impacts and consequences continue to grow and expand as the days, months and years go by.

"We could not withstand any more of the same type of decisions by the ALC as were made under the prior chair. We were totally frustrated, angered and appalled with the way the ALC operated under the prior chair. You would have to visit our operation to possibly grasp the extent of the problems and the negative effects we deal with as a result of these decisions.

"With Mr. Bullock as the ALC chair and the direction he has taken the ALR and the ALC, we have hope for the future of agriculture and for our daughter to be part of that future generation in agriculture in this province. We are working hard and fighting to retain her ability to carry on this 100-year-old agricultural operation.

"We are extremely confident in Mr. Bullock's abilities as the chair of the ALC and in total support of his leadership there. If this government values agriculture in this province, you will not interfere with his direction and leadership of the ALC and the ALR."

Well, I appreciate her point of view — very strong, very clear. I think in fact what's happening to the ALC is that it's going to head very much in the opposite direction. It's regrettable, it's shortsighted and, I think, very much the opposite of what Noreen Thielen would advocate for the Agricultural Land Commission and its future.

One of the things that I also want to address in the time that I have remaining…. I'm not sure how much time I have. I have a brief period of time, apparently, to continue talking.

What I also want to address is what is sometimes called…. It's put in different ways, but it's referred to in Mr. Bullock's report and some of the discussion as the intergenerational transfer of farm operations and estate planning of settlements.

Now, to listen to the members opposite talking about the problem or the challenge that comes when people running a farming operation get older, wish to retire and wish to hand it over to the next generation or wish to see some other way of either capitalizing their land or remaining on the land and passing it on to the next generation, one would think that there had never been any consideration by the Agricultural Land Commission about this problem. In fact, there is a very detailed policy that's been considered, and Mr. Bullock considered it in his report in some considerable detail.

There are three categories of this problem, and much consideration and policy over the life of the commission has been devoted to these problems. There is what is called homesite severance, and that's a policy that was
[ Page 4353 ]
developed many years ago back in the '70s. The ALC at that point provided retiring applicants with a leasehold for life over their home and yard area, arguing that the leasehold allowed the farmer to remain in his home but did not permanently separate the farm home from the productive remnant, reverting it back to the farm parcel when the farmer no longer occupied the home for any reason.

There's also a policy on intergenerational transfer of farm operations. It's a type of subdivision proposal that relates to the transfer of a farm or ranch operation as a going concern to the next generation of family members.

The third category is estate planning or settlement. It relates to the transfer of ALR land to family members and applies to both farmers and non-farmers. The objective of such a proposal is, in most cases, to actively divide up property for distribution to family members, absent the argument that the children or other heirs would take over an active farm or ranch operation.

[1830]

This issue of the continuation of farming operations impacted by wish to retire, by death, by old age has been extensively considered. There are numerous policy operations and a lot of thinking that has gone into this. But to listen to the members opposite, this is all something that the Agricultural Land Commission really stands in the way of.

One would never know, from listening to them, that any consideration has ever been given to any of these problems whatsoever. That, I say, is, regrettably, quite misleading. I think there has been and continues to be…. If one looks at this paper, there is certainly an openness to consider other options.

But the option that is not open is the one that appears to be the most desirable, which is to slice off segments of the family farm, convert it irretrievably and irreparably to industrial or other non-agricultural uses and wreck its use, destroy its use for agriculture at any point in the future. That's the frustration, I suppose, that we heard some of the members…. I think the member for Peace River South expressed it in his comments.

The example was given — it got some prominence in the media — where a person built an entire rodeo operation on agricultural land without permits, without zoning, without any permission from the Agricultural Land Commission. Yes, indeed, that would not be permitted and is probably, certainly, not a good use of agricultural land, except maybe in a rare circumstance.

Clearly, that person was willing just to charge ahead without any legislative or legal sanction. The enforcement powers of the commission are sufficiently diminished and weak — given the lack of a budget, notwithstanding some improvements that have been made in recent years — that nothing can be done about that. That encourages a contempt for the law, a resort to basically self-help, where people take it upon themselves to fashion their own solution that are outside legal solutions. That can't be good for agriculture, and it can't be good for society in the long run.

I am deeply concerned about this legislation. I think it lacks any vision. The consequences of passing it have not been considered. We certainly appreciate that there's short-term political pressure being brought within the B.C. Liberal caucus. But surely, when there are other, I would submit, more knowledgable and more visionary members of the Liberal caucus — knowledgable about matters of agriculture, such as the Minister of Forests, the former executive director of the Agriculture Council of British Columbia…. I hope those voices are heard.

I noticed that minister has not participated in the public debate in the media in any way. My sense is that he's embarrassed to participate, because he knows that this action is just shameful, and he doesn't support it. To go along, he's simply biting his tongue and saying nothing and keeping his head down. That is really rather sad. That is really rather sad for him but also for the way in which this policy has been concocted.

I predict that this matter, if this legislation passes, is not going away. It will not go away. It will be the subject of continued public debate here in the province, and it will ultimately lead to a different approach than we have seen heretofore.

I am going to conclude my remarks on this amendment. I hope that this amendment will gain some support from members on the other side, but certainly, I know that my colleagues are fully intending to debate this amendment in the sense that it speaks to what I think should be the real consideration of this Legislature, what should be the real consideration of effective policy — that is, considering the long-term interests of British Columbia, the future of agriculture and how we might best serve those purposes here in this Legislature.

[1835]

The legislation doesn't do it. It takes us dramatically and darkly in the opposite direction, and really, should it pass, it will be a very sad day for agriculture and agricultural land, food production and the future here in British Columbia.

With those comments, I want to thank you, Madame Speaker, and I will conclude my remarks.

N. Macdonald: I'm pleased to stand to speak for the third time on this bill. The first time that I spoke was, of course, on second reading, where we talked about the substance of the bill, and I laid out the reasons why I think the direction the government is taking on this bill is completely the wrong direction to take.

The second opportunity I had to speak on this bill was when my colleague from Nelson-Creston put forward a suggestion, a motion that this bill go to the broader public, go through a process of consultation over the next number of months and be dealt with properly so that we
[ Page 4354 ]
had decent legislation.

That, of course, was just voted on and voted down by the government. Now we move to the motion from my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, which is a reasoned amendment, and it's a debate that I am pleased to enter into. Of course, calling this a debate is a bit of a stretch, because a debate would normally have more than one side putting forward views.

I think it speaks to the hubris of the government that they cannot even be bothered, over the last number of days, to even respond in any way or to make any argument to the work that we do here in trying to put forward good, logical suggestions as to how we could fix the mess that's been thrown in the form of Bill 24.

Bill 24, people will know, contemplates profound changes to the Agricultural Land Commission, changes that are destructive in so many ways. We have heard again and again from people across this province that they want the government to step away from this legislation and put together something that makes sense. We have the reasoned amendment, and to begin my remarks, let's just go to where we started on the government's agenda with changes to the agricultural land reserve.

To go there, we should go to the mandate that this government had on this issue, because there was a mandate. There was a question in the last election to the B.C. Liberals about this very issue.

What happens in elections is, of course, that different groups will ask the political parties for their position on specific issues. Just as the NDP and the Greens and the Conservatives were asked specifically what their views were on the agricultural land reserve, so were the B.C. Liberals. They were asked specifically to put in writing their position on this particular issue.

This is what the B.C. Liberals wrote. First, the question. The question was: will the B.C. Liberals work to protect agricultural land from development? That was the specific question that was asked to the B.C. Liberals by those that are concerned about the issue. The answer from the B.C. Liberals was this commitment. They promised…. It's laughable when you read it because, of course, they have done and they are doing the exact opposite. But the commitment, made in writing by the B.C. Liberals….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Instead of conversations over there, it might be worth listening to what the members actually committed to.

This is, in writing, what was said. They promised to "work more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land and encourage farming" and "maintain the excellent relationship that we have built with the ALC." Well, what a bunch of rubbish that's turned out to be.

It's easy to say these things. I mean, it reminds me of other examples — the HST — where specifically the governing party, during an election period, is asked to put in writing their commitment on where they are going to go, stepping forward.

[1840]

Of course, they say one thing, they write one thing, and immediately they move in the opposite direction once they form government. There is the concept of a mandate, and the mandate that this government sought from the people was to do nothing to the agricultural land reserve — in fact to strengthen it.

Now, it's 20 to seven. In the time zone that I work on, it's 20 to eight. So in fact it's kind of interesting to be standing here, having a conversation about an issue that impacts food, when you're hungry. It's a strange thing and probably a suitable thing to have happen. I spent six years in Africa. It reminds you of how much in Canada and British Columbia we take for granted. We just do not think about some of the gifts that we have in the way that we should. How often do people think about food?

Here I am, hungry. It's a bit inconvenient. I'm going to get fed within half an hour. I know it. I've never in my life gone without having food. Yet we take it for granted. We do not think about the fragility of our food supply. We take it completely for granted, just as we do our democracy. That's something that we need to think about as we contemplate moves like this.

There's a quote. I mean, Ronald Wright is well known. He wrote a book on civilizations. I think it's A Short History of Progress, and it won a Governor General's Award. It's a very interesting book. He was asked to summarize his book, which was about civilizations and the collapse of civilizations, because there are many examples.

We think now, as many civilizations before us, that we are immune to problems that others faced, that somehow this is going to last forever, even though most logical people would realize that at so many levels there's a fragility to the society that we've created. He was asked what the lesson was that he would pass on. The lesson he took…. He said: "There are three things to remember. You don't build on your agricultural land is lesson 1. You do not build on your agricultural land is lesson 2. You do not build on your agricultural land is lesson 3."

Here we have a province with 5 percent of our land that is arable. At some point in the past, 40 years ago, at tremendous political cost, a government had the foresight to protect it. And now what are we doing?

Let's think about this, because the e-mail that the NDP has that talks…. Actually, it's a conversation between members of this government. It actually shows the genesis of this bill. This is the essence of it. We have the arguments that have been made by government, but the essence of this bill is clear here in the e-mail stream.

I'm going to put into the record some elements of the e-mail stream. This is an e-mail from 2012. At the time, the current Minister of Social Development was the
[ Page 4355 ]
Minister of Agriculture. The e-mail stream, of course, includes the current member for Peace River North. It includes the member for Kootenay East. It includes the current member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. It includes the current member for Vernon-Monashee. All of those people are part of this conversation.

So let's see: what does the member for Kootenay East have to say about the ALR? What are his views on the ALR? Remember, the government is saying that this is to strengthen agriculture, that this is to keep the ALC independent. But listen to what the person who put this bill together actually says about the ALC, about agricultural land.

He says this. "Premier Clark was present, and I very deliberately looked her in the eye and made direct reference to the fact that she was present for the discussion." So he wanted to be clear that….

[1845]

Madame Speaker: And you'll refrain from using names.

N. Macdonald: Excuse me. The Premier.

He wanted to be clear that the Premier was aware of the agenda that he had. Then in the e-mail he goes on to say about Mr. Bullock that Mr. Bullock is somebody that he had expectations of and that he's disappointed in, in his letter to the Minister of Agriculture at the time.

He says that, well, when the Minister of Agriculture was there visiting, someone at the ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission, somehow advised him to go and meet with what the member for Kootenay East describes as "probably the most negative rancher in southeastern B.C." Well, there's a title for you. How do you go and meet with the most negative rancher in southeastern B.C.? And what was she negative about? Well, my colleague read the letter just previously. The person he's referring to is Noreen Thielen.

This is a longstanding rancher, somebody who has been there a long time and had the audacity, according to the member for Kootenay East, to object to land being taken out of the agricultural land reserve, at a time when the member's friends were running the local board there, and had lost opportunities for ranching. My colleague read into the record her version of what took place there and why it was wrong.

Of course, the member for Kootenay East's preference would be that the Minister of Agriculture would not talk to somebody like that. He goes on to say: "We do not need people from outside our region telling us that we should cease developing our tourist industry." And he says that the choice "to review an RV development that most of us here, including the Kootenay Livestock Association, think is a model of how to do it right…."

As you go through and read the argument that the minister who eventually came up with this bill makes, what's he actually talking about? Is he talking about agriculture? No, he's not. He's talking about moving on. Let's get RVs on that land. That's what he wants to do. Is he talking about respect for agriculture? No. Anybody who talks about agriculture….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Oh, well, we have two ministers and the Deputy Premier who want to participate in the debate. When is the last time that a member from that side has actually stood and spoken on this? If the Minister of Jobs wants to stand up and participate in the debate, she is free to do it. If you want to just yap about things from that side, feel free. But you can also debate properly.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: And the Deputy Premier has the opportunity as well.

Madame Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: Let's continue.

Oh, the Deputy Premier has something more important to do. Well, if there's a better indication of the contempt that the Deputy Premier has for this process…. Too busy to participate in this. You've got better things to do. Okay, off you go. Go at it. Fly at it.

What do we have, then? We have the member for Kootenay East laying out what his agenda is. What is the response? How does the member for Peace River North, who the Premier assigns as the Minister of Agriculture, choose to participate? This is what he says:

"Every time I try to contact Mr. Bullock, I'm told that he is an arm's-length body and for me to get the hell out of his hair. Who the hell is running our province anyway? Here is an opportunity to actually muster up some support for our team," meaning the B.C. Liberal team, "but instead, we will ignore it and go out and find some way to give the Indians more money, which doesn't get me one vote.

"I'm getting very tired of this kind of nonsense. Furthermore — the member for Kootenay East — "is absolutely right when he said that his area should be first for boundary changes."

[1850]

That's an odd way for members of government to be talking, but I think it opens a door into the thinking that went into this bill.

When did this start? It starts with the bill being introduced on March 27. It was introduced by the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. It was introduced on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. One minute, 20 seconds was the introduction — one minute, 20 seconds.

Interjections.
[ Page 4356 ]

N. Macdonald: Lots going on here. I can see I'm not the only one who's hungry.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member. Member, take your seat.

N. Macdonald: I'm not the only one hungry, it seems.

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

N. Macdonald: Just as we saw with Montreal and New York, it's always the end of the game when it gets chippy, right? Always the end of the game it gets chippy.

But here we are. We've got to bring this home for the people, the viewers at home. On March 27, 2014, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations introduces, on behalf of the government, Bill 24. A one-minute, 20-second explanation of what's going on, and he says three things. I would refer back to you three things he says.

He says this bill is about preserving farmland. Well, if you go to the e-mail stream, and you see what the ministers who brought this forward are talking about, it's the exact opposite. They want to subdivide. They want to get rid of agricultural land. That is what they're talking about. In no place do they talk about agriculture. Somehow, somebody writes something for this minister, and he's forced to say something that is the exact opposite of the truth.

The second thing that is said by the minister in introducing this bill is that it's going to better support food production, when the only person in this e-mail stream that's interested in food production is the rancher that the current Minister for Core Review describes as — and let me just get the description here: "That person is the biggest, most negative rancher in southeastern B.C." Because she actually believes in using ranchland for producing food, somehow that doesn't fit with this minister's agenda.

The third thing that the minister says, on behalf of the government, is this: that this legislation is going to keep the ALC fully independent. What a joke. I mean, the whole thing that the member from North Peace is complaining about is this Mr. Bullock getting in the way of him doing whatever he wants to do.

You know, Mr. Bullock actually has a legal obligation to be at an arm's length from politicians, especially the minister. How this Premier chooses somebody who doesn't understand that in the first place, but more importantly, when it is so clear that they have an agenda that takes us down this road…. Everything about it is disturbing. Everything about it is wrong.

I see, in a very subtle way — in fact, I recognize this from teaching, since she only had to give me a certain look to send along the message — that we're going to wrap up here. With that, I'd like to reserve my place in this debate and move adjournment at this time of the debate.

N. Macdonald moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 3:15 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $16,788,820,000 (continued).

J. Darcy: I know we have a lot of material still to cover and a bit of a delay with question period and introductions today, so we'll get right to it.

I want to focus over the next hour, hour and a half or so — and some other colleagues of mine will be joining me — on the issue of primary care. Perhaps I could begin by referring to a document that the minister has referenced on a couple of occasions, Setting Priorities for the B.C. Health System, February of 2014, in particular on page 3, priority 3, where the document says very clearly:

"Implement a provincial system of primary and community care built around interprofessional teams and functions." It goes on to say we need to "create a community-based system of interprofessional health teams with a strong focus on populations and individuals with high health and support needs: patients with chronic diseases, frail elderly, people with severe mental illness and substance use and people with significant disabilities."
[ Page 4357 ]

It goes on later on to talk about some of the groups whose needs in particular need to be addressed, in speaking about chronic conditions, beginning on page 24 and then continuing on page 25. It talks about a wide range of chronic illnesses that, of course, we're familiar with — arthritis, asthma, lung disease, chronic pain, congestive heart failure, diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke — that "require sustained and coordinated medical and non-medical management."

It also points out that it is these British Columbians who use the most hospital, PharmaCare and other health care services — high users of direct medical primary care services as well as hospitalization rates. It also points out — I want to draw the minister's attention to this: "There is a clear progression over a short period of time, five years, where people move from healthy or low-complexity chronic conditions to high-complexity chronic conditions."

For people newly diagnosed with one or more chronic conditions, it talks about the costs of the early stages, significant medical intervention being needed. But it also says in the next paragraph: "Patients with chronic disease require increased time, planning and care coordination as they age. Inadequate or ineffective community care also results in increased demand for acute care providers."

That's a pretty strong statement on behalf of the Ministry of Health and on behalf of the government of British Columbia — in particular, about the need to strengthen primary care. There are many other documents that I could reference where the minister has spoken about the need to strengthen interdisciplinary care in British Columbia. We spoke about the issue yesterday when we talked about the percentage of physicians who are on fee-for-service as opposed to alternate payment plans, and the minister has promised a breakdown of how many of those actually work in primary care.

We've also talked about nurse practitioners and the critical role, the expanded role, that they can and must play in our health care system. There are other care providers, part of that interdisciplinary team, that also play a critical role, including people in occupational rehabilitation therapy, in some cases, pharmacists, dieticians and so on.

My question to the minister is: in light of the government's stated commitment to expanding interdisciplinary care teams across the province, including nurse practitioners and other health professionals, why is the minister standing behind and endorsing the actions by Vancouver Coastal Health Authority to fundamentally cut the several primary care clinics, community health centres in Vancouver so that in fact most of those patients will end up, despite their needs…?

[1520]

The 5 percent most acute needs will apparently go to Raven Song. Most of them, if they're able to go with their family doctors, will certainly be transitioning to a fee-for-service rather than alternate payment plan methods of payment.

I want to ask the minister — who has said that it's important that we explore other forms of delivering care and not be focused exclusively on fee-for-service and that more and more young doctors coming out want to practice in interdisciplinary teams — why he is defending the actions of Vancouver Coastal Health in this regard rather than saying: "Stop. We need to reconsider this, and we need to look at expanding that model of care rather than curtailing it."

Hon. T. Lake: We talked a little bit about this yesterday, but I'm happy to discuss this more.

As we mentioned yesterday…. We were talking about the Auditor General's report and talking about value for money and the different models of payment for doctors, alternate payment versus fee-for-service. We talked about the changes that have been made in our fee-for-service model, which is, I think, significant.

If I could just talk about the primary care redesign that's going on in Vancouver first of all. The member quoted from our document saying that those with high health and support needs do benefit from an integrated primary care setting. There is no question that that is true. If you look at the demographics of the population, you can really zero in on different segments of the population and their level of needs in terms of health care. There are certain parts, certain segments of the population which have much higher needs. Age is, of course, one of those demographics.

[1525]

Things like people's income, whether they're on social supports, whether they have more than one co-morbidity — there are different segments of the population that have different health care needs.

I would argue that someone that…. You know, I could use myself as an example — a relatively healthy person that has a good disposable income, has a reasonable education, has good access to health care. My health care needs would differ from someone who has been raised in poverty, for instance, who doesn't have the benefit of a good education, who may have difficulty with knowledge of nutrition, who may have difficulty having access to information in terms of wellness, who may have multiple morbidities, perhaps mental health issues or substance use issues. Those are complex, vulnerable patients.

A recent report on the Canadian health care system…. I was trying to find the name of the report, and it's slipped my mind, but one of the things it talked about was equity of access for health care, saying that we don't have equal equity in terms of access.

That is why we want to ensure that those complex, vulnerable patients have the ability to see a multidisciplinary team. Again, this goes back to appropriateness, and the changes that have occurred in Vancouver Coastal are
[ Page 4358 ]
to reflect the changing demographics and the changing needs of the population that they serve.

In the east side of Vancouver and the south side of Vancouver, the demographics have changed over the years. We mentioned that with the…. I don't know if I mentioned yesterday, but I will mention now that the city of Vancouver has some social housing units that are going into the east side of Vancouver at a very close proximity to Raven Song Community Health Centre.

Those people that tend to live in social housing are often those that have high needs in terms of health care. So with that population increasing in that area, it was a wise decision on the part of Vancouver Coastal to increase the capacity of Raven Song while adjusting other primary care facilities to meet the less complex needs of the demographic where they are located. In fact, complex, vulnerable patients will have increased access to integrated health services at Raven Song by increasing the number of days from five to seven and increasing the number of hours per day from eight to 12.

Raven Song has direct linkages to home care, to public health, to mental health and addictions services. We know that when we serve that vulnerable population, which is growing in that particular part of Vancouver…. We know that if we do that well in an interdisciplinary primary care facility, we will reduce emergency department visits and we will reduce length of stays in hospital.

So while the member says this is a reduction of service, it is absolutely…. It's a change in the service to better meet the needs of that complex, vulnerable population that we have outlined in our document. We know that those patients that have less complex needs will continue to have opportunities to see a family physician. Vancouver Coastal is working with physicians to change their models over to suit the needs of the population that they serve, and the high-needs patients will have greater access to the services that will be very helpful for them.

J. Darcy: Well, we don't have any disagreement about the fact that the people with the highest needs, the most at-risk 5 percent of the population, certainly need intensive and robust primary care interdisciplinary teams to provide for them. I would point out that…. The minister talks about 24-7 access at Raven Song. If I could just touch on Mid-Main. I'm going to come back to that, but the Mid-Main Community Health Centre, for instance, has for many years now had doctors on call 24-7. But I will return to Mid Main in particular.

I want to draw the minister's attention to something. There are probably terms and charts that he's familiar with that are referred to as resource utilization bands, otherwise known as RUBs. When a doctor friend of mine used the term, I wasn't quite sure what she meant, but I became familiar with it fairly quickly.

[1530]

The fact is that if you do an analysis — and I'm happy to share this with the minister; although, I'll probably share one with him that doesn't have quite as many marks on it as this — there's a breakdown through zero, which is virtually no use of the health care system — one through five.

Five, which the minister has referred to, is very high morbidity — not just high morbidity but very high morbidity, which is defined as: "Highest needs, requiring assertive specialized care, unstable, chaotic, unpredictable, history of multiple emergency room and acute care admissions and multiple chronic conditions." This is something that is quite widely used, I believe, in primary care. It comes out of Johns Hopkins. It has been used in the case of analysis of these clinics and who they serve.

In fact, we see 724 patients all together served out of the total covered by these clinics who are in this category 5, highest utilization.

But there are also in high morbidity, which is also very high needs…. It's not the highest but also very, very high needs and moderate morbidity, which is defined…. I think the minister would be clear when he sees the definition: "High needs, requiring continuous and integrated primary health and social care — for example, the frail, at-risk youth, people marginalized due to poverty, addiction, mental health, refugees, new immigrants, multiple chronic disease and complex care requirements." Those are the people that fit into a category of high morbidity. There are 1,719 of them who were served by these clinics.

Moderate morbidity. I would go back to the minister's own document, Setting Priorities for the B.C. Health System, where it says — and I already referred to it — on page 25: "There is a clear progression over a relatively short period of time — five years — where people move from healthy or low-complexity chronic conditions to high-complexity chronic conditions." It goes on to say that it's critical to have continuity of care and robust care along the way.

We have in this category a moderate morbidity. This includes people often with multiple chronic conditions — not one chronic condition but multiple chronic conditions. In that category we have 8,800 patients served by these clinics.

So if we're just speaking about moderate morbidity, which includes several chronic conditions, high morbidity and very high morbidity…. I'm trying to do some quick math here, although it was not my best subject. We're getting close to 10,000 patients — 9,500 to 10,000 patients. That's just in moderate to high and extremely high morbidity.

Most of these patients, as a result of decisions by Vancouver Coastal Health, supported by this government, will no longer be served by robust interdisciplinary teams. They will be migrated to fee-for-service.

We can have an entirely other discussion, and I think it's an important discussion for us to have, about whether or not other people with varying health needs, whether or not they're in the highest-risk categories, are also served
[ Page 4359 ]
well by robust interdisciplinary teams that focus on prevention precisely so that healthier patients or people with low morbidity don't in fact migrate fairly quickly from low morbidity to medium morbidity to high and extremely high, as the minister's own document says can happen over a fairly rapid period of time.

But let's just focus on those other patients — maybe 9,500 to 10,000 of them — who have moderate morbidity or high morbidity. What about them? How are they going to be well served by robust interdisciplinary teams when they're migrated to fee-for-service?

In some cases it has been suggested — in the case of the Evergreen clinic — that one of the reasons this change needs to happen is that the clinic, served by two physicians, was only seeing 2,500 patients, when in fact they should have been seeing 5,000. How will those patients' needs be served if they migrate to a system that, as the minister has said himself, focuses on volume?

[1535]

Hon. T. Lake: I need to, I guess, enlighten the member opposite about Evergreen. It was physicians and a clerk, not an interdisciplinary team. It was not a community health centre in terms of having an interdisciplinary team.

Raven Song Community Health Centre will have a full interdisciplinary team and will serve approximately 9,000 adults and 10,000 children and youth, as well as their families. It has an integrated team that has the capacity to help the highly complex, vulnerable patients that the member describes.

The fact is that fee-for-service has changed a lot over the number of years since this government embarked upon the General Practice Services Committee with Doctors of B.C. Rather than just have a one-size-fits-all billing system — $36 for a general exam — we listened to doctors and sat down with them and said: "There are some people who need more time, more service. They are more complex." Perhaps not the highly complex ones that do require the interdisciplinary approach that is available at Raven Song, but we still have put in changes to allow for doctors to spend more time with patients.

For instance, complex care fees. Complex care fees are utilized for those patients that, obviously, don't have simple problems, and the amount that is paid is $315. I can tell you that from January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2014, there were 169,199 patients that were seen under this complex care fee. That was a total of just over $53 million. We have a GP mental health planning fee of $100 — again, to encourage GPs to spend more time with those patients who need it; an annual chronic care bonus for those patients with diabetes of $125; annual chronic care bonus for heart failure, another $125.

There are all these changes that we have made with the General Practice Services Committee that help to address those patients that do have higher needs than a lower complex patient. However, we understand that there are those that certainly have even higher needs that do benefit from an interdisciplinary approach, so we should put our resources where they are best utilized and where they can best serve those patients. In this case, that is an expansion of the interdisciplinary team to seven days a week, 12 hours a day at the Raven Song Community Health Centre.

J. Darcy: I think, actually, that it's the minister who is insisting on one-size-fits-all. Certainly, the initiatives that have been taken to incentivize doctors and general practitioners in order to spend more time with patients with complex conditions are an important step, but the minister appears to be saying that that's the only way to go.

Here you have an excellent model of care that's already in place, has served residents in various communities throughout Vancouver for a number of years, and it's effectively being dismantled.

On the issue of Evergreen….

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Well, the primary care functions…. Minister, we can….

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, Member.

J. Darcy: Hon. Chair, to the minister, through you, of course.

The primary care functions of those other community clinics will be closed. At some of those locations there will be other parts of Vancouver Coastal's care delivery, but there will not be team-based interdisciplinary care with doctors on an alternative payment plan.

I want to correct the minister. The minister said there were only two physicians at Evergreen. That's true most recently. There was, in fact, a nurse practitioner position there in the past which was eliminated and not filled, and it's not as if the needs of that population have gone down.

[1540]

I know the member for Vancouver-Kingsway will want to speak to that a little bit further.

There was also a nurse practitioner at Pacific Spirit — again, a position that was eliminated. There was also a part-time pharmacist position at Pacific Spirit, also partly at Mid-Main, but I will come back to that.

I want to return to some of the minister's statements that he has made more recently, because I really think that the actions that are being taken by Vancouver Coastal, which this minister has been vigorously defending ever since we brought these issues before him….

He said on March 10: "We see nurse practitioners and physicians working as part of an interdisciplinary team, and this is sort of the future of health care. In primary health care, where people interface with their family practitioner, I think we will see more and more teams
[ Page 4360 ]
with physicians, nurse practitioners, counsellors and pharmacists."

Again, same date, "Our government recognizes the vital role nurse practitioners play in supporting the health of B.C. patients," yet we have seen nurse practitioners as a result of these actions, these cuts, eliminated at Mid-Main, previously at Evergreen, at Pacific Spirit, and we're not sure where the future will lead. At this point I'm not aware that there are any plans for the future for nurse practitioners, with the exception of Raven Song.

I could go on quoting the minister, but I think the minister knows what statements he's made in support of an expanded role for nurse practitioners, both in primary care and in all aspects of care.

We're going to return to some specifics about the clinics, but the minister has talked about value for money. He talked about value for money yesterday, and he repeated that today.

There have been significant Canadian studies that have shown that in the case of community health centres, they in fact lead the pack. Chronic disease management — 10 to 15 percent better than all other models. Presence of a nurse practitioner led to a 10 percent improvement in chronic disease management. Community health centre physicians also had more time with patients. In fact, an additional 1,000 patients per month added to a physician's load saw a direct, resulting decrease in the quality of care.

I want to also talk about what's happening in other provinces, because the fact is that other provinces are moving ahead very, very aggressively in the direction of more interdisciplinary teams in primary care and more community health centres. In Alberta they call them family care clinics. In Ontario they call them community health centres.

In the case of Alberta, and this is a fairly recent initiative on the part of the Alberta government, they decided to go in this direction of far more community health centres, or rather family care clinics, just a few years ago. Within a very, very short period of time they put three new clinics in place. They then did a massive communications effort with people in all parts of the province, both communities as well as care providers, and asked people to come forward with proposals for more family care clinics.

At the present time they have approved an additional 24 family care clinics, which they are moving forward with very aggressively. In the case of Alberta, when they move on something they do move quickly. The first ones were up and running, I think, within about a year or 18 months of conception, and the plan is to do the same for the next 24. They say, as the minister does, it might include primary care. What is primary care? Well, it might include, in the future, a visit to your family doctor, a consultation from a nurse practitioner, advice from a pharmacist or an appointment with a dietician, therapist or others.

It goes on, and it echoes much of the same language that is used. It also — very importantly, though — talks about family care clinics enabling access to a range of health care services as well as community social services that support and influence health and well-being. In their conception of it, this is very much tied to addressing social determinants of health and addressing the very issues that the minister talked about earlier that influence poor health, like poverty in particular.

[1545]

The plan in Alberta is 24 now on the order paper, three already in place. They plan to be up to 140 family care clinics in the next few years. Can the minister try and explain to me and to people served by these community care clinics in Vancouver why the government of British Columbia is going in the opposite direction?

Hon. T. Lake: I've answered this question. This will be the third time, so I think it'll be the last time that I stand up to answer the same question.

We are concentrating resources where they are appropriate. Raven Song has increased its hours, increased the number of days that it is open, and it will see the highest-needs patients. The other clinics — some certainly will have a bit of a change in the way they operate. If you look at Pine clinic, it's in Kitsilano. Kitsilano is a much different neighbourhood today than it was 20 years ago.

I mentioned that in East Vancouver, Raven Song will be in the epicentre of a whole host of new supported social housing facilities for the city of Vancouver, where a complex and vulnerable population will be concentrated. So it makes sense to actually increase and move services to where the patients are, as time and demographics change.

At Pine clinic they see 7,500 clients per year. As I mentioned, that's a different area today than it was 20 years ago. I used to practise close by there at the Vancouver Animal Emergency Clinic 20 years ago, and it was quite different then. Most of Pine's client base will be transitioned to the nearby youth clinics at Raven Song, Three Bridges primary care clinic in downtown Vancouver and East Van public health youth clinic at Broadway and Commercial. Youth will also have access to Boulevard, Broadway and Knight youth clinics.

Vancouver Coastal has been working with physicians in the primary care system and has come to an agreement, I believe, with five of nine physicians to continue seeing patients, albeit often in a different kind of a model. But I mentioned that the new changes that we have to the billing code allow doctors to spend more time with patients.

South, Evergreen and Pacific Spirit will remain as community health centres with the interdisciplinary team. The physicians will go on a fee-for-service basis. So those facilities will still be available for all the other ancillary needs of patients that are sent to that facility by
[ Page 4361 ]
their physician.

As I've said — and I could continue to stand up and say the same thing — this is about the right resources at the right place at the right time. It's about appropriateness. It's about spending our dollars where they are most needed to support a highly complex and vulnerable population.

J. Darcy: As I said, we will come back to the specific clinics. But I would like to ask the minister whether he has studied the experience of Alberta and whether he's studied the experience of Ontario, as well, where there are 114 community health care centres in place.

A recent study by the University of Waterloo health sciences faculty says that Ontario community health centres have shown that the most effective, efficient and affordable means of delivering primary health care is through an "upstream approach." We've all used that language: upstream interventions in order to avoid downstream spiraling health care costs.

It says that CHCs have been successful in meeting the health needs of managing complex, chronic disease as well as vulnerable populations, but many parts of the province still don't have access to them. They only serve 4 percent of the population. The plan in Ontario is to change that considerably.

This report says that improving health outcomes in Ontario are a direct result of the role of Ontario community health centres, which very directly deal with social determinants of health. There is also research out of Ontario that shows there's a 20 percent decrease in emergency room utilization by the high-needs people who were served by these clinics.

I wonder if the minister could speak to…. He says we should be reflecting best practices, as we move forward, and get value for money. Has he studied the experience of Alberta and Ontario, and why does he think it's not appropriate to learn from those best practices when it comes to British Columbia?

[1550]

Hon. T. Lake: We have looked across the country and elsewhere as well. There are good models of care, some of which would transfer to B.C., and some people are looking at B.C., taking what we're doing and implementing it as well.

Again, I just want to talk about appropriateness. I don't think there's any question that for a high-needs, vulnerable population, integrated primary care — a community health centre — is a really great approach.

I can speak for my own community of North Kamloops. Not far from my constituency office is the King Street Clinic. King Street Clinic is exactly what we're talking about here. It serves a high-needs population with multiple co-morbidities. It is in a low-income neighbourhood, and it has been a life-saver for many of my constituents.

That approach isn't necessarily the same approach you would need in another part of Kamloops. We'll take Aberdeen, for example, with a relatively high-income, well-educated population that is less vulnerable, less complex. It's about the appropriateness of care — putting the resources where they are needed.

While Ontario is doing the same approach we are, addressing the complex high-needs population, it doesn't mean they don't change that as the population changes. In fact, if the member wants to look at where Ontario is versus British Columbia, a report by the Health Council of Canada from the Commonwealth Fund international health policy survey shows that where you live actually does matter.

They show that some numbers of Canadians don't have a regular doctor. When you look at the different provinces, no regular doctor or place of care: Manitoba and Nova Scotia, 7 percent; province of Quebec, 15 percent; Alberta and Saskatchewan, 6 percent; Newfoundland, 5 percent; New Brunswick, 5 percent; Ontario, 4 percent; British Columbia, 3 percent.

You know, we could toss around numbers a lot. The member is saying that community health centres work well for high-needs, vulnerable populations. I certainly agree. That means we have to put them where those populations are.

[1555]

J. Darcy: The minister is choosing to completely disregard the patients I referred to. We're not just talking numbers. We're talking about patients and the very high morbidity group, which we agree deserves robust interdisciplinary primary care and will be receiving it. That still ignores something like 9,000 to 10,000 patients who also have very high needs, and the minister is insisting that they need to migrate to a fee-for-service system.

So it's the minister, in fact, who is saying that we need to go with one-size-fits-all and who is saying that a model that has served well…. It can certainly be improved — no doubt. The clinics where the nurse practitioner positions have been cut? Absolutely. Instead of taking the doctors off alternative payment plan, why not put the nurse practitioner positions back in? Why not put the pharmacist position back in? Instead, we're moving completely in the other direction.

I want to talk some more about some of these actual patients. Let me talk for a minute about Mid-Main. I'd like to talk about Mid-Main, where in fact there has been a budget reduction — or there will be — of approximately $400,000.

On the scheme of the minister's Health budget, that may not seem very much. What it actually means for Mid-Main is that the services they now provide…. Let me just check the numbers here. They serve something like 8,000 to 8,800 patients.
[ Page 4362 ]

They serve and they have chronic disease group meetings, group visits for patients with a number of different chronic conditions. Some of these are in the very high needs group, but most of them, in fact, are in the moderate- to high-needs group. This includes 281 diabetic patients, 103 patients with chronic kidney disease, 62 with congestive heart failure, 89 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Those patients are served — or they have been in the past, although that's about to change because of these cuts — by a combination of family physicians, a nurse practitioner, a pharmacist and the medical office assistants who coordinate that care.

As a direct result of those cuts of $400,000, the physicians at Mid-Main are being told they really have no choice but to migrate to fee-for-service. Frankly, that means that some of the best-regarded chronic disease management programs and preventive programs, not just in this province but in this country, are at risk.

When you bring diabetic patients together, they hear from a physician or a nurse practitioner. They're seen by a physician or a nurse practitioner, talk to a pharmacist. They have an education program. They do peer support. So it's huge results in terms of maintaining their conditions, not worsening their diabetes, and reducing costs significantly, by the millions, for the health care system — if we were to take this program and extrapolate on it elsewhere. They do the same with chronic kidney disease patients and patients with COPD and other conditions.

They also do some really, really critical work of going out and doing what they call medical home visits for the frail elderly in their homes. We're not talking about home support. These are medical homes, creating medical homes, and going to these patients' homes — sometimes a physician, sometimes a nurse practitioner, sometimes a pharmacist, depending on the need — keeping our frail elderly as healthy as they can possibly be in their own homes.

It's not saying they have to travel seven or ten miles — you know, these are frail elderly — to the Raven Song clinic downtown. But it's in their own homes, being cared for in their own homes, being kept as healthy as they possibly can, keeping them out of emergency rooms and acute care hospitals, ensuring that as few as possible of them end up being alternate level of care in acute care hospitals and keeping them out of residential care as long as possible.

Does the minister think it makes sense to cut the Mid-Main budget so that these kinds of programs will not be able to continue?

[1600]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I'm afraid the member is engaging in flights of fancy, because she doesn't have her facts correct. In fact, at Mid-Main it will remain open, and the doctors will continue to be paid under an alternative payment plan. So I want to correct the member on that.

Mid-Main's most complex clients will be transferred over to Raven Song, which isn't downtown Vancouver. It's, by my calculation, 15 blocks away from Mid-Main, with excellent transit service in that area. The resources are being transferred to provide seven-day-a-week, 12-hour-a-day service. So if you are a complex patient currently going to Mid-Main, you will be able to go to Raven Song, which is not very far away, seven days a week, 12 hours a day. That is better service than what they are receiving now, and it meets their needs far better.

J. Darcy: I did not ever once say that Mid-Main was closing. I know it's not closing. In fact, what I said was…. And it's very, very good news if the government and Vancouver Coastal Health have agreed that they will be able to continue an alternate payment plan. That's very good news. I'm sure they will be very, very pleased to hear that. That is not something that I believe most of them are aware of at this time, including people I've spoken with in the last 24 to 48 hours.

The fact still remains…. If they continue an alternative payment plan, then I will say: "Good for Vancouver Coastal Health and good for the minister for reversing their position on this." Their budget has been cut by $400,000. A nurse practitioner….

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister. Comments through the Chair, please. We'll let the member say her remarks, and then afterwards you will have an opportunity to respond.

J. Darcy: A nurse practitioner has been laid off. A pharmacist has been laid off. Several medical office assistants who coordinate these group visits for diabetic patients and other patients with chronic conditions have been laid off. That is a fact. Those medical office assistants haven't been transferred anywhere. The nurse practitioner hasn't been transferred to Raven Song. The pharmacist hasn't been transferred to Raven Song. It will be a change in the kind of services that that clinic, which is so highly regarded, will be able to deliver.

I'd like to move now, if I could, to the budget cuts for the other clinics. You know, the minister can roll his eyes, but the fact is that….

A Voice: Point of privilege. You're not supposed to comment on what people are doing in the House.

J. Darcy: Okay, I withdraw my comment about the minister rolling his eyes.

Let's talk about costs for a minute. Yesterday, or maybe it was the day before — I've lost track; these estimates sessions tend to blend one into the other — we'd been talking about health budgets, and we'd been talking about
[ Page 4363 ]
various costs to health authorities that come as a result of either their decisions or government decisions.

Yesterday — I think it was yesterday in this House — I questioned the minister about the cost of hydro, the increased hydro costs to health authorities as the result of this government's hiking of hydro rates. The minister…. You know, I didn't have a chance to check the transcript of Hansard from yesterday, but the increase, I believe the minister said, was $740,000, something like that — the increase in the hydro bill.

The minister made a point several times as I asked that question, as it related to every health authority, of saying that the hydro rate increases amounted to 0.002 percent or 0.001 percent.

[1605]

Well, the fact is that the total budget for 2013-2014 for the four urban clinics and the Pine clinic combined was $3.71 million, which equals 0.001 percent of Vancouver Coastal's budget — 0.001 percent. The cuts to Mid-Main — $400,000. I'd have to do the really quick math, so that increases that number a little bit. But we're still talking about a very, very small percentage of the Vancouver Coastal budget. The minister was very dismissive yesterday of any figures that had 0.00 in them. This one does — the cost of the primary care clinics that are going to be cut.

We also talked in the last couple of days about the cost of the clinical and systems transformation project, which is going to cost the government $840 million over ten years; $72 million for each of the next three years for Vancouver Coastal Health.

Does the minister believe, in the broad scheme of things, that it is acceptable that we can have $740,000, which a health authority has to pay for hydro costs, that a computer system that was deemed on 12 out of 13 factors to be of high risk…? Those things go by unquestioned, yet 0.001 percent of the Vancouver Coastal Health budget needs to be cut, taking away services in communities that patients have relied on for many years and breaking the attachment to their family doctors in many cases.

Hon. T. Lake: The member did confess to not being very good with math, so let me help a little bit here. The '13-14 budget for the four urban primary care clinics and the contract with Mid-Main totalled $5,244,801. The total budget for '14-15, with the redesign to increase services to highly complex vulnerable patients, is $5,177,446, which is a difference of $67,355.

However, there are five physicians going over to a fee-for-service. That is on top. The average GP bills about $200,000 a year, so there's $1 million more. When you add the $1 million in physicians' services on top of the increased resources to support primary health care, we've gone from $5,244,801 to $6,177,446, approximately. This is based on the average GP billing. So the member is wrong.

This is about increasing supports, increasing the resources that are available for a highly complex vulnerable population in Vancouver.

J. Darcy: I didn't say I was bad in math. I said it wasn't my best subject. If I could just return. I did not say that the figures I cited covered the budget for Mid-Main. I didn't say that.

Let me repeat what I said, and I'm sure that the record will show it. The cost of the budget for the four urban clinics and Pine clinic combined was $3.717 million. We got those numbers directly from Vancouver Coastal Health in the last 24 hours. I know that the budget for Mid-Main…. There's a dental clinic, and there's a medical services clinic — $1.7 million and $2 million respectively. The cut is what I referred to. I said explicitly that the cut to their funding was $400,000, approximately.

Really, what we're talking about by way of…. I said we're making these significant cuts to this primary care clinic budget, which now totals $3.7 million. And then I talked about a $400,000 cut to Mid-Main. They are different clinics. I fully understand that. The Mid-Main clinic has a community board. It has its own building. It employs the physicians. So it is a different financial arrangement. I just do want to clarify that.

But the minister did not respond to my question regarding how it is that we can discuss in estimates and the minister is not prepared to really countenance any questions when it comes to spending $840 million on a computer system, yet these kinds of cuts to primary care clinics seem to be completely acceptable.

[1610]

Hon. T. Lake: I have been answering the questions. I don't know why the member would suggest that I have no countenance to answer the questions. I've been answering the questions. I just don't agree with her — what a shock. Let me correct the member again.

The total budgets for the four urban primary care clinics — Pacific Spirit, Raven Song, South and Evergreen — and Pine were a total of $3,717,312. The total budget in '14-15 for the new combined services at Raven Song is $4,053,210. That's an increase of about $400,000 going to serve the high needs vulnerable population that we're talking about. This is not a cut. This is an increase in resources. If the member just doesn't want to acknowledge that, that's fine. I appreciate that.

At Mid-Main there will be some savings in administration. There is one nurse practitioner that will no longer be funded. That's true. However, two new nurse practitioners will be established at Raven Song. This is adding resources where they are needed.

I don't know how many more times or how many more ways I can say it, but obviously the member is not convinced. However, she's not likely to convince me that this is something that isn't going to increase services for
[ Page 4364 ]
a highly complex, vulnerable population. That's what we should be doing.

We're doing it at Raven Song. We're doing it at King Street. We're doing it at Blue Pine Clinic in Prince George. These are all excellent examples of multidisciplinary, integrated community health centres meeting the needs of a highly complex, vulnerable population.

J. Darcy: I do need to point out, and I hope the minister appreciates this, that the patients who migrate to fee-for-service, who presently are served in these four urban clinics and the Pine Clinic for $3,717,312…. When they migrate to fee-for-service, it will in fact be an additional cost to the health care system.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: No, no. But it won't come out of Vancouver Coastal. It comes out of….

If the minister is saying this is a more efficient use of resources by focusing it on those who are most at need, the fact of the matter is that switching those 8,000 to 10,000 or more patients onto fee-for-service simply means that you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, because the medical services premium budget is under the Ministry of Health. They may not come under Vancouver Coastal's budget then — at a very, very modest cost, I will say — they will come under the medical services premium budget.

I think it would helpful now if we moved to speak to some of the specific clinics that are there. I've talked about Mid-Main. I know that my colleagues from Vancouver–Point Grey and Vancouver-Fairview have questions they would like to ask, so I will let them continue.

G. Heyman: I have a question about resources that will be in place if, in fact, the plan to close Pacific Spirit and Pine Free Clinic go ahead. I also want to just take the opportunity to let the minister know a very small sample of some of the communication that has come into my office with respect to this.

One case was a young woman who had been a patient at Pacific Spirit when she was dealing with a very difficult time in her life with drug addictions. I met her. She came all the way in from the Fraser Valley to attend a meeting to discuss the closure of clinics. She said:

"To the passerby, you would not know that each morning I take my medication for anxiety and depression and that I turn my will and life over to something greater than me so that I do not resort to the life that I used to live. What that life looked like, which started to change just over a decade ago, was not a pleasant place. It was riddled with addiction, eating disorders, darkness and eventually death.

"As I stated, my mother was at a place where she was ready to plan my funeral. Now a mother myself, I grieve for her sadness and hopelessness in that place.

[1615]

"Many of the issues that Pine Free Clinic and Pacific Spirit address with young people were obstacles that I faced in my late teens and early 20s. One of my greatest concerns, if these clinics are removed from their neighbourhood settings, is that the people who need them most will not be able to access them.

"Friends who work, in a variety of jobs throughout the city, with those who have multiple barriers…. In speaking with them regarding transit, not one of them said that they provide transit fare to their patients' clients. They're not allowed to do so. I remember some days it was hard enough to get out of bed and brush my hair, let alone get to an appointment that was halfway across town."

The minister has stated that resources that are currently available at Pacific Spirit and, particularly, at Pine Free youth clinic will be available at Raven Song and elsewhere.

My question for the minister is specifically what number of FTEs will be added to Raven Song — which is in my constituency of Vancouver-Fairview, just as Pacific Spirit and Pine Free are just outside the borders of my constituency —, to ensure that service at its current level, leaving aside the question of the distance of travelling, will be available to young people particularly?

What other resources will be put in place, and what measures at Raven Song will be in place to ensure that young people who are coming for treatment and advice on a range of issues that are often emotional won't be spending time in waiting rooms with people who are being treated for drug addictions?

Hon. T. Lake: So 6.85 FTEs will be redirected to Raven Song to meet the expanded coverage. Do you know what? Obviously, we all have a lot of sympathy for anyone that suffers from the types of challenges that the member describes.

It's important to note that Pacific Spirit and South will remain open. Pacific Spirit is on Arbutus Street and West 43rd. The member knows the area well. He knows that that is not an area where a lot of highly vulnerable people live, that in fact the East Vancouver area around the Raven Song clinic is far more likely to have a vulnerable client base, especially with the movement of the social housing that's going on there.

It's important to understand, too, that South, Evergreen and Pacific Spirit are community health centres. While their doctors will move to a fee-for-service model in the community, and that is being negotiated with them at the moment, they will still be operated by Vancouver Coastal, and they will continue to offer a range of services that can be accessed by patients, as the member described.

I would think that the member would want us to shift resources, increase resources to where the population has the highest needs. I would argue that that is what's going on here: moving resources from a less vulnerable population to one that is highly vulnerable. With the growth in terms of the supported housing that will occur in that area, it will continue to increase in the future.

G. Heyman: With respect to the minister, there are different kinds of vulnerabilities at Pacific Spirit, on the whole, and a different set at Pine Free. I mean, Pine Free
[ Page 4365 ]
Clinic was established 40 years ago specifically because of the needs of young people, often in vulnerable emotional states, surrounded by a social milieu of the time that while different from today's social milieu, was equally challenging.

[1620]

It's now being proposed that these youth go to a different place where they will receive a different kind of attention. They have no guarantee that the kind of clinic they're going to will give them the kind of supportive attention that they have got at Pacific Spirit that has, frankly, by their own testimony at public meetings, saved many young people's lives and futures.

At Pacific Spirit we have frail seniors who are now being asked to travel a long, long distance from Kerrisdale to the eastern part of Vancouver, in Vancouver-Fairview. That is not an easy trip for many people to take. It is not an easy trip by transit, and for many of them, that's the only option they will have.

I appreciate the minister providing me with a breakdown of the number of FTEs that will be added to Raven Song. I don't think he addressed the issue of what other resources will be available to, for instance, ensure that young people aren't stuck in waiting rooms with people who, while I respect them, are dealing with a different set of challenges and recovering from drug addictions. This is not, in my view, a mix of clientele that's either healthy or contemplated by health policy or legislation.

Hon. T. Lake: The redesign actually improves access to services through the creation of the youth hub at Raven Song. Additional physician hours at the Three Bridges primary care clinic, increase the primary care physician resources at the East Van public health youth clinic.

While the member is expressing concern about vulnerable youth in Kitsilano, the demographics are such that there is a higher number of highly vulnerable young people in the areas where the resources are being transferred. But that doesn't mean that resources aren't available. I mentioned that Pacific Spirit will remain open as a Vancouver Coastal Health centre, so there will be services that can be accessed.

In terms of frail seniors, there will be physician services available. The member wasn't present earlier when we talked about the changes to the billing codes that provide incentives for physicians to spend more time with chronic complex cases. In a fee-for-service model in the old days you would just get the one-size-fits-all. We've built in different fees now so that a physician can spend more time reviewing the case history of a complex patient, spend more time with the patient and meet the needs of that patient in a more fulsome manner than under the old system.

Resources are still there for the type of patient that the member describes. We believe this redesign, as I've said before, will provide a greater service seven days a week, 12 hours a day, to serve a highly vulnerable complex population that is more likely to be found in the areas of Raven Song than it is in the area around Pacific Spirit.

G. Heyman: Before I sit down and turn questions to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey, with whom I've been working on particularly the issue of Pine Free and will be working with on the issue of Pacific Spirit, I just wanted to raise a point that was raised with me in an e-mail from a senior research scientist at the University of Victoria, who is also concerned about the closure.

He says simply — in fact, it was an e-mail to you, I believe, on which we were copied: "I don't think I have to remind you of the disastrous rollout of community mental health some years ago, where patients were released from institutions caring for them without the required community services being ready." He goes on to say that if you and Vancouver Coastal are so convinced that the model you're pursuing is right, why not test it side by side with the existing model, rather than making a no-return decision that may not be the right one, and ensure that the two can be weighed against each other?

J. Darcy: My colleague the member from Vancouver-Fairview asked a question about the FTEs. The minister said 6.85 FTEs. I wonder if the minister could break down what those are — physicians, nurse practitioners. Who are they? And what was the number previously in the clinics where those positions are going to be eliminated?

[1625]

Hon. T. Lake: We don't have the exact breakdown. What we are seeing, of course, is that resources are being shifted over to Raven Song. I mentioned that there are two new nurse practitioners at Raven Song. We will endeavour to get the exact breakdown of the changes in the FTEs.

D. Eby: On May 20 we held a forum in my constituency where patients and supporters of the Pine free clinic and Pacific Spirit clinic got together. We sent a letter to the Minister of Health, and we sent a letter to Vancouver Coastal Health, inviting them to come to hear from people firsthand and to share their perspectives on what the minister describes as this transfer. None of them showed up.

My question is pretty straightforward. Why did they not come? Was it a budgetary issue? Or is it simply that they didn't even bother caring enough to show up to explain this decision to the people affected?

[1630]

Hon. T. Lake: Vancouver Coastal undertook a study looking at the demographics, looking at the population, looking at all the clinics that are operating under the pri-
[ Page 4366 ]
mary health care model in that area and determined that a redesign would increase the service to that high needs population.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

They worked with the staff and the physicians at the impacted sites. They held meetings with a majority of sites to discuss the future vision of the service. The service will be changed over the next six to eight months. That will smooth the transition and help people understand the change in service that will be happening to support that population.

I know the member has had opportunity to comment. David Hall, who is the medical director for primary care in Vancouver Coastal, has refuted the member's comments. I won't get into the details of that.

An event organized by the opposition is certainly…. It's their opportunity and their prerogative to do that. It's certainly not a responsibility for people to attend.

Vancouver Coastal is doing that work in the community. We are monitoring the situation and ensuring that the patients are transferred and assisted, ensuring that they are connected to their physician or a physician that's available to them and that they are aware of the increased services at Raven Song going from eight hours a day to 12 hours a day, five days a week to seven days a week.

D. Eby: This minister knows very well that Vancouver Coastal Health is only communicating with our community through their website, through postings on their website, ignoring community meetings. The minister shows up here, says there are 6½ additional FTEs. He doesn't even know who they are. He says, "Don't worry. There will be just as many services at Raven Song," but he can't even tell us who has been hired at Raven Song to replace the four clinics that are closing. It is absolutely outrageous, the lack of communication around this.

He talks about the remarkable work that Vancouver Coastal Health has done looking into the impact of this. But the third-party expert that they hired, Dr. Garey Mazowita, the head of family and community medicine at Providence Health Care, said that consolidation will "reduce access to primary care for many high needs patients and will eliminate the ability to customize individual clinics." He said: "In light of these policy considerations, the optics of undertaking significant change…."

The Chair: Member. Member, you are not allowed to use your laptop when you are making your presentation.

D. Eby: Oh. Thank you, hon. Chair.

I don't need to read this to the minister, because the minister knows this report very well. He knows very well the conclusions of this esteemed expert who looked at Coastal Health. Coastal Health won't even show up in our community and defend their decision to the people affected by this. The minister won't show up to our community and defend the decision to the people affected by this. And the only reason we even found out about this is because layoff notices went out to the staff, and it leaked, and Coastal Health had to put something up on their website.

Can the minister assure us that he's put some kind of budget in here to enable Coastal Health or his ministry to come out to communities and explain to the people affected by this, instead of the slipshod, garbage method that they have taken to date?

[1635]

Hon. T. Lake: Vancouver Coastal has assured us that they will continue to engage with the community to help them understand the changes. In fact, clients will be reviewed individually to minimize any chance that a complex client is inadvertently affected by this. We will, through Vancouver Coastal Health, reach out to those clients and ensure that they are aware of the changes and they are aware of where their primary care access will be. Very vulnerable clients will, in fact, have a transition care plan created.

There's a lot of work and continued engagement with those people that are affected by this change which, as I mentioned, will result in increased services to the most vulnerable people in our society.

D. Eby: How can you say that? You don't even know. You don't even know what the FTEs are.

Hon. T. Lake: Are you finished? We've said that we would get a breakdown of the FTEs. Perhaps the member is….

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Minister.

I would remind the members that the minister has the floor, and when the minister has the floor, he is to be speaking. Thank you.

You have the floor, sir.

Hon. T. Lake: This will be transitioned over the next six to eight months, and all of the vulnerable clients will be transitioned with a care plan. There will be continued community engagement so that the community understands the changes and those people that are most vulnerable have knowledge that now they can access those needed services seven days a week, 12 hours a day. That will result in better service.

The Chair: If I could just clarify before I recognize the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. In a memo from the
[ Page 4367 ]
Speaker of February 17, 2014, in item 4 she said: "Unless otherwise permitted, electronic devices must not be used by a member who is in possession of the floor." They are allowed, and we can use them, but when you are the member in possession of the floor, they are not allowed to be used. That's just for clarification.

A. Dix: They named that rule after the Premier. But I digress.

A Voice: Which one?

A. Dix: The current one.

The minister has the numbers in terms of the budgets for these health centres, the Evergreen Health Centre. What are the numbers? What's the budget number for 2013-14? What's the budget number for 2014-15, when this is, as he says, six months implemented? And what's the budget number for 2015-16?

Hon. T. Lake: The member was not present when we canvassed this earlier. In '13-14 the total budget for the four urban primary care clinics — Pacific Spirit, Raven Song, South and Evergreen — and Pine clinic was a total of $3,717,312. The total budget in '14-15 for the combined services at Raven Song is $4,053,210. As I mentioned, with five physicians at this time — there could be more — moving over for fee-for-service, that would be about another $1 million of investment in primary health care.

[1640]

A. Dix: Specifically, the Evergreen Health Centre budget for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The minister has the answer. I heard him. I was listening to the debate when he provided it before. Can he just give us that basic information for the Evergreen Health Centre?

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize to the member. I didn't say that earlier for each of the clinics. So I apologize. I don't have that. I will endeavour to get that. But again, Vancouver Coastal is a very large organization. They would hopefully have that information, and we will endeavour to get it for the member.

A. Dix: I'm delighted that they'll provide it. Hopefully, we'll get that before the end of estimates.

The minister said — and I'm speaking of the Evergreen Health Centre — in his explanation for the decision that new social housing had been developed around Raven Song, and this was used as justification. Vancouver Coastal Health has been part of the process in our community, near Evergreen, at the Kingsway Continental, where there's new social housing.

Vancouver Coastal Health was part of those consultations and never, not once, did they mention they were planning to shut down primary care to Evergreen. So point 1 in the defence of this thing doesn't work. There's more social housing in our neighbourhood. In fact, Vancouver Coastal Health was part of it, and they didn't tell us about it.

The minister says Evergreen doesn't provide multidisciplinary care. There was a nurse practitioner until the fall of last year, which they didn't replace when she left. You can't destroy the multidisciplinary care and then use the fact that there's no multidisciplinary care as justification for shutting down primary care at Evergreen Health Centre.

What the minister is saying — and this is kind of, in a way, the most extraordinary part — is that they're taking care of fewer patients. This is according to Vancouver Coastal Health on trusty paper. At least 60 percent of patients will continue to see their regular doctor. In other words, serving fewer patients for more money is the defence of the minister, right?

In our neighbourhood, where there is a lot of struggle — and the Kingsway Continental is, I think, a good example — we take on the challenges. We don't oppose social housing in our neighbourhood; we embrace it. We're involved in long, year-long processes to embrace the social housing that this government was involved in. Then as soon as it's accepted, bait-and-switch.

Vancouver Coastal Health said this was a two-year process, the review of Evergreen. And you know when they're having their first consultation in our neighbourhood? Thirty-two days after they laid off the staff. How is that way of doing business justifiable? In addition, I might add, they actually have an agreement with the community that they broke to do this in terms of consultation. How is it justifiable, when you're making that fundamental change, when we're working with Vancouver Coastal Health on significant social issues, that you can make this substantial change to a community health centre that serves the community well?

Hon. T. Lake: I don't believe the member honestly believes that Vancouver Coastal is trying to devise a system to thwart the needs of the people in the community. I mean, that's amazing to me that the member would even contemplate that they would sit around a board table and say: "How can we best jeopardize the health care needs of this community?"

I don't think that's what they do. In fact, I know what they do. They try to service the community in even better ways with increased service, longer days, more days, more resources.

Evergreen had physicians and, at one time, had a nurse practitioner. It doesn't have the ancillary services of Raven Song. The nurse practitioner left. The position was not filled because there was not an adequate caseload, and the patients were transferred to the care of their physicians.
[ Page 4368 ]

If the member is suggesting that the health care system employ people where there is not enough need, rather than put them where there is greater need, I guess it would be unusual, I think, for anyone to advocate that position. It's certainly not the position we advocate.

[1645]

A. Dix: Just to make it clear, we're adding need in our community. Vancouver Coastal Health was part of that. And this is a betrayal of the community and a betrayal of those discussions. It is. When you're working with people day by day to take on a difficult project and the community accepts the project but then you shut down the service that was linked to that project after the agreement was made, people have a legitimate reason to feel betrayed. And they do feel betrayed.

They're shutting down care. Thousands of people are losing their family doctor. This is a serious question in our community, and the minister can't even tell us the basic budget numbers for Evergreen Health Centre. Hopefully, we'll get them.

The consequences for the health centre are significant. As anyone who looks at Evergreen Health Centre or looks at the health needs of our community knows, they are significant, and they're not needs that we hide from as a community. It's a community that supports one another.

I think the question I have, given the engagement that the community has had with Vancouver Coastal Health on very significant issues, is: how can you have a consultation after you've sent out layoff notices? If the minister is arguing he's doing the right thing, why didn't they bother talking to anybody in the community for two years? Why didn't they bother talking to people in the community when they, without telling anyone, eliminated the nurse practitioner position, eliminated youth programs and now eliminated the doctors?

I mean, this is a dramatic change in what the Evergreen Health Centre does. Is there any plan? I'll ask this just finally, because we're going to, obviously, continue our efforts to convince the government of a different approach and a different direction. Are there any plans to add services to the Evergreen Health Centre?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, Evergreen was not a community health centre in the same way that Raven Song is. There was not enough caseload for the nurse practitioner position to be maintained, and those resources have been shifted over to Raven Song, where there is a demand.

Physicians at Evergreen can go to a fee-for-service model and provide services. In fact, at Evergreen, 1,600 of the 1,800 patients will either retain their existing physician or be offered service with a physician they may have seen at the clinic before. We'll certainly work with other remaining patients to ensure that they are connected with services as well.

J. Darcy: Well, I think it is shocking that we could spend all of this time discussing this issue. We could have raised this in the Legislature on a number of occasions, and the community has spoken out very strongly. And then we come to estimates, and the minister justifies this right up the line without knowing any of the hard facts about what's actually happening in those clinics.

I just want to go back to Evergreen for a moment. If anybody…. I've been to meetings with patients of the Evergreen community clinic, together with the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and those patients all gave testimonials about the kind of care they receive from a nurse practitioner. I want to underline what the member from Vancouver-Kingsway has said. Vancouver Coastal Health's consultation around this has been abysmal.

I know that the minister has met with the director responsible for this program, but I would strongly encourage the minister, as I have in the past, to spend some time and come down and talk to some of those health care providers and talk to some of those patients because their perspective on this is very, very different.

The minister has not yet responded to the question about…. I guess I could keep asking and keep not getting an answer. The minister keeps talking about the 5 percent most vulnerable parts of the population and continues to ignore that there are thousands of other patients who may not be in the highest, highest risk but also have severe health needs.

Just a couple of those…. One of those people in particular is a case, a person that I met, together with the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and I raised the issue directly in the Legislature. This was Tita and Ducolo Tocol, who are patients at Evergreen Community Health Centre. Ducolo has had open-heart surgery, suffers from congestive heart failure and needs to be checked weekly for blood clots, and they're not considered to be in the most at-risk category that is going to have the services of the robust primary interdisciplinary care.

[1650]

I think it's really, really important, and I want to urge the minister once again that he both bring the facts about what is actually going to happen with those clinics — what the FTEs are going to be, what the budgets are now, what they will be in the future — and that we have that before us tomorrow. I want to also encourage him to take the time and go and speak to some of the people who are directly affected by some of these cuts.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey was told that according to rules, he couldn't read from a computer device. I do want to, however, refer to that same document, because the document by the external reviewers, conducted in the fall of 2013 and completed and submitted in December 2013, did not recommend the closing or the reduction of the primary care interdisciplinary services at those clinics.

Vancouver Coastal conducted two reviews. One was an
[ Page 4369 ]
internal one. The other was an external one. The external one did not recommend that that happen and, in fact, recommended quite the opposite. In fact, what it recommended…. It pointed to that other 15 to 20 percent of people who also have severe risks. It also recommended very strongly that…. It said that there had been a weakness of leadership, lack of clarity by Vancouver Coastal Health about the objectives of some of these clinics, and it recommended that, in fact, many of those patients would continue to be served by robust interdisciplinary teams.

It also said, very importantly, that Vancouver Coastal's community clinics offer the sole community-based opportunity for employment in the multidisciplinary primary care sector for nurse practitioners, who represent a valuable resource, trained specifically for primary care, but who are underutilized and underemployed in B.C., largely due to the lack of employment opportunities in precisely such settings — those settings being primary care centres.

The last piece. I do want to quote directly from the recommendations of the external review. It says: "Consistent with provincial community integration agenda, consider strengthening and diversifying the current UPC" — urban primary care — "clinic interdisciplinary teams by integrating additional RNs, mental health and addiction counsellors, social workers, etc., from other Vancouver Coastal Health community programs."

In fact, they advocated strengthening the programs rather than weakening them. I wonder if the minister could respond to that.

Hon. T. Lake: I believe that's exactly what I've been saying — that they have strengthened by consolidating resources into a seven-day-a-week, 12-hour-a-day facility to serve vulnerable, complex patients. This was the review that was done that showed that there was a mismatch between demand and supply, that they were providing services for a population that didn't have the needs for those services — at least not a good match. This was to better match the population with the services. That's what they've done in this particular case. I've said it in all different forms.

With that, hon. Chair, I would beg the indulgence for a short recess.

The Chair: This committee stands recessed for about five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

J. Darcy: Before we leave this subject, I just want to identify the issues that the minister has committed to get back to us on. Those were the current budgets and the budgets next year for each of the community health centres; the current FTEs at those clinics, the breakdown of them and which positions they are — meaning physician, nurse practitioner, medical office assistant and so on. In fact, I think it was 14 physicians who received layoff notices or who were told that their services would be terminated as of October 31 — 14 physicians, 16 primary care staff.

In both cases, this is covering South, Pine, Pacific Spirit and Evergreen. What are the new positions? Which ones will remain? What are the new positions and the FTEs for each type of position at the Raven Song clinic?

The minister also indicated earlier that the physicians at Mid-Main would be continuing on an alternate payment plan. If he could also confirm that tomorrow, that would be greatly appreciated.

My colleague was missed yesterday or was tied up yesterday when we were talking about rural health. He has a couple of questions he'd like to put on the record.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here. Sorry about this. I'll leave the question with the minister and his staff, if I can get a response at some other time, because I've missed my slot.

I met with Anne Ostwald's grade 12 social justice class in Port Alberni at the Alberni District Secondary School. There is a subgroup. There are five or six students that have been working on youth mental health issues. This is in the Alberni Valley. They have identified from their work…. They researched this. All of them have had some experience with mental health issues in the family, amongst peers or amongst themselves. I applaud them for doing this.

There are several items that they raised concerns about. There is a six- to eight-week wait-list for youth in the Alberni Valley that are seeking help for mental health issues, and many need help now.

Next, there's some need for one-to-one, but a computer was recommended. But real people are needed, in their opinion, for help also.

There are issues that they found. There are shortfalls in funding for training personnel in the region, in the Alberni Valley, at least relating to mental health for youth. They suggested they need more support within communities. And there are no youth mental health spaces or beds at all in the Alberni Valley, from their research. Again, they see that as a shortfall.

I would note that after I met with them, I did a little bit of research. There was the report done by the Representative for Children and Youth from April 2013, almost exactly a year before the students raised these issues. The report is Still Waiting: First-Hand Experiences with Youth Mental Health Services in B.C. I noted that there are many parallels from the Children and Youth Representative and the work that these great students have done in Port Alberni.

I would like to be able to present them with some re-
[ Page 4370 ]
sponses at some point in time — hopefully, before they get out of school. It may not work. Again, I applaud the work that they do on behalf of the youth in the Alberni Valley.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the member and thank the students as well. It's a great initiative, and it shows that they are interested in the subject.

[1710]

Just maybe a couple of sort of summary statements, but we'll be happy to get the more specific information for you.

There are 77 acute and tertiary beds in regions across the province that are designed exclusively for children and youth with mental health and substance use issues. So that's one component. I think the member is saying that there are services that are required in the community. When you think about family physicians, a lot of family physicians are, perhaps, challenged dealing with mental health and substance use issues. Over the years that's been the case. It's a complex, complex subject.

Through the practice support program, in partnership with the Doctors of B.C., we provide training and knowledge to GPs for the identification, assessment, management and treatment of children and youth and their families where a mental illness is present. To date, more than 1,800 family doctors have received this training. They're working with school counsellors, pediatricians, psychiatrists and child and youth mental health clinicians in their communities.

However, I appreciate that the member wants a little more specific information, so we'll endeavour to get that to him.

S. Hammell: I would just like to ask a question on bariatric surgery. I don't think it's been covered. I do understand that the Ministry of Health had an interest in making this surgery more accessible. I know that there are people that have talked to me about asking what the progress was on that surgery. Because we know a bit more about it, largely from back east — that it is effective — people are becoming more used to doing that kind of surgery. I'm just asking the minister for an update.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm just trying to get a little bit of context here. The number of publicly funded bariatric surgeries and currently being performed on Vancouver Island and at Vancouver Coastal. In 2009-10 there were 92; 2010-11, 61; 2011-12, 146; 2012-13, 198; 2013-14, 216. As of March 31, 2014, there were 171 people waiting for bariatric surgery.

What we plan to do is to increase the resources, so we hope in 2014-15 that we will have 400 cases completed in B.C. — a significant increase in the number we're doing now. That will be the responsibility of all health authorities to budget, even though the surgeries will be done in those two health authorities. But they will budget for those through their health authorities.

J. Darcy: I want to return to an issue that we talked about at the end of the day yesterday. I want to clarify if I really understood the minister correctly.

I was asking about the Fraser Health review and about when the report was going to be released. It was originally going to be released by the end of May and then was delayed into June. I thought about it afterwards. Someone else said to me that the minister had stated that the report is not going to be released. In fact, it's going to be just incorporated into the new strategic and operational review for Fraser Health, but the report will not actually be released.

Is that the case? Why is it the case? The people of Fraser Health, which include my constituents, have been waiting a very, very long time. They were not given the opportunity to have input from patients, from the public, from health care providers, but they certainly are very eagerly awaiting to hear what conclusions the report has reached and what actions are being proposed going forward — but very much, also, an analysis of what it is that's gone wrong. You need to understand what's gone wrong in order to fix it.

[1715]

Will that report be released? If not, why not?

Hon. T. Lake: The ministerial order was signed October 31 and deposited October 31, 2013. It did outline the timeline, and as mentioned, we are in that timeline still. The ministerial order — this is available on our website, so it's public information. I'm just trying to find the right language in the order: "On or before May 31, 2014, the board must submit to the minister, in the form and manner required by the minister, a strategic and operational plan in respect of the fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017."

For the purposes of this, the Fraser Health Board must "(a) prepare the plan with the assistance of the review committee, (b) base the plan on the results of the review conducted under section 4, and (c) ensure that the plan does all of the following:

"(i) describes the results of the review; (ii) identifies service outcome targets, operational and financial objectives and operational and financial goals; (iii) sets out the strategies needed to achieve the targets, objectives and goals identified under subparagraph (ii); (iv) describes how operations will be structured and performed in order to implement the strategies set out under subparagraph (iii).

"(3) The board must amend the plan if and as required by the minister until the minister approves the plan."

The actual review is incorporated into the plan as part of the document which is the operational and strategic plan. Hopefully, that clarifies the process for the member.
[ Page 4371 ]

J. Darcy: So there will not be a report that is issued? There will not be a report issued on the actual findings of the review. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Lake: Incorporated into the plan will be a description of the results of the review. It won't be a separate document. It will form part of the operational and strategic plan.

J. Darcy: My colleague the member for Surrey–Green Timbers is coming up soon, so I'm trying to move a little too quickly, perhaps.

When will the strategic and operational review for Fraser Health be released?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned in the order that it says "On or before May 31." Now, we've made a change in governance, and we have appointed Mr. Wynne Powell to be chair of Fraser Health Authority. That was as recently, I believe, as three or four weeks ago. Mr. Powell is doing an enormous amount of work, so because of this change in the governance, we may extend that to ensure that he has the opportunity to fully go through the review and incorporate the results of the review with the board into the operational strategic plan.

[1720]

My goal certainly would be to have that done, hopefully, by the end of June. As I said, we don't want to shortchange the process. With the change in leadership, that does throw a bit of a wrench into the timeline, but we think that we can accommodate that within a month or so.

J. Darcy: Does that mean we can expect to see the new strategic and operational review in a month?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry. To be clear, I think it will be up to a month after the May 31 date indicated in the ministerial order.

J. Darcy: So we can expect to see the strategic and operational review for Fraser Health at the end of June?

Hon. T. Lake: That would be my hope.

The Chair: The bells are ringing. The committee will recess for division.

The committee recessed from 5:21 p.m. to 5:32 p.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

J. Darcy: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was going to try and get here before four o'clock, and he was not able to. I have questions…. Actually, I think I'll copy them and then submit them on his behalf. He has a number of questions regarding CDMR on Vancouver Island, nurse practitioners and a couple of other things. Yes, I will get those to you tomorrow.

S. Simpson: I've got just a couple of quick questions for the minister related to two aspects around CF, cystic fibrosis.

The first question is a question that I'm asking partly on behalf of my colleague from North Island, who is unable to be here, who is away from the House on business at the moment. It's in regard to a particular drug that is used, Kalydeco. It's quite an expensive drug but a drug that has proved to be pretty effective, it appears, for a very small number of people with a more unique strain, G551D, I think, a strain of cystic fibrosis. I understand that there are 12, 15 people in the province who that may have that particular strain.

This drug has proved pretty effective. I know from talking to people in the field, medical folks and that in the field, as well, that there is also a great hope — and I'll have a second question related to this — that some of the things they're learning from this drug they may be able to apply to that larger group of British Columbians who are facing challenges around cystic fibrosis.

My question, though, is…. As the minister will know, there are a number in that small group of people who are able to get this drug supported by their plans. There are a number of other people for whom that opportunity is not available to them.

Could the minister give us a bit of an update on two things? First of all, how is the negotiation going with the industry? I believe it's the pan-Canadian purchasing alliance. Alberta, I think, is playing a lead.

[1735]

How is that discussion going? Is the province contemplating any support for that small group of families who don't have an insurance plan that will support them in being able to use this drug?

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the committee.

Cystic fibrosis is a terrible disease, as the member is well aware. As the member indicates, there is optimism that ivacaftor, known as Kalydeco, is useful for a small number — I think the member is correct, about 5 percent — of those suffering from cystic fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis affects an important chemical in the body that is needed to help pulmonary function, lung function, as well as gastrointestinal function. This drug does have some benefit to a small population of those affected by a certain type of cystic fibrosis. There has been a lot of discussion about it. This drug is used in other
[ Page 4372 ]
jurisdictions and has been under review by the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry of Health relies upon the common drug review, which is the pan-Canadian approach to evaluating drugs. The common drug review recommended that public drug plans list Kalydeco if two important conditions are met — first, that the manufacturer drop the price substantially to be considered cost-effective, as the member is aware. The reality is that you have to look at a cost-benefit analysis when you're looking at these types of approaches. You look at the benefit versus the cost to the taxpayer. The common drug review recommended that we list this only if there was a substantial drop in the price.

Secondly, the common drug review said that if you're going to cover the drug, we need to work with cystic fibrosis experts to create criteria for when to stop treatment if a patient isn't showing meaningful response to the drug. Those negotiations have been ongoing. For perspective, for anyone following the discussion, currently the manufacturer is citing over $300,000 per patient per year for this drug, so it is very expensive.

Minister Fred Horne from the province of Alberta has been leading the negotiations. He met recently with the manufacturers in Toronto. I had a conversation with him on the phone just the other day about this. While those negotiations are ongoing, I can't get into the details of the discussion. It's fair to say we haven't yet reached an agreement with the manufacturer that is satisfactory to the pan-Canadian team, but Minister Horne is redoubling his efforts, and we hope that we will have something soon in terms of a decision.

I think it's important that that second criterion — looking at when a patient should be taken off the drug if it's not showing a response…. The member mentioned that some patients that have a drug plan would be covered for this drug. The manufacturer actually has, in many cases, paid for the co-payment for the patients that are covered by third-party insurance. So that is part of the discussion as well — whether that policy would be maintained if it were to be covered on a public drug plan. What would happen if they didn't continue that policy would be that everyone would, perhaps, seek to become on the public drug plan.

Again, huge potential. The data I've seen says that there's about a 10 percent improvement in lung function, but then there are other improvements as well. It would vary from patient to patient.

[1740]

We are working hard on this. We know how important it is to families that have members suffering from cystic fibrosis. I know Minister Horne in Alberta has put a lot of effort in and will continue to, and hopefully we'll have an answer soon.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I would agree that you want to make sure that you're making progress with this. I guess that number…. The minister quotes the number roughly in the $300,000 range for somebody to be able to have this treatment for a year. I would agree with the minister that if at all possible, I wouldn't want an arrangement where the obligation all fell to the public purse if there is third-party insurance and benefit plans that are picking part of that up now.

We are talking a small number of people, and I know the frustration for those who don't have the ability to access this. So I would hope that there will be progress on this and that the ministry would look at whether there's a way to provide some support, hopefully only for a short interim period, for those families who don't have that ability and $300,000 is just too big a hill to climb.

Just one more question regarding this generally. There is a lot of optimism. As I've said in the House before, my nephew has CF. I know he's in a trial now, and it's going very well. He has a much more common strain. They are using some of what they've learned from this in trials that he's now involved in, and he's seen some significant improvement. Time will tell whether that improvement can be sustained and whether it works, but he's got lung function going from about 63 percent to 83 percent in a short period of time with some drugs.

Now the question will be: can you sustain that over time? Does it have value over time? And, you know, we'll all hope for the best.

Could the minister, though, tell me: what is the role of the ministry in terms of support for some of those initiatives that are trying to kind of crack the CF mystery and trying to find either the treatment that will make this a chronic issue but not, potentially, a life-threatening issue and manage its growth, or a solution and a cure? What work is being done by the ministry in support with medical professionals and with the CF advocacy community on that today?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm pleased to hear that the member's nephew has shown some improvement. That's a very good sign, obviously.

The ministry doesn't fund drug trials. The manufacturers will fund drug trials. The ministry is in the business of delivering health care services. It does not fund research directly.

I want to just pick up on a comment about…. Perhaps other CF sufferers will benefit from this drug and learn some things from the trials, and if you open up the pool of patients that could be treated with the drug, it would mean a greater market for the drug and hopefully a lower per-unit cost. When you have a limited number of patients with a new drug, often the cost is extremely high to support all the research that's gone into it.

[1745]

We will be following this very closely and will work with Minister Horne in Alberta. Hopefully, as I men-
[ Page 4373 ]
tioned, we will have some resolution to that soon, if we can attain a reasonable offer from the drug company that protects taxpayers and also, obviously, the patients that would be served.

J. Darcy: Just a couple more questions. One is about Royal Columbian Hospital. When I've raised this issue in the past with the minister and called…. While doing a strategic and operational review of Fraser Health, I've also strongly urged that an immediate, urgent action needed to be taken in a number of areas. One of those was the overcrowding at Royal Columbian Hospital in the emergency room.

This issue reaches public attention when it gets in the media, which it has repeatedly, as the minister is aware. We can go back to the Tim Hortons. But the staff who work in the emergency room will say these things happen quite regularly; they just don't make headlines very often.

There was a huge crisis in this regard, as the minister knows, towards the end of March. Patients had gone into cardiac arrest in hallways. The physicians were speaking out, the nurses were, the frontline providers were and patients and their families were. While things then abated a bit, there continues to be a serious, ongoing crisis in the emergency room at Royal Columbian Hospital.

There is a permanent overflow area in the emergency room. A former elected official who is in her mid-80s, who wouldn't want her name mentioned, fractured her pelvis recently and spent over a week in an overflow area in the emergency room. This is a common occurrence. I don't think I need to read into the record all of the reasons why this is bad for patients, bad for patient care — increased risk of infections, increased pain, delay in recovery and all of those sorts of things.

What assurances can the minister give to my constituents and other people who use Royal Columbian Hospital — which is not a community hospital; it's a tertiary care facility for the entire Lower Mainland, sometimes the province — that there is immediate action being taken to address the issue in the emergency room at Royal Columbian?

Hon. T. Lake: In March there was a surge that caused increased wait times at the Royal Columbian emergency department. We do see this at hospitals around the province, particularly at certain times of the year when flu season is particularly bad. When I visited Prince George, and I went to the hospital there, they were particularly busy. I believe it was in January. I asked if it was because of flu season, and they said that no, it's slip-and-fall season because of the winter. Particularly, elderly people have difficulty and will fall and often suffer hip fractures.

For different reasons, different hospitals will have congestion problems. It's not limited to Royal Columbian Hospital. It's not limited to 2014. I could go back into every decade, and this is a common occurrence in our acute care system. I could read headlines from the '90s, I could read headlines from the '80s, I could show cartoons from the '70s that all depict emergency room congestion. No one is saying that we should be satisfied with that. We all want to improve emergency department efficiencies.

Fraser Health immediately opened ten extra beds at Eagle Ridge Hospital so that they could accommodate some patients from Royal Columbian. Of course, in Fraser Health, with their service delivery model, they try to accommodate across a whole service so that they can move some flow from one hospital to another. Sometimes that can be done quickly; sometimes, not so quickly. They tried to respond as quickly as possible in this particular case. As far as I'm aware, since that time in March, the situation has improved somewhat.

[1750]

Long-term, of course, we are working on the redevelopment of Royal Columbian Hospital with an increase in beds from 416 to 675 on the campus. That is a new mental health facility, development of a new acute care tower, renovation to the Columbia Tower, renovation to the health care centre and a new energy centre. That is going forward. The final scope, cost and schedule for phase 1 will be confirmed as part of the business plan. We expect that to be complete in the middle of this year.

Obviously, with that construction, that will provide relief. In the meantime, Fraser Health is working hard to address the congestion issues, and, as mentioned by the member, this review of Fraser Health will look at those congestion issues as well.

J. Darcy: One last question. Nurses have spoken out just in the last day about Surrey Memorial Hospital, where we have a beautiful new emergency room and continuing very, very serious problems of congestion in the emergency room. Nurses have pointed out that a patient in emergency waited more than 92 hours to see an emergency room physician, and another patient was not seen by a hospitalist for 24 hours. What is the minister's response to that?

Hon. T. Lake: This was the subject of discussion at a Fraser Health Authority board meeting in Mission, I believe, last night. The board chair asked members of the BCNU to provide documentation because a review with Fraser Health has not identified a patient that has waited 92 hours. If the BCNU…. They did not provide the documentation, but we would be happy to receive any information and act upon it.

S. Hammell: Minister, my portfolio area is mental health. The next series of questions will be in that area. Just to sort of set the context, I'm just doing a very small slice of this ministry, and I find it very complicated.

You have all my sympathy in terms of trying to understand a budget of $17 billion almost and how complex
[ Page 4374 ]
that is as it goes all over this province. I don't intend to minimize how much I think that requires in terms of understanding.

But I do want to start with basics. When we had a briefing with your staff, we were shown some pie charts. They were very good, and they explained all kinds of things, but given that I have a very narrow focus, I'm going to ask quite a number of questions around those pie charts.

I did ask at that time for a breakdown of how much was spent on mental health. I was assured I would be given it, and that's fair enough. I would understand that you probably have that, because that seemed to me the positioning that was taken. But I haven't received it, so I will ask the questions.

I want to put it in context. Last year when we had this discussion, I was delighted to hear that when the Mental Health Commission suggested that 9 cents out of each dollar be spent on mental health out of the health care budget, we were at 8.7 — I think you told me last year — or 8.6, which I thought was quite an accomplishment.

The minister also mentioned on the record that we were spending $1.4 billion on mental health.

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Okay. I've heard $1.4 billion. I've got the Hansard. It was $1.4 billion. I understand it's $1.3 billion. I've heard it's $1.2 billion. If we settle on $1.3 billion, I'm quite happy — give or take $100 million here and there.

So if we're looking at $1.4 billion, my first question, of course, is: in this complex system, where does that money flow? I'm going to ask you first around regional services. You have indicated that $11.523 billion is spent on regional services. Can you identify for each region how much of that is on mental health?

[1755]

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the member's comments about the complexity. Mental health is…. There's no blood test for mental health, and it is an extremely challenging field. I have agonized over this as a local government councillor and mayor, as an MLA and as the Health Minister now. There are no easy answers, as the member knows.

I understand that the member did write to the ministry and ask for a breakdown of systemwide expenditures on mental health. I have a systemwide breakdown, not by health authority but in terms of the different types of services across the system. Each health authority will post that information on their website, and we certainly can find that, take that off the website and provide it to the member.

If we look at 2012-13, $1.3 billion was the operating expenditure for mental health and addictions. In-patient, acute and tertiary services — that's $218 million. That would be things like health authority, hospital, in-patient beds, Riverview Hospital — that's a residual funding prior to closure — and forensic psychiatric services.

Community-based services is the bulk of the expenditures, and that's $595 million. That would include expenditures such as the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions; assertive community treatment teams; mental health and substance use treatments and interventions; and mental health and substance use housing with supports. And $283 million is spent on physician services. That's psychiatry within hospitals, mental health centres, addiction treatment centres and with MCFD programming.

Drugs for mental health, $168 million. That's a no-charge psychiatric medication plan, plan G, mental health and substance use related to drug expenses incurred in all other PharmaCare plans. Prevention and promotion is $86 million. That includes things such as HIV/AIDS services, the methadone program, drugs of abuse lab screening, the alcohol and drug information line and the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C.

The member is aware, but I'll just reiterate. In 2014-15 we have increased some funding to health authorities related to the initiative improving health services for individuals with severe addiction and mental illness, including $2½ million to PHSA to support a secure facility to provide stabilization, assessment and individual case planning at the Burnaby Centre; $5 million to PHSA working with Vancouver Coastal for high-intensity group homes; $750,000 to support the inner-city youth mental health program; $2 million to support two additional assertive community treatment teams in Vancouver; and then $10 million to assist the five regional health authorities in strengthening approved services for that severely addicted, mentally ill population throughout the province.

S. Hammell: Minister, thank you very much. I certainly would have appreciated that information prior to being here, because it makes it very difficult to absorb what you've just said and then create some reasonable questions around it. So forgive my redundancy. I'm going to go back over a few of them.

[1800]

I'm particularly interested in PharmaCare. How much of the PharmaCare budget is spent on mental health and addictions?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry, I maybe went through it too quickly, and I apologize that the member didn't receive this earlier. Mental health drugs are $168 million.

S. Hammell: Of that $168 million, can you break that down any further? Is there a certain amount that is for the methadone replacement, a certain amount for psychotic drugs — like a sense of where that $168 million is being spent?
[ Page 4375 ]

Hon. T. Lake: The methadone program is approximately $58 million. I don't have a breakdown of each individual drug, but methadone is certainly a large part of the PharmaCare budget for mental health and substance use.

S. Hammell: In the PharmaCare budget it is $1 billion, if we have the whole PharmaCare budget from the pie that I received prior. Under the Fair PharmaCare, the methadone treatment or other psychotic drugs or the drugs used for mental health or addiction — are there some in PharmaCare, some being spent through there?

I have a number of places that you might find mental health and addictions costing the system, so you can see where I'm going. I'm trying to figure out where the cost to the system is for mental health and addictions. It says plan G, no-cost psychotic medication. Would we assume that that $27 million is largely for mental health issues?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, those are no cost, because these are lower-income individuals that are on plan G of PharmaCare, which is essentially no cost to the patients that are on those prescriptions.

S. Hammell: So that plan G would be largely for mental health and addictions — that $27 million.

Hon. T. Lake: One second. I'll just clarify, if I may.

My apologies to the member. The no-charge psychiatric medication is plan G, so that is the $27.04 million in 2012-13 serving about 31,000 beneficiaries. Those are the psychiatric drugs recipients that are on income assistance and also have other medication needs. That is about $300 million of the PharmaCare budget. Then the methadone program would be separate from that.

[1805]

S. Hammell: I just would like to, before I leave the no-cost psychotic…. That has then, I assume, nothing to do with psychotic drugs that may be given to seniors in long-term-care facilities. Okay. I'll just assume that isn't, and if I'm wrong, you can tell me.

Again, on the diagram I got through the ministry it says plan X, B.C. Centre for Excellence. Now, I do understand that there has been some shift around that centre, but is there any of that amount of money, the $130.5 million, that is directed toward mental health or addictions?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is no, that is the HIV/AIDS program.

I wanted to go back to the member's question about long-term residential care. Permanent residents of licensed residential care facilities are covered under plan B, which is a total of $44.29 million. That would include all of the medications going to residents of licensed residential care facilities.

S. Hammell: Again, is there any of that money that is directed specifically towards mental health and addictions?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, that includes all medications going to residents of long-term-care facilities, so that would include some psychotic drugs as well.

S. Hammell: Can you give me any indication of how much of the $44 million you assume is going into mental health and addictions?

Hon. T. Lake: I'll just back up a little bit. Mental health drugs, across the entire PharmaCare budget, are $168 million. We've outlined that $27 million of that is plan G, the no-charge psychiatric medication plan. Among the other plans, including plan B, which we mentioned, that would make up the rest of that $168 million.

Under plan B, I don't have in front of me the specific amount of that $44.29 million that is being spent on drugs used for mental health. We will certainly endeavour to see if we can break that down. I'm not sure if that data is available at that level of detail, but we'll try to get it for you.

S. Hammell: There's another plan here that I perhaps would like just some explanation of. It's called plan M, the medical management plan. Could I just understand that?

If I've just heard the minister correctly, $58 million is spent on methadone, $27 million is on plan G — which, in my math, gets up to $85 million. You said you spent $1.58 million of the PharmaCare budget on…. I'm sorry. I may have misunderstood. What is the total amount of money that you spend from the PharmaCare budget on mental health and addictions? Did you give me that?

Hon. T. Lake: Yeah, that was the $168 million number.

S. Hammell: So if on two plans I have $85 million, and I have some money from the long-term care, I'm still short quite a bit — like, almost double.

[1810]

Hon. T. Lake: That's because the mental health and substance abuse–related drug expenditures occur across all of the PharmaCare plans. As the member mentioned, under plan B, which covers permanent residents of licensed residential care facilities, that's $44.29 million. Some of that would be for mental health issues.

If we looked at the Fair PharmaCare, some of that would be mental health medication and, obviously, the no-charge psychiatric medication plan. I think those would be the plans that would have the bulk of the drugs that are used in mental health treatment.

The medication management services plan that the member mentioned is for medication reviews, and that
[ Page 4376 ]
is paid to pharmacists that are reviewing the medications that patients are on, particularly elderly patients but those that have complex chronic diseases that are on polypharmacy. My dad is a very good example of that. I'm sure he won't mind me using him as an example. He sat down with his pharmacist and went through all the drugs that he was on and talked about the possible interactions, the dosages, things like that.

It's an effort to look at the appropriateness of the number of drugs that any particular patient is on and whether or not they need to be adjusted. Again, that's a bit of an expansion of the scope of practice of pharmacists as part as the primary health care team.

S. Hammell: I'd like, then, to move to the Medical Services Plan. The whole plan is $4 billion. Again, I have all this array of pie charts. I'm interested in how much of this budget goes towards mental health and addictions.

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize for the delay.

I've said the amount earlier, but I wanted to also include in my response a particular billing code that we use to help physicians in this area. Physician services, MSP billings, are $283 million. That would be physician services by psychiatrists within hospitals, mental health centres, addiction treatment centres and in MCFD offices. That is what physician billings are from the MSP budget which go toward mental health and substance use.

[1815]

I mentioned earlier, in the committee debates, that we have changed — through the General Practice Services Committee, which is a partnership with the Doctors of B.C. — the way that doctors can bill for their services, rather than just having a one-size-fits-all kind of a billing system. One of those fees is a mental health planning fee, which is $100. For the period of January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2014, then, 2,631 physicians billed on 101,223 patients for a cost of $10,122,400.

About a third of that total was utilizing this new mental health planning fee, which encourages doctors to spend time with patients and go through their health care needs in terms of mental health. We also have, as I mentioned earlier, programs to help GPs learn more and learn how to manage patients with mental health challenges.

S. Hammell: Under the Medical Services Plan, you have fee-for-service, and you've just described one way that doctors can access that fund. You also have alternate payments, physician contracts, I would assume — if I'm wrong, please tell me — that may include psychiatrists and some of the other contracted people that might be in various other places. Other than the doctors' fee-for-service, you've named hospitals, MCFD, clinics, and I think I missed something. On this pie chart is there any place that there's a significant amount of mental health, other than the fee-for-service?

Hon. T. Lake: Of the $283 million, $229.6 million would be fee-for-service, and $53.4 million would be salaried and sessional — alternative payment programs.

S. Hammell: I am now back to the place I started. If I heard you correctly, you have not aggregated the amount of money that each health region spends particularly on mental health. The reason I ask is that I would imagine if I have that number, then I could see whether the spending per capita was similar or whether some regions demanded more in terms of mental health. It just gives you a better understanding of where the health dollars are going. That's why I've asked the question. So I'm restating the question.

Hon. T. Lake: Our capable staff have been able to dig back and find '12-13. The '13-14 numbers aren't complete yet from the health authorities. So when we look at mental health and substance use expenditures, '12-13: Fraser Health Authority, $209.833 million. That was 7.1 percent of their budget. For Interior Health Authority, $107.784 million for 5.8 percent of their budget. Northern Health Authority, $50.574 million — that made up 7 percent of their budget. Provincial Health Services Authority, $161.205 million — that's 6.4 percent of their budget. Vancouver Coastal, $277.127 million, which is 9 percent of their budget. And Island Health, $143.247 million, or 7.2 percent of their budget.

[1820]

If you go across the system, the average is about 7.2 percent on mental health and substance use, broken down the way we have it here. That was in '12-13. You can see the difference. It ranges from 6.4 percent in the Provincial Health Services Authority; 5.8 percent in Interior Health; 7 in Northern; 7.1, Fraser; and then 7.2, Island. The biggest percentage would be Vancouver Coastal, which is not surprising given the population that we see — I think a fair reflection of the population that they're serving.

S. Hammell: That does give a pretty clear sort of range of where things are going. Could we just focus for a minute on the Provincial Health Authority? You have $161 million there. Could you tell me where the money is spent, on that $161 million?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, a bit of context. When Riverview was in full operation, that was Provincial Health Services Authority. That funding moved out to the health authorities. In Kamloops, for instance, we have the Hillside tertiary psychiatric centre. The money that would have gone to Riverview was pushed out to the health authorities to help in the community-based care and the tertiary care that exists in the health authorities.

In PHSA, when it comes to mental health and substance use, the bulk of that would go to forensic ser-
[ Page 4377 ]
vices at Colony Farm. There would be some that goes to Children's Hospital, for instance, for mental health services at Children's.

S. Hammell: We had a little interchange during question period around the unfortunate incident of the young man that was in the remand centre or the lock-up, and he was chained. I think we had a conversation about him. The reason was….

Just at that time we happened to be having a health care meeting where Wynne Powell was at. I asked him some direct questions then around the whole issue of forensic psychiatry and why there was a bit of a surplus. I thought, naively, that that money should have been put over to where that need was, given it was in the Provincial Health Authority. His conversation was just quite sensible. It was a very good exchange.

He was indicating that there was some difficulty with salaries around the psychiatrists, the forensic psychiatrists. Since then I have heard — and I would like you to clarify — that assessments are actually being done at the remand centres rather than moving them to Colony Farm and the psychiatric unit that's out there.

I would just like you to clarify for me whether that is actually happening. Is there a change in policy around the care of people who are incarcerated and do need to be overseen by a psychiatrist?

[1825]

Hon. T. Lake: We have experienced shortages in terms of psychiatrists, and our ministry has worked with the Doctors of B.C. and tried to address the recruitment and retention issues, particularly in terms of salary. I'm happy to report that we've made some good progress there.

We are actively recruiting part-time and full-time. We do expect over the next few months that we will see the results of that. As of today, there is one full-time psychiatrist and six part-time psychiatrists. So there is a total of 5.2 FTEs. As of mid-June there will be 5.8 FTEs. As of October there will be 6.6 FTEs and possibly 7.6 FTEs, as another recruit is proceeding through credentialing. And 8.4 FTEs represents a full complement of psychiatrists. We're working towards that full complement, which has been a challenge for us. In a relatively short period of time, given the acuity of the situation, we've had a good response.

In terms of assessing inmates at remand centres, that has been a practice that's been used historically. We use the Surrey Pretrial Centre for that purpose. When there is an increased volume that can't be met at Colony Farm, then the assessments can be done at Surrey Pretrial. At the moment we are not in that situation.

S. Hammell: When you say "historically," is that ten years or 20 years? Historically — does it mean two or three years back?

My understanding from the conversation — sorry, I'll attach another question while I'm up — is that it was partially an issue with some kind of arrangement with the B.C. doctors around the specialist fees that are agreed upon and that the federal government was paying more and that they were poaching our staff because we didn't meet that salary. That's what I understood from the conversation. I'm just confirming it with you.

[1830]

Hon. T. Lake: Our staff do not have an exact date for the remand assessments — for how long they have been carried out. I'm not sure if we can find that information. We will endeavour to try.

Federal psychiatrists in the federal system — the federal government made a unilateral increase in their compensation, which put them significantly above those in the provincial system. But those in the provincial system were also lower than those in general psychiatry.

We worked with the Doctors of B.C., and we have negotiated a significant lift in compensation that has resulted in the results that we are seeing in terms of recruitment. The cost is about $1.6 million, and $450,000 of that will be coming out of the agreement that we have with the Doctors of B.C.

S. Hammell: Just before I close in this area. If I'm correct, I've heard you say that right now — and I'm extrapolating — because currently you're not doing assessments at the remand centres, the pressure is off the beds, or there is some ability to have people assessed at Colony Farm, and the system is stabilized at this moment. Can you just indicate to me whether that's high pressure there right now or whether you're just feeling quite comfortable in terms of the service?

Hon. T. Lake: I just had a flashback to last night, talking about computer systems. I'm going to say the system is stable. The staff indicate that while there are a few people on the wait-list, the court system has not been affected, so no proceedings are being held up. That was the case when we were at the high point of the challenge.

That has been alleviated, and people are being processed in what we would call a more normal fashion that we're used to. Again, once we get the extra psychiatrist on board by the fall, the wait-list should be reduced and we should not have a flow issue at all with the court system.

S. Hammell: I'm just going to quickly switch to capital. I think there are only a few capital pieces that I just want you to report out to me.

You have the HOpe centre on the North Shore, where there's a $62.2 million acute mental health facility at Lions Gate Hospital. Could you just bring me up to date on where that's at?

[1835]

Hon. T. Lake: I recently toured Lions Gate Hospital where all my children were born, so it was kind of a nice place to go back, and where I saw Pavel Bure score his first goal for the Vancouver Canucks, as it turns out, while I was waiting.

The Lions Gate Hospital acute mental health centre replacement project will replace the building there, which is from 1929, with a new 14,000-square-metre, four-storey acute mental health centre. This is the HOpe centre, and it is named for that reason in recognition of Greta and Robert Ho for their very generous gift of $10 million towards the project.

The project is $62.2 million, $24 million of which is coming from the Lions Gate Foundation, and $38.2 million is coming from the Ministry of Health. It'll be a 26-bed in-patient psychiatric unit. It will have community mental health out-patient and addictions out-patient services; affiliated regional centres, part of the medical school expansion program; and a nine-bay ambulance station as well.

Construction started in September 2012. We do expect a substantial completion in June of this year, so it's getting close. It was looking good when I toured there. Occupancy, we hope, will start to take place in July at lower floors as they're completed, and then that will, hopefully, be completed, in terms of a move-in, by September of this year.

S. Hammell: In our previous notes it had 2013 that it was going to be completed, but June is very close. It would be very quick.

I'm going to ask the question that the doctors raised earlier in the year. They understood that Coast Mental Health was going to cut the budget for mental health by $500,000. There was some concern expressed around that number. The significance of it was that they were worried about their being an impact on the opening or the operating of this new facility. I understand the money to run this would come from coast health.

Hon. T. Lake: Vancouver Coastal.

S. Hammell: Vancouver Coastal. I'm just wanting assurance that the operating money is intact.

[1840]

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize. I don't have a note in my binder. I remember when this issue was a concern. There were some…. I'll just back up a little bit because the member mentioned Coast Mental Health.

Coast Mental Health is a non-profit organization. Vancouver Coastal, of course, provides the regional health services, including operation of the HOpe centre. There was some concern, I remember, expressed by some physicians in North Vancouver that there would be a reduction in operating.

That is not the case. I know that to be a fact. Vancouver Coastal assured us that that was not the case. I just don't have the details of it. I remember the issue. I remember that when I was at Lions Gate Hospital talking with the staff there, they assured me that that was not the case.

S. Hammell: Minister, if any of the health authorities were to cut back in terms of the health care area that they spend money on in health care, would you be aware of that prior to it happening? If there were to be $500,000 taken from the mental health budget in Coastal Health but not from this area, from somewhere else, would you be aware of that?

Hon. T. Lake: Regional health authorities…. I know that the member has looked at the situations elsewhere. You go from different jurisdictions. In fact, in British Columbia, back before the changes that were made in the '90s, we had a whole bunch of hospital districts. In some jurisdictions that is still the case. In Alberta they took it all away and made just one health service.

The five regional health authorities that we have here in B.C. have strengths and weaknesses, I suppose. The strengths that I have seen described and I think are very real are that they represent the populations that they serve very well. What is appropriate in Prince George or in Vanderhoof — Northern Health would be very aware of the needs and tailor the services they provide to the needs of the population. Vancouver Coastal, dealing with a much different population, would cater to that population by changing their service delivery.

The weaknesses are…. You don't have, necessarily, a provincewide consistency. Again, all of us like to think that it's the same everywhere. So that, I guess, is a perceived weakness, but as I mentioned, on the other hand, it could be argued as a strength because it caters more to the needs of the population it serves.

Regional health authorities have service plans that are approved by the ministry, which kind of lay out how they're going to deliver their services in different areas. If there are relatively minor changes in the way they deliver their services, the ministry wouldn't necessarily be aware of that — depending on the scale and the scope of the changes, obviously.

If there were to be a shift of resources to better meet the needs of the population they serve — and we've been canvassed a lot here about changes in primary health care in Vancouver Coastal — they work with the ministry and let us know the rationale behind what they're doing. We don't get a minute-by-minute or day-by-day update on any changes that they do to their service delivery model.

[1845]

A. Dix: I know the minister made a hockey reference. I don't want to take him into overtime.

I had a couple of questions about ADHD and the
[ Page 4379 ]
growth of ADHD expenditures, particularly with respect to PharmaCare. The national CHSPR information says we're seeing, roughly, inflation of 11 percent nationally in spending on ADHD drugs, and 9 percent in British Columbia. So we're in sort of the line of the national average from 2007-08 to 2012-13, which are very significant overall increases in diagnosis and spending.

As you know, there were very interesting studies done by the therapeutics initiative in 2008. I think it dealt with data probably between 1997 and 2008. It dealt with relative age of diagnosis. What it showed was that among girls, 70 percent more were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD if they were born in December than in January — and 30 percent more for boys, December to January. What it suggested is that we were diagnosing immaturity within a grade cohort as ADHD, and we were medicating it.

That study ended in 2008, but in the period since that study was in place, for a number of reasons, the prescribing of ADHD, including the marketing of drugs — I think we could say — and other social factors, has continued to increase dramatically.

Does the minister not agree with me that it would be a good idea to redo the numbers now, to see if the study itself had any impact on the relative diagnosis of ADHD? Isn't that the kind of work — the kind of work done by the therapeutics initiative — that we need to do more of, given the very significant budget implications of the rise of diagnosis of ADHD?

Hon. T. Lake: The subject of ADHD is very interesting and controversial, as I'm sure the member knows. The therapeutics initiative is certainly a valuable resource for looking at drug trends. I think that's what they were looking at here. It led back to when the patient was diagnosed, perhaps.

The Doctors of B.C., about 18 months ago, also looked at ADHD and expressed some concerns, I think, through specialists that perhaps there was an underdiagnosis of ADHD rather than overdiagnosis. I don't think….

There appear to be arguments on both sides. I think we would always support working with Doctors of B.C. to look at these issues. Certainly, if you talk to Dr. William Cunningham, who is the president of Doctors of B.C., he is an advocate of fewer pharmaceuticals rather than more. I think all of us would agree that that would be the ideal situation.

[1850]

So always willing to look at initiatives and studies that would point to reducing not only the cost but also inflicting medication on patients when perhaps it's not appropriate. Again, there does seem to be two sides to that discussion on ADHD.

The Chair: We have to adjourn, but we have one question from the member for New Westminster.

J. Darcy: Thank you, hon. Chair. I had promised that I would submit the questions for the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I have a copy of them for the minister.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); D. Plecas in the chair.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.

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

M. Farnworth: I know that we're up against the Premier's estimates, and we have finished nearly all of the Finance Ministry estimates. I was going to have some questions on executive compensation, but I have had the questions that I had answered and dealt with to my satisfaction. But I do have a couple of other areas that I would like to ask questions of the minister on.

One of them relates to a report that's being commissioned by an ADM in his ministry related to the Ministry of Advanced Education. We were told that that report would be ready by the end of the month, which was last month. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what the status of that report is and if he has received that report yet.

Hon. M. de Jong: I will. I'll get the information. I just want the member and the committee to know that I pointedly have not asked that question of Mr. Mingay, who's here now. I'll convey the information that I receive, but I wouldn't be in a position to convey it without soliciting the information right now.

The information I can pass along is as follows. The report is essentially done. It is undergoing a legal review and more specifically, I think, a freedom-of-information and privacy review. I think Mr. Mingay indicated ten to 14 days.

M. Farnworth: The minister should receive it, then,
[ Page 4380 ]
in about ten days to two weeks. Then it will be on the minister's desk. Will the minister make it public at that point, or at what point does he envisage making it public?

Hon. M. de Jong: The intention, schedule permitting, would be to make it public immediately.

M. Farnworth: One of the areas in which the government has been trumpeting or that has been crucial to the government's tabling of a balanced budget has been in the area of forecasting, and resource prices have a considerable impact on whether our budget is balanced or not.

[1525]

The recent change in the price of coal in this province and the forecasts are having a bit of an impact on the budget not only this year but in their three-year forecast. I'd just like to give some numbers to the minister. Last year the projected price the budget was predicated on was around $155 a tonne for metallurgical coal. For this coming year they're looking at $176; in 2015-16, $210; in 2016-17, $216.

In this past week the price for coal is at $124 a tonne. That's $50 a tonne less than what was forecast. It's now 13 percent lower than the last quarterly contract. That leads probably to a hole in coal revenue of $50 million this year so far. At the current rate, that's about $320 million over three years.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us how he's going to deal with this drop in coal revenues, given that coal is an important contributor to the provincial revenue stream?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the trend is not what I'm going to argue with in terms of the forecast versus where the market is right now. What I can say is that the first-quarter report — and I think the member knows this — will not only be obliged but will want to disclose and highlight where the variations are.

That's a pretty normal process. What happens, of course, is that in some instances revenues are down and in other instances revenues are up. What we strive and hope for is that there's more on the upside than on the downside, because, as the member knows, we don't have a lot of room in the budget. We have some room but not a lot of room to absorb a net negative number.

For example, natural gas prices have been tracking upward beyond our forecasted amounts. I'm always leery about natural gas price forecasting. But at the moment some of what the member has alluded to — correctly, in the case of coal revenues — is being offset. What I can't do in advance of the first quarter is quantify the extent of the offset.

M. Farnworth: I guess what's concerning from the point of view of forecasting, in particular, coal…. And I understand what the minister is saying about sometimes it's down, sometimes it's up, and it bounces around from quarter to quarter. Yeah, that's a fact. But at the same time, when you look at the activities of resource companies in a particular commodity….

In the case of tech, where they're downsizing and laying off 600 people, that says that they are expecting this to continue for some time, because you don't make those kinds of decisions, laying off that many people, because of the basis of one quarter.

Clearly, their view is that the price of coal is obviously trending down, that demand is down. Clearly, that impacts on their corporate decision-making, but just as importantly, it's going to impact on the province's revenue structure as well.

At what point will the minister look at how this is going to impact on the other budget years coming out in terms of downgrading the price forecast on that?

[1530]

Second, if they do have to make adjustments on the basis of coal, on the decline in revenue that we're getting from coal, is that going to come out of contingencies, or just how is the ministry intending on dealing with that?

Hon. M. de Jong: What the member will be most interested in is the first quarter report. Unlike the second quarter, where we simply provide an update on the current fiscal year, at the first quarter we do both the update on where we are in the present fiscal year and, the second part, a calculation based on a forecast out three years. So all of the assumptions, all of the forecasting is adjusted, and the numbers shift around. Some are up; some are down.

It is a full, three-year forecast as opposed to simply a report on the current fiscal year. At that point the member should be able to see and ask: "Well, how have you adjusted your forecasts for the price of coal, going forward through the life of the three-year fiscal plan?"

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I guess the concern I have is that we place a considerable stake on and have talked about coal a lot in this province, and the government has, and it's viewed as a crucial revenue source. When you're seeing these kinds of drops, that can't help but have an impact.

It's all well and good to say: "Look, other revenue resource areas are up." As the minister says, natural gas is up. But we have to be very careful with natural gas, because we have seen high degrees of volatility in that particular resource. It can move south as quickly as it can move north, and that will have an even bigger impact.

Having said that, I want to thank the minister and his staff. I said that we would be short on today's questions. With that, we can move off Finance estimates and deal with the vote.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member, obviously,
[ Page 4381 ]
to his colleagues who participated in the debate, to the many, many staff people who have joined us.

I'll simply end with this. The member's warning/caution around the volatility of the markets and how that translates into revenues is appropriate, is accurate. I say this across the board as people approach government in a variety of contexts — labour negotiations, other programming requests. We have to be cautious. We have to be very, very cautious about committing to an expenditure program for which there may not be the resources if it grows too large.

That's part of the discipline we've tried to bring, ever mindful of the fact that there is an element of unpredictability when it comes to forecasting revenue from some sources of the economy. We are cautiously optimistic that, on balance, the economy is growing in the right direction. We'd like to see it grow even faster. Time will tell if we achieve those objectives.

Vote 22: ministry operations, $127,361,000 — approved.

Vote 23: gaming policy and enforcement, $19,819,000 — approved.

Vote 24: Public Service Agency, $50,807,000 — approved.

[1535]

Vote 25: benefits, $1,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND DEBT

Vote 45: management of public funds and debt, $1,285,466,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 46: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $300,000,000 — approved.

Vote 47: capital funding, $1,048,243,000 — approved.

Vote 48: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 49: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 50: tax transfers, $778,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $69,565,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $16,621,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $567,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $8,210,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $5,526,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $1,039,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Ombudsperson, $5,615,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $3,124,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $7,917,000 — approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I would move that the committee briefly recess.

The Chair: This committee stands recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:39 p.m. to 3:42 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,008,000.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to be here today. I'd like to introduce to you some of the people who are here with me. John Dyble is Deputy Minister to the Premier and cabinet secretary, also head of the public service — 25,000 employees or so under his supervision; Kim Henderson, deputy minister for corporate initiatives; Neil Sweeney, deputy minister, corporate policy.

Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, associate deputy minister with the Ministry of Finance, is also here to assist us. Michelle Leamy, director of executive operations in the deputy minister's office, is also here. For intergovernmental affairs issues, Pierrette Maranda, our associate deputy minister of Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat, will also be available as needed.
[ Page 4382 ]

I should also, if I could, note that my job shadow, Cole Gaerber, is here today to observe proceedings and see how all of this works. He's really enjoyed it. He did note that in question period it didn't seem like there were questions or answers, which I thought was a keen observation — and accurate. It's not necessarily the purpose of question period to ask a simple question and get a simple answer.

I'm delighted to move this motion today.

As the political head of this government, I'm very proud of what we've embarked on in this last year: very proud of our jobs plan and the work that we're doing to grow our economy here in British Columbia; very proud of the purposefulness with which we have pursued this opportunity to create a liquefied natural gas industry in our province; very proud of the work we've been doing with the forest industry, as they've seen lots of financial upside and continue to become more profitable; and very proud of what we're doing in our mining sector, moving forward some mines that have been on the books for a while, and proud of the number of people that we're putting to work in doing that.

[1545]

This has been a very, very difficult time for governments all around the world. There's no question about that. We have seen western economies at very slow growth or no growth, in some cases shrinking. We have continued to try and work to grow this economy. That means putting in place a plan. It means executing on that plan in a purposeful way and keeping true to the goal that we've set.

We aren't there yet, but we are getting there because we have been so purposeful, so focused, and have worked so hard to make sure that we can find our way through this.

We have a thriving technology industry which we want to continue to grow across the province. It's very important right here on southern Vancouver Island, very important in the Lower Mainland and in other parts of the province as well — Kelowna, notably, as well.

We have an incredibly rich agriculture industry and a manufacturing industry that we want to continue to grow, particularly in aerospace, in your hometown of the Fraser Valley. We have much to do.

I am a great believer that government plays a very important role in shaping our economy. Government does not create jobs, but government is there and can either inhibit or help grow jobs. It's the private sector that makes those decisions, and it is government that sets the stage and seeds the ground that allows those businesses to thrive or not.

We are determined to make sure that the private sector can thrive, because we know that a growing, thriving private sector is the beginning of economic health, and economic health is the beginning of a secure, healthy, cohesive society. It's not just because economic health allows people to go to work every day and bring home a paycheque for their children. It's also because it produces benefits for government that mean we can share resources between us to create a fair society. After all, one of the best health care systems in the work is right here in British Columbia. One of the best education systems in the world is right here in British Columbia.

How do we make sure we can continue to build on that success? It's not by running out of money. It's by making sure we have money, that we're continuing to create wealth in our province. That's been our purpose since May 14 and before. We're going to continue on that. We're very, very proud of what we're working to accomplish.

I'm looking forward to the debate, where we'll get a chance to speak about many more of those accomplishments over the next few hours as we debate the estimates of the Premier's office.

J. Horgan: I thank the Premier and her able staff who are joining us here today, high atop the third floor of the legislative buildings — the attic. We're in the attic here, debating a $9 million expenditure, but more importantly, as the Premier stated, as the political head of the government of British Columbia, we're going to be talking about a wide range of issues. I know that there's abundant scope. We've just heard that scope, being virtually every sector of the economy and a couple of areas of service delivery.

In the world that I live in and the people that I serve as a member of this Legislature, the things that come in the door of my constituency office are usually about services that government provides — social services, health services, education services and a range of other services. We collect money from industry, and we collect money from citizens, in order that we can provide those benefits that belong to all of us back to the people that we represent.

I'm hopeful that as we go through some of the areas that I'd like to touch upon in the hours that we have available, the Premier will be able to enlighten people not just in my constituency but all across British Columbia how she's going to challenge some of the big issues of our time.

One of the areas that we've been focusing on as a Legislature since 2005 is climate change, for example. As we get into a discussion around liquefied natural gas, I'm anxious to hear how the Premier will square that circle, how we're going to meet the legislated targets that we all agreed to. The Premier was not in the House at that time, but those elected between 2005 and 2009 focused very vigorously on issues of climate change and how government could participate in a meaningful way to enable citizens to do their best to reduce our human impacts in that regard.

The LNG file is one that I want to spend some time on. I'm grateful for that, because as the former Energy critic, I know a bit about this. I'm anxious to hear how the Premier will be able to answer some of the questions that
[ Page 4383 ]
she's laid out for the public over the past number of years, in throne speeches, in speeches to political conventions and even, last year, in the election campaign.

[1550]

I do appreciate, before you challenge me on that, that we're not talking about the election campaign. But there were statements that were made. For me, there was a big, bold, "Debt-free B.C." on the side of a bus. There was a handsome photograph as well. I commend the Premier for that. But that statement still kind of rings hollow to me, as we've seen debt increase over the past 12 and, in fact, 36 months since the Premier's had the job that she's in today.

As I understand it…. I'll just read from the throne speech the following. I'm assuming…. In my time, when I was active in government at senior levels, the Premier's office had a hand in crafting some of the language that was contained in the Speech from the Throne. I'm fairly confident that's still the case, so I'm certain that the authors — or certainly, some of the authors — of what is always a committee function are sitting around the table today. They'll be able to help the Premier out if I'm off base on some of these statements that were made in the Legislature by the Lieutenant-Governor.

I'll start by saying the following. This is the 2013 throne speech, and it says:

"For our province, two new revenue streams can be created. The first comes from revenues generated from the growth of employment and business activity — new revenues in a growing economy that will greatly enhance government's ability to provide services families depend upon year after year."

I think the Premier and I agree on that. As we grow the economy, we'll be able to increase our revenues so that we can provide the services people want.

But this is where I think we run into a bit of tricky business, and I'm hopeful that the Premier will help me out here.

"The second stream of revenue comes from new royalty revenues directly for the province — British Columbia’s share of resource profits. This could exceed $100 billion over the next 30 years. This resource belongs to the people of British Columbia" — I concur — "both here today and those to follow. It must be spent wisely, not just for the benefit of today’s citizens but also for our children and grandchildren.

"To protect this second stream of revenue for generations to come, your government is establishing the British Columbia prosperity fund. Future royalties will be designated to this fund, ensuring British Columbia families can benefit from the prosperity created by natural gas in our province."

It goes on to talk about transformational change and so on.

I would have agreed with the Premier in 2005, as we were getting land lease revenues and as royalties were coming in, in very large amounts, that we may well have been in a position to reach a fund of $100 billion. But I’m curious if the Premier could tell me, in light of depressed prices in North America, in light of the absence of any fiscal framework that I've been able to put my hands on over the past number of years, how it is that we're going to have a $100 billion prosperity fund.

Hon. C. Clark: I think it is probably true that the member and I agree that we need to grow the economy if we want to look after people. The difference is that the folks on the other side of the House don't want to do anything that will grow the economy. In fact, they tend to like to stand in the way of any effort to try and grow the economy. So you can say it all you want, but unless you're actually going to try and do the things that will make a difference and increase the size of our economy, it's really empty words.

It's all about the action that government takes that makes a difference. We have been working very hard to try and take the steps that we need to, to support our forest industry and ensure that that grows, our agriculture industry, to make sure that we support our mining business, make sure that we support our technology business, manufacturing and all those small and medium-sized businesses, all of those areas of the economy that need to grow in order for us to be able to look after each other in the long term.

I have always said that here we are, in a period of stagnant and slow economic growth across the western world, and we spend money. Governments across the West tend to spend money as though we're still in the 1960s, when governments experienced 6 and even 8 percent growth. We cannot sustain our social programs, health care and education the way that people expect us to if we don't start moving from 2 percent growth back to an era of much, much bigger growth. That is the way we will look after the future.

[1555]

We can either manage decline, which is what other provinces in this country have chosen to do — it's what states in America have chosen to do; it's what states in Western Europe, some of them, have chosen to do — or we can grasp the opportunity for growth.

In decision after decision by our government and through legislation, people will see that we are doing everything we can — and sometimes it's controversial — to grow our economy. We are unafraid to say we want a bigger economy, and we are prepared to take the steps required to put people to work at high-paying, family-supporting jobs, because it is the working people of British Columbia that will make sure we are able to look after each other in the long term.

With respect to the prosperity fund, that is going to be the vehicle that we use to eliminate the debt in British Columbia. How do you eliminate a debt? The first thing you do is you balance your budget. We've introduced two balanced budgets, both of which the NDP opposed. We know that that is absolutely fundamental to getting toward a smaller debt.

We aren't there yet, but we've begun. We've begun the process by balancing our budget, by controlling spend-
[ Page 4384 ]
ing in government, by resisting calls day after day from the opposition to increase the spending of government and put us out of balance. If we were to go out of balance, we would never find ourselves on that path to a debt-free British Columbia.

We are currently negotiating, as I'm sure the member knows, with two companies — Petronas and Woodfibre — on the final details of the project development agreements. Our deadline for that is November 30. Those agreements will offer some of the answers to the member's questions. But we're currently negotiating that right now. I'm not going to negotiate it here in this committee room. We will in those project development agreements provide tax certainty and certainty on the costs that government imposes on investors in the LNG business.

I'm very hopeful that we'll get to a successful conclusion of those project development agreements. Once we have, we've cleared the final hurdle to a final investment decision. I'm then hopeful that both of these companies will make the choice to invest in our province. Just one of them could be the biggest private sector investment ever made in British Columbia.

That will put us on the path to not just being debt-free but also to creating 100,000 new jobs for working men and women across our province, the jobs and the paycheques that they need to be able to support their families, and the revenue that government needs to make sure that our children aren't burdened with a debt and the revenue that we need to look after each other in a world-class education, health care system and a society with some of the strongest social programs you will find anywhere.

J. Horgan: Wow. It's going to be a long afternoon. A simple question, and that was the answer. I asked the question. It didn't say "debt-free hopefully," "debt-free, we're on our way," "the path to debt-free." It said "debt-free" on the side of the bus. And it's been debt-free ever since then in the Premier's rhetoric.

I'd like to go back again to what was told to the people of British Columbia in their House, the Legislature. We were told that we were going to be reducing the debt through a prosperity fund. I've heard the Premier negotiate public sector agreements in public. I've been hearing her talk about negotiating with teachers all week long. Different positions each day, but that's what I've been hearing all week long. But we're not going to negotiate in public when it comes to deals with multinational corporations like Petronas and Woodfibre.

And you know what? I'm okay with that. But the questions I'm raising today are a result of statements that the government has been making for the past 2½ years. "We will have," they said upon re-election, "a fiscal framework in place this fall." That was the statement that came from the Premier. This fall being 2013.

When that target wasn't met, it was a 200-day hiatus between sessions of the Legislature, one of the longest breaks that we've had in British Columbia's history, after a rigorous 36 days of sitting over 18 months. It was difficult, I'm sure, for all of us here at the Legislature to spend all 36 of those days working on the people's business.

We had a 200-day break. I assumed and my colleagues assumed and I think the public of British Columbia assumed that over that period of time, with all the resources available to the Premier, much of it assembled in this room today, and many, many thousands more at the disposal of the deputy to the Premier, that we would have had in the fall of 2013 a fiscal framework so the public could have a better understanding of what the government's plan was for the resources that belong to all of us.

[1600]

Then we were advised: "Well, we're not going to be able to make it. We're going to have it in the spring. Count on it. Put that in the bank." That's the prosperity fund bank, that is.

The spring came, and here we are, two days away from the end of our second session of the 40th parliament, with still no fiscal framework. Now the Premier says we have a deadline of November 30 to conclude an arrangement.

Again, I will come back to the Premier. If we're going to have $100 billion, as was promised by the Premier in her throne speech and on the campaign trail, if Petronas is at 18 million tonnes per annum and Woodfibre very modest, where is the revenue going to come to meet that $100 billion prosperity fund, which would…?

I'll quote from the throne speech. It says, "A main focus of the prosperity fund will be to reduce provincial debt. We have an obligation to make good on this debt, rather than ask our children to pay for it" in the future.

Again, to the Premier: that $100 billion — is it coming out of thin air? Because revenues from natural gas development have been going down steadily since 2005. There is a glut in the North American market. If there is a final investment decision after November, we have another four years before any of that money is going to be realized and we can get to the two phases of the taxation regime that we know of today.

Perhaps the Premier can then advise this committee and the people of British Columbia just where that's coming from, because it looks like thin air today.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm looking at the notes from the Minister of Finance's discussion that he had, I think, with the Finance critic from the opposition. He covered some of this, so I won't repeat all that he said, except to say that we are negotiating these agreements. We're negotiating that, working through what the tax structure will look like so that we can have certainty around that. Once we have that, it will become much clearer how the revenue will flow and when.

We have some important things to look after, including making sure that we're caring for our environment, mak-
[ Page 4385 ]
ing sure that the incentive is to invest in British Columbia, making sure that we are a very competitive jurisdiction for natural gas.

The member is quite right. The price for natural gas in North America has been historically low. It's just been rock bottom. That is why we want to create a liquefied natural gas industry.

That is precisely the reason, because we need to diversify our markets. We need to export natural gas to Asia, where we should be able to get a higher price for it — where we will be able to get a higher price for it — and where we'll have more than one customer for our product.

It's some of the same thinking that went into, ten years ago, the government deciding that we wanted to expand our markets in Asia for lumber. Having just one customer for lumber wasn't a good place to be. I don't think the government at the time could have fully appreciated how important it was to have more than one customer for lumber, because I don't think that anyone would have appreciated how deep the post-2008 crash would have been.

Thank goodness, the government worked hard to open up those markets in Asia for our lumber business, adding $1 billion plus in incremental new revenue as a result of it, and protected thousands of jobs all across this province in small towns and large towns, in mills and in the woods. Thank goodness, the government of the day had the foresight to do that.

[1605]

We are pursuing, for some of those same reasons, a similar strategy with natural gas. We need to find a way to get it off this continent, diversify our markets and get a higher price for it. I think the Finance Minister spoke to this, but I'll repeat it. There are no assumptions from a higher natural gas price built into the current budget. We've been very, very cautious about that.

I'll say again that I won't be able to answer the member's question about some of the details of what that tax structure is going to look like while we're still in negotiations with the companies about just that. He will see it in due course. I'm very hopeful that these negotiations will come to a very successful conclusion — not just for the investors but, most importantly, for the men and women of British Columbia who will benefit from these high-paying, family-supporting jobs in every corner of the province.

J. Horgan: Well, the Premier is the chair of the priorities and planning committee of cabinet. She's the chair of the cabinet working group on LNG. In particular the second group, I am assuming, includes the Minister of Natural Gas, Minister of Environment, Minister of Finance, Minister of Energy and Mines. I'm assuming that as the chair of that committee there are regular briefings on the status of negotiations, there are regular briefings on price points, and there are regular briefings on where we're going to be able to realize this revenue.

The debt in March 2011 stood at $45 billion. This is direct government debt. It's pegged currently at $62 billion. It's going to rise in 2016-17 to $69 billion. We have a $100 billion prosperity fund over 30 years. We have debt-servicing costs of $2.4 billion annually and rising, and if we have an interest rate hike, we're going to have even more difficulty.

Let's assume that Petronas is the likely best option for us, or they're closest to a final investment decision — although I'm sure Shell and other players are also eager to access our natural resource and to try and grind down the government to the lowest tax regime and royalty regime they possibly can. After all, the Premier's knows that it's a very, very competitive sector. I'll get to China and Russia later on.

Let's assume, at 18 million tonnes per annum, that that's a tax of about $325 million, based on the assumptions that the Minister of Finance talked about in the budget documents. Although he didn't book any money, he said that there was going to be a two-tier system and that it would come in at one level and then drop down to a second after capital was covered.

We're not even assuming that capital is going to be covered. If we're collecting $325 million in tax from Petronas annually, that doesn't cover a fraction of the debt-servicing costs on the existing debt. If that's the case, how is it that we're going to be reducing the debt over time?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, repetition is sometimes a good thing, so I'll try it.

The first step to paying off your debt is balancing your budget. You cannot begin to pay off your debt — as a jurisdiction, as a company, as a family — if you cannot balance your yearly budget. So we have taken that important first step in doing so by controlling government spending.

We're very, very proud, for example, of our record in finding tentative or ratified agreements with 40 percent of our public sector. That's been a really important part of controlling government spending. We've been successful at doing that. We've made sure that raises are fair but, at the same time, making sure that they're affordable.

We have refused the constant calls to spend more money in almost every area of government that we hear every single day.

[1610]

We have demonstrated real discipline and focus in trying to control government spending, and that has been rewarded in two consecutive balanced budgets in a time when many, many jurisdictions are still failing to balance their budget. It's been rewarded in recognition by the bond-rating agencies that have recognized it by confirming their credit ratings at the highest levels. Fitch and Moody's most recently affirmed their triple-A credit ratings for British Columbia. Dominion Bond Rating Services affirmed their credit rating for us.
[ Page 4386 ]

It's good to have that outside look at government and that affirmation that our budget is in good shape, that we are balancing our budget truthfully and that we are doing a good job of controlling government spending.

Our debt-to-GDP ratio is low in our province. It's expected to peak at about 18.5 percent. That's very competitive, and the bond-rating agencies recognize that as well. Compare that to Canada, where it's 35 percent. In Ontario it's over 40 percent. Quebec's is 48 percent. The U.S., 75 percent; 80 percent in France; and 165 percent in Greece. We are doing extremely well here in British Columbia, but it's too high. We have to work hard to get it lower.

We're going to continue to do that through purposeful fiscal discipline by making sure we are continuing to balance our budget, by resisting the constant calls to spend more and more and more, by resisting the calls to grow government; and instead, embracing a plan that allows us to grow the private sector, to support small and medium and large businesses, to put people to work across the province, to support that new revenue that will come from those personal income taxes and other taxes that are paid by business, to make sure we are looking after people under the auspices of government because we have the revenues to do so.

That is the plan we are following. It's a plan that we've put in place and had been working to for over three years. We've had success. That success has been recognized. We need to continue to do more. We cannot give up on our discipline. We cannot give up on our desire to continue to balance budgets and make sure we're controlling the growth of government. If we do, everything else is in peril.

I've been accused often of being an optimist. I have to say that I embrace that label. I am an optimist for our province. But we aren't rolling in the money yet. We're not in the good times yet. It's going to take a little bit of time and a lot of effort to make sure that we get there.

We cannot get there without a plan. We cannot get there without a principle that steers us which is based on growing a thriving private sector economy and not growing government. That is how we will get there.

As I said, we're not there yet, so we're not able to do all the things that we would like to do. But if we continue to be purposeful, I believe we will get there.

J. Horgan: Moody's, in its investor services report released on May 9, said that the outlook was negative. It says: "The negative outlook reflects the risk of the province's ability to reverse the recent accumulation in debt, given a softened economic outlook, weaker commodity prices and continued expense pressures."

Let's go back to the question that I started with about a half an hour ago. It had to do with the fact that we have an increasing debt — going up, as I said, from $45 billion in 2011 to $62 billion this year to $69 billion in '16-17. So we have debt going up. It's going up. The Premier can balance the budget. The debt is going up.

The Premier said in her throne speech and on the side of the bus that we were going to be debt-free. I've just demonstrated, despite the negative outlook from Moody's because of the reasons they articulate in their report, that if we have Petronas at 18 million tonnes…. Let's throw Shell in. Let's put Woodfibre to one side, because it's a modestly sized plant, and let's go with the two — 18 million tonnes in Petronas and 12 million tonnes in Shell, as currently projected.

The total tax based on the framework that we understand today, the two tiers that were part and parcel of the budget documents although not part and parcel of the budget statements — we will have $575 million in revenue from those two very large LNG facilities.

[1615]

That $575 million will make up 23 percent of the debt-servicing costs today. It will not eliminate the debt-servicing costs, and it will not reduce the debt. Less than one-quarter of the debt-servicing costs will be covered by the two largest and most likely liquefied natural gas plants.

Again I'll try and be as specific as I can. I love to hear the Premier talk about her optimism. I love to hear the Premier talk about "If I wish this hard enough, it will become true." What I want to know is why it was that the government of British Columbia made a commitment to reduce the debt and said they would do it with the prosperity fund that would realize $100 billion, magically, with contracts not yet signed, with competition increasing by the day.

How is it possible that…? With two major plants, you're only going to reduce your debt-servicing costs by 25 percent. How do you become debt-free? That seems to be magic to me.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, debt-servicing costs are already factored into our budget. The additional revenue from LNG is not going to go to cover that. It's already factored in, and he, I know, will know that from the debate with the Finance Minister.

I marvel at the member's ability to be able to pull out some negative quotes from the bond-rating agencies. He doesn't mention the quotes that say British Columbia has an "unmatched fiscal discipline" or "British Columbia continues to demonstrate strong fiscal discipline and remains in an enviable position relative to provincial peers."

"The overall tax regime for individuals and corporations remains one of the most competitive in Canada."

British Columbia "continues its practice of including built-in cushions in the form of expense contingencies and revenue forecast allowances."

They consider British Columbia's financial planning and controls to be strong. "Overall, economic profile remains sound, and the province's debt position remains
[ Page 4387 ]
manageable, compares favourably to other provinces."

"B.C.'s growing trade orientation toward Asia offers diversification against potential economic weakness in North America."

"The province displays very positive financial management practices. The financial disclosures are transparent, comprehensive and timely. Its financial practices are amongst the best of Canadian provinces."

There are more. I'm going to save them, I think, perhaps, for the next question. But we are on a very sound fiscal footing at the moment. We're going to maintain our discipline to make sure that we get there. We are going to resist calls to continue to grow government and spend more money. And we're going to work hard to make sure that we grow this private sector economy.

In terms of how much money government will garner from LNG, well, that will be the product of the negotiations that are underway at the moment. But we will pay off the debt in British Columbia. It might not happen in one year. It might not happen in two years, but it will happen. The only way to get there is to balance your budget first.

That is why this has been such an important cornerstone of everything that the government has done. I understand that balancing budgets is not something that, traditionally, the opposition has supported, and it is one of the key differentiators between this side of the House and the opposition side of the House.

But I'm not ashamed to say we believe in it, and we believe in balancing budgets, because we know that if you don't, you cannot attract investment, you cannot grow the economy, you cannot create jobs, and you will never, ever have any prospect of being able to pay off, much less pay down, the provincial debt, both of which we intend to do.

J. Horgan: I guess the difference between a campaign is that's where rhetoric works…. When you're trying to manage a $44 billion economy and the people that you're taxing to drive that economy, you should have clear and coherent answers, I believe, to fairly simple questions.

[1620]

So I will ask a simple question. The Premier has a briefing note at her disposal about the Moody's report. Can she tell me if there was a change from "stable" to "negative" in that report? Was it "stable" before the report and "negative" after? Simple question. I don't require a talk about a secure tomorrow and a strong future. Was it "stable" before, and is it "negative" now?

Hon. C. Clark: They confirmed their credit rating. There was no change in the credit rating this year over last, if that what's the member is asking me.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Clark: No, the member is wrong about that. The credit rating was, in April 2013, negative. And then this year it was confirmed at the same level. So no, the answer is it has not changed over that period of time. At the same time, of course, as well, other bond-rating agencies rated it positive. I think we are doing very well, given the fiscal circumstances across the country and around the world. We need to continue to do better.

I know that organizations like the Conference Board of Canada and other international organizations look at what we're doing. They look at the prospect of this liquefied natural gas industry getting started, how close we are getting, how much progress we've made in a short period of time, and I am very hopeful that it will mean that their view of our economy continues to be positive and continues to improve.

J. Horgan: On the side of the bus it didn't say: "debt-free, not this year, not next year, but sometime in the future." It just said debt-free. So this, it strikes me, is a rich area to probe the Premier and her staff on just when that debt-free will happen.

Is there any time in the future — five, ten, 15, 20, 200 years…? Did you have any framework when you made that slogan up, or was it just something that seemed to fit beside the picture nicely on a 40-seat bus?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I am delighted that the member has, on behalf of the NDP, taken a sudden interest in making sure we have an improved credit rating. In the 1990s there were so many successive multiple credit downgrades, it's hard to count them. Here we were in British Columbia, eight deficit budgets in a row. Highest income taxes in Canada. Multiple credit downgrades. We became a have-not province, taking from the rest of Canada rather than contributing. We were the last in job growth for five straight years and last in Canada for private sector investment.

We don't want to go back to that. We want to make sure that we are continuing to improve our credit rating. We want to make sure that we are doing all the things that are necessary. That includes balancing our budget.

[1625]

That is a cornerstone of the commitment that I have made to British Columbians, and it's a cornerstone to making sure that we are growing our economy and putting people to work at great, high-paying private sector jobs, many of them unionized. It's going to mean a different future for our province. We've looked after our fiscal future, and we are keeping that cornerstone strong and not taking our eye off the ball when it comes to looking after our economy.

In terms of the details of how much revenue government will garner from the royalty structure and the taxation structure on LNG, that is currently being negotiated, as I've told the Leader of the Opposition a number of
[ Page 4388 ]
times. When we have an answer to that, because the negotiations are complete and successful, the member will, I'm sure, be among the first to know.

We're going to make sure that we are the most competitive LNG business in the world in greenfield projects. It's a difficult bar to meet, but we know we need to meet it in order to be able to attract this investment in a very, very competitive environment.

And we need to get it right, because the thing about setting a tax regime is that you could set it very high, which I suspect is what some members on the other side of the House might like to do. You will get 100 percent of zero. If we set it too low, it'll mean that we don't get an adequate benefit for the people of British Columbia.

We need to find the right spot. That means the people of our province benefit but also that we don't scare away that investment in an extremely competitive environment. They are very sensitive negotiations, but I am sure we will get there, and we will see the benefit of that for another generation to come.

J. Horgan: Again, I understand the Premier's desire to live in the past decade. It's unfortunate, because the people of British Columbia want to live in the here and the now. They want to live today. I don't begrudge the Premier her opportunity to take partisan shots. I'll periodically take one myself. That's fair enough. But I do believe that there are infrequent opportunities for the Premier to speak directly to British Columbians, not in sound bites, not in message boxes, but from her heart about not just what she wants to happen but what is happening.

The people of British Columbia pay all of us to be here. The people of British Columbia pay all of the people sitting around the Premier and those who are presiding over this debate today. I think they have a reasonable expectation that if someone asks a direct question about how you are going to get to something you said you would do, it would be more than, "Well, we'll just have to see how it goes in November" — November 30, the drop-dead date for negotiations with large multinational corporations.

I'm only going on the information that was provided in the budget documents to come to conclusions about how much revenue is likely to be raised, based on the framework the Minister of Finance tabled in February, which, by my recollection, was only a few months ago — not in the 1990s, not in the 1980s but just a few months ago. I'm trying to take that information and draw a picture for the people of British Columbia on if it's at all practically possible for the government to reach the targets that they have set forward in rhetoric rather than in reality.

Again, I'll ask the Premier. If we assume we have two plants…. And I've used Petronas and Shell, the two largest likely outcomes — combined, 30 million tonnes per annum. My understanding, looking at the scenarios that were put forward by the Minister of Finance…. And they may be too ambitious. The Premier may be correct that we're going to get negotiated downward on the two tiers that were put forward by the Minister of Finance.

But I, sadly, am hamstrung because I have to deal with the documents that were tabled in the Legislature. I don't know what the Premier does at the natural gas working group. I know that if you burn gas in British Columbia and call it something towards liquefied natural gas, it's a green fuel source, but if you burn it at Burrard thermal, where you can reduce costs for B.C. Hydro because they can use that as a peak shaving opportunity, it's somehow odious and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I'm trying to come to terms with the contradictions in what natural gas really is. It's the cleanest, greenest fuel in the world if you're trying to sell it to someone else. But if you're going to use it here to provide lower costs for ratepayers — not the 28 percent rate increases that we're going to see over the next five years — then it's another matter.

[1630]

I'd like to go back…. The information that was tabled in the budget…. And I appreciate this is out of the scope of the Premier, but she is the chair of the committee. After all, I'm assuming that if the liquefied natural gas committee is meeting, they're talking about revenues, because — on the side of the bus — "Debt-free," "Prosperity fund" still come out of the Premier's mouth periodically.

How is it possible that only $500 million in revenue can be realized if those two plants come on stream in four years' time? And that is only 23 percent of our total debt servicing. I do appreciate that the Premier has already budgeted the $2.5 billion you need to service your debt, but you're not going to be reducing your debt if you're only reducing the servicing costs by 25 percent.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. C. Clark: The member talks about two projects. We hope that there will be more than that.

I should also reference the February 2013 forecasts that were developed separately by Grant Thornton and Ernst and Young. They confirmed that the provincial revenue forecasts were estimated to be in the range of $130 billion to $180 billion over the construction and 20-year operation period. That's the big number and the source of that big number.

I am not going to imperil the investment by conducting the negotiations about the tax and how it's going to work and how much revenue will be garnered from it in this room today. Those negotiations are very sensitive. They are happening. They are underway now. They're working extremely hard, rolling up their sleeves. It's a fairly short timeline to get there by the 30th.

I am determined not to undermine that work by negotiating this with the Leader of the Opposition when it's our negotiators who are working with those private
[ Page 4389 ]
sector companies to come to a conclusion on this right now. I think I've told the member that a couple of times.

In big numbers, if five LNG plants are built, there will be about $1 trillion in economic activity; 100,000 new jobs; potential revenues, as I said, of over $100 billion; potential industry investment of about $175 billion. That affords us the opportunity to eliminate our provincial debt.

It also allows us the opportunity, with the cleanest fossil fuel on the planet, to be able to go and help make the biggest contribution to reducing climate change globally that British Columbia has ever had. That's by exporting this clean fossil fuel to China and Asia, helping them move from some of the dirtier fossil fuels that they're relying on today.

They are going to continue to grow. They're going to continue to use more energy. The question is: what energy will they use? Will they use the clean, green natural gas that's produced here in British Columbia, or will they use dirty coal? Will they use other sources that will pollute our air and impact climate change globally?

[1635]

We have a tremendous opportunity, not just economically, for people here in British Columbia. We also have a tremendous opportunity on the environmental front to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect the world, protect the air, for our children, for our grandchildren and for their children.

J. Horgan: Is the Premier saying that we're only going to sell our natural gas to companies that guarantee they're going to displace coal?

Hon. C. Clark: Here's what we know. The global demand for energy is going to double. It's going to be a tremendous growth in the economies of Asia, particularly China, and we also hope in India. They are going to use some kind of fuel to fuel that growth.

If we don't export…. If they can't get their hands on natural gas, they will use some other means. I believe we have an obligation, as we sit on an ocean of energy, to make sure that we make that available to the world, and to those growing economies, so that they have the opportunity to shift from dirtier fuels to cleaner fuels.

I also know this, having visited China on, I think, four or five trade missions that I've led, that they have a tremendous interest in attacking their pollution problem and reducing their impact on climate change. They have a tremendous, undeniable issue with pollution in places like Beijing, Shanghai and other cities all over China. There's tremendous, legitimate pressure to clean that up.

Government is beginning to respond. They know that in order to meet that demand from their citizens, they need to be able to access natural gas from around the world.

We intend to be part of that energy portfolio for places like China. The more natural gas we export, the easier it will be for all of those countries to be able to look to the clean fossil fuels, rather than the dirty ones, to power their growth.

J. Horgan: Does the Premier believe that the $400 billion arrangement reached between China and Russia last week will increase supply, thus reducing cost?

Hon. C. Clark: I know the Natural Gas Minister covered this in his estimates. Once the China-Russia deal is finished, it will supply about 10 percent of China's expected demand. So there's a lot of room for more product in that market.

We are geographically proximate to the parts of China that are going to be using most of the natural gas as their economy grows, particularly in the eastern part of China. We are also a competitive, reliable, honourable partner.

This doesn't change our strategy in this. We know that we can be a supplier in the portfolio of every importing country around the world, potentially. We're focused, though, on Asia.

That's why there are 13 LNG proposals at various stages of development; four proposals that were announced just in 2013; nine LNG proposals have received export approval; two more are currently being reviewed; $8.5 billion has already been invested to acquire upstream and natural gas assets; $2 billion invested on LNG planning and development; $21 billion spent by LNG proponents on company acquisitions in order to access our resources.

We've done a number of successful trade missions to support LNG. We had a tremendously successful trade show and LNG conference just last week: 1,400 people from around the world, including the president of Petronas, the international president of Shell and representatives from the biggest energy companies around the world.

[1640]

I think we should all…. Governments aren't in the best position to make business decisions. The problem is when governments think they are in the best position to make business decisions. I am not in the private sector. And it is the private sector that will be the judge of whether or not these projects are going to go ahead and whether or not British Columbia is going to be a competitive jurisdiction and whether or not there's going to be a market for our product.

The private sector is resoundingly saying yes. When I met with proponents at the LNG conference, I explored this with them directly. All of them said the deal between Russia and China does not change their investment plans here in British Columbia.

They're voting with their feet. They're voting with billions of dollars. So I take that as a ringing endorsement of our strategy so far. We still have a ways to go down this road. It's not complete. We need to continue our relentless focus on this if we want to make it happen. That's
[ Page 4390 ]
what we intend to do.

J. Horgan: Here's another moment. I agree with the Premier that the market will decide, and I've been saying that for a number of years. Whenever the question came to me as Energy critic, I would say: "The market will determine whether these projects proceed."

But my responsibility now is as the Leader of the Opposition, and I have to pose these questions in the interest of the Premier being as comprehensive in her responses about the details as she possibly can.

I have not said to her at any time today that I wanted to negotiate in public. I want her to give the public some sense of how real the assumptions are that she's been making rhetorically in throne speeches and in budget documents.

I'll come back to another element of the expansion of our gas opportunities and our liquefied natural gas potential — "potential" being the operative word. What are the consequences if the five plants that the Premier referenced two questions ago…? If five plants come on stream, what would the greenhouse gas implications be to British Columbia?

As the Premier knows, we have legislated targets. As the Premier knows, international measurement of greenhouse gas emissions is not done by what you displace elsewhere; it's done by what you emit in your jurisdiction. So focusing on that element — and I want to be abundantly clear that I do not want to hear a story of how grand the world will be when Beijing and Shanghai can reduce their emissions — I want to know: what are the consequences going to be to the emission profile here in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: That is partly the topic of the negotiations which we're in the midst of now. An LNG facility's GHG emissions intensity will vary, depending on compression and power-generation technology choice, depending on the cooling medium and the liquefaction process choice. Those elements of environmental compliance, which are extremely important to us in creating the cleanest LNG in the world, are part of the government-imposed cost.

[1645]

That is part of the discussion that we're having in the negotiations. As I said, it is not just about the taxes; it's about the other compliance costs that we're building into it. For those investors, all of these costs sink to one big bottom line. It all interacts with one another, whether its royalties or corporate income tax or the range of other things. So we're continuing to negotiate those elements as part of the agreements that we're working on right now.

We have a goal of having the cleanest LNG in the world. We want to take advantage of this opportunity to clean the world's air, which we all share. I think it's important to note that dirty air and emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change that's created in China affects everybody all around the world. Just because it's along way away doesn't mean it doesn't affect us here. We have a chance to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions substantially.

I'll give you a number on that. Replacing some of the coal used to generate electricity in China with 82 million tonnes of LNG from B.C. could avoid up to 75 megatonnes of CO₂ annually. That's an incredible impact that we in British Columbia could have on the world for our children and for our grandchildren, because the air that's in China doesn't just belong to China. It belongs to everybody, no matter where you live on this globe.

J. Horgan: Has the Premier directed her Minister of Environment to go to international conferences and try and change the way we manage and quantify greenhouse gas emissions by jurisdiction?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, my view is very much that we need to be thinking of climate change as a global problem, not as just a British Columbia problem. We are not the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, and we will never be. In fact, we are one of the best, most responsible, greenest jurisdictions in North America. Environmental policies that we've pursued — all of which were opposed by the New Democrats in their time, including the carbon tax — have put British Columbia very much at the forefront of environmental change.

We want to continue that legacy by having, as I said, the biggest impact that we can have in the world — by exporting our natural gas to some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. That's the view of the government. That's the view of the Environment Minister. We're going to continue to pursue that.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier point to any international expert that confirms her view that by increasing greenhouse gas emissions here in British Columbia, where we have legislated targets, and potentially reducing them somewhere else, that's a net benefit to the world?

[1650]

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have the names of everyone at my fingertips here. I apologize to the member. I could try and get him that information tomorrow morning when we get back to estimates.

I will say there was a terrific presentation from Richard Muller, who was at the LNG conference — a professor at Berkeley, expert on climate change; he's written a book on glacial change, I think, and some other areas related directly to this — speaking about how important natural gas is to help as a solution for climate change around the world.

There is a ton of debate — I recognize that — in the scientific, environmental, policy-making commun-
[ Page 4391 ]
ities about all the ways that we need to impact climate change. But there are also a lot of people who do believe and accept — people with a scientific background — that natural gas is a very important transitional step, as a transitional fuel, to reducing climate change globally.

I certainly know that the climate change that's created in China is going to have a tremendous impact on our children and our grandchildren, and we need to do something about it. One of the ways we will do that is to make sure that we export our natural gas.

The member often stands up and says he supports exporting natural gas. But when he's not saying that, he's opposing the means to power it, he's opposing the means to extract it, he's opposing the means to transport it and isn't convinced that it's even a good thing for the world. He and I differ on all of those fronts.

I believe that the liquefied natural gas industry is going to be hugely important for the future of our province, and rather than trying to put obstacles in the way of it happening, what I'm trying to do is enable it, to create an environmentally sound business and industry that's going to help the world, help British Columbia and also create thousands and thousands of new jobs for people here at home.

Rather than trying to throw obstacles up in the way, I'm trying to find solutions. We haven't found them all yet, but we are on the right track.

J. Horgan: I agree with many of the comments the Premier just made. I agree that natural gas is a transition fuel. The advent of shale gas in the United States has seen an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of their displacing coal in jurisdictions south of the border.

But I did ask the Premier whether we were going to make it a term of our commercial arrangements that we would be actually displacing coal, or are we just going to be adding more energy into a voracious Asian economy that is consuming at rates that are obviously not sustainable over time? Asian governments understand that. Governments around the world understand that.

My question was not about what the scientific debate is. It was about how international arrangements have been arrived it, whether it be the Kyoto protocol, whether it be discussions at Copenhagen in recent memory, where the world's been trying to grapple with: how do we measure and account for our greenhouse gas emissions?

That's the specific question I'm asking the Premier. I do not disagree with her that our natural gas is a net benefit to the markets that we can send it to where we displace more noxious forms of energy generation. I firmly agree with that.

[1655]

My question is not to be an obstacle. It's not to be in the way. In our British parliamentary system — we've got our Clerk from Saskatchewan, who's not here to enjoy this — a vigorous opposition makes for a better government. I'm not doing this for sport. I'm doing this because it's incumbent upon me to ensure that we can get the most out of you and your staff and that the public of British Columbia have a better understanding of where we're going as a province.

I'm not negative by nature; I'm positive by nature, just like you. We find ourselves to be very similar on a whole host of fronts. But the rhetoric really should kind of…. Let's put that to the side. We don't have a lot of time here. There are a lot of questions that people have.

The Premier has said that they've been diligently working for a number of years. I've asked about the tax regime — not yet in place. I've asked about what the greenhouse gas consequences are going to be — not yet in place.

We have an integrated resource plan at B.C. Hydro that does not include hydro resources for liquefaction or compression, only for ancillary services, so the notion that we need more energy to service the industry doesn't appear to be borne out, based on the information that's available to us today. In fact, in my discussions with the sector over the past number of years, it's fairly clear that they're going to be using their abundant natural gas to compress and liquefy their product to get to higher-priced markets.

I support getting more money for our resources. What I don't support is those resources, which belong to all of the people of British Columbia, being given away for a song because political commitments are being made today. So I would prefer if we carry on, in the time we have available, to talk about the substance of these issues in a way that the people of British Columbia will have a better understanding of the content of what we're talking about rather than the rhetoric.

In the diligent 19 months you've been working on this, we can't talk about the revenues that will come to the Crown. Although there will be $100 billion, trillion, gazillion coming sometime in the undefined future, surely to goodness we've quantified what the greenhouse gas implications will be to our targets.

Hon. C. Clark: I apologize if I misinterpreted the member's question. I thought he was pressing me to seek a commitment from China that we would not export our natural gas to them unless they agreed that that natural gas would displace coal. Perhaps he could clarify for me if that's what he was seeking.

J. Horgan: The point I was trying to make was that we have no guarantee, if we sell our gas to China, that they're going to displace coal unless you ask them to. They have a rapacious appetite for energy. It's a fast-growing economy. The Premier knows that. She's visited several times, many more than I have.

The point I'm making is that our greenhouse gas targets are legislated here, so rather than discussing whether China will displace coal with our gas — which we cannot
[ Page 4392 ]
guarantee, in my view….

[1700]

It's impossible, yet the assertions from the Premier are that if we sell them gas, magically their emissions will go down. I'm not convinced that will happen unless you get a guarantee from your buyer that that's what they're going to do. That's not likely to happen in a commercial arrangement. That was the point I was making.

Let's go back to our legislated targets. Is there a plan from the Liquefied Natural Gas Working Group to eliminate our current targets and set new targets? Because if these plants do come on stream — one, two, three, five, 19 or 265 — we're going to be increasing our greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore, our targets will be obliterated. Are we going to change our targets, or are we going to hold fast to them?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, first I'll say the natural gas…. Displacing dirty fuel around the world with natural gas is a priority for British Columbia, and we can't be a part of making that happen unless we get it out of the ground and we move it to the coast and we ship it over there at the best possible price that we can get. That is absolutely crucial to make us a part of this. And if we're not a part of it, Mozambique will be a part of it. The United States will be a part of it. Russia, Qatar, Australia — all of the other exporting countries around the world will be a part of it.

We have a choice. We can either choose to be a part of it by trying to knock down the barriers to make it a competitive industry and to try and get it through the process as fairly and quickly as we can, or we can decide to put up obstacles and decide we don't want to do it. I'm on the side of saying: "We want to make sure that we do it."

Where are we at in terms of issues with respect to environmental compliance? As I said to the member, that is part and parcel of the negotiations that are underway now. Those are government-imposed compliance costs that sink to the bottom line for the proponents. They are very interested, and so are we, from different perspectives, on where that will land.

I don't intend to negotiate that in public here. I don't want to imperil these negotiations. This industry and the future of it is far, far too important for me to decide I want to take a risk like that by doing those negotiations in public here today. I just simply will not do it.

J. Horgan: Will the companies the government is negotiating with only be allowed to use electricity from the grid, or will they be able to generate their own electricity?

Hon. C. Clark: I think it will be a mix. Well, I know it will be likely there will be a mix. Some proposals are 100 percent electric, and Woodfibre is an example of that. That could be one of the earliest ones up and running. It's a small project, but it could be an example of 100 percent electric. Some of the others, the larger ones in particular, will likely be a mix.

We need to be flexible. We need to recognize that different proposals in different locations and different economics will have a different mix of that. We're trying to be flexible in reflecting that.

J. Horgan: Well, the motivation for the question was to get back to the point of the legislated greenhouse gas emission targets that we have — overall reductions, over time, by 2020. If we are going to realize our LNG potential, as the Premier wants to do, we're going to run afoul of those targets. I don't know how, and I've been looking at this, perhaps not with as much enthusiasm as the Premier, but I've been looking at this for some time as well.

If we are going to extract more gas from the ground, there's going to be a GHG consequence of that — to meet markets overseas. If we're going to get it from the east to the west, there's going to be a consequence to that. If we're going to liquefy it and get it across the ocean, there's going to be a GHG consequence to that. At every step of the chain there's going to be a net increase in our emissions if we're going to meet these new markets.

Again, I want to stress that I'm not opposed to that. I'm just asking the question so the public can have an understanding of what's at play here. What are the consequences of your optimism on this file?

We've got royalty revenues that are uncertain. We've got taxation revenues that are uncertain. We have a carbon tax that regular folks have to pay but Petronas may not have to pay. We don't know at this point. We may find out November 30.

[1705]

We have greenhouse gas targets, which we all voted for, to reduce our overall emissions over time. This industry is going to increase our emissions, which means we'll have to drive them down in some other way.

We have a referendum coming up on the transportation options in the Lower Mainland that would help us drive down our emissions if we can increase our investments in public transit. There are a whole bunch of things we can and should do, should our emissions go up in one sector.

My simple question is: has the Premier, through her efforts over the past 12 to 36 months in moving this file, not had a briefing on what the GHG consequences are going to be if we expand our development of oil and gas in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Discussion about greenhouse gas emissions has been part of the discussion that we've been having from the very, very beginning in pursuing a liquefied natural gas industry for the province. It's very much top of mind for us.

At the moment, we are in negotiations, as I've said, about these compliance costs, about the mix, the inten-
[ Page 4393 ]
sity targets that we would set — those are government-imposed costs — about the technology that we would require to be used. Those, again, are government-imposed costs.

That's part of the discussion that we're having right now, so it's too early to speculate on what that impact might be. Once we've completed those negotiations, I'll be able to give the member a firmer answer.

J. Horgan: Two hours on we don't know what the revenues are going to be. We don't know when we're going to be able to reduce our debt to zero, which was the commitment during the election campaign. We don't know what the GHG consequences are going to be. We have an Ernst and Young report that was paid for by the government prior to the election that says there will some jobs created.

Let's move to the jobs plan. Since the jobs plan was created, we have had one of the worst records on job creation in Canada — sixth overall. With respect to private sector job growth, we're eighth overall. We have the slowest growth in real wages as well. We're tenth overall. We've lost 36,700 construction jobs and 3,100 manufacturing jobs.

Can the Premier give us her assessment of how the jobs plan is working so far?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we are very proud of the jobs plan and the impact that it's had. I'm a great believer that you cannot get to a goal without a plan. You can't get to a goal by changing your strategy every day and deciding that you want to do something different.

We've put in place a plan, and we've stuck with it in a very slow and sluggish North American economy. Since the launch of the jobs plan we've added 50,700 net new jobs, 45,300 of which are net private sector jobs.

[1710]

At the launch of the jobs plan there were 2,270,300 people working. Today there are 2.321 million. That's 50,700 more. In May 2001 employment in B.C. was 1,951,800. There are 369,000 more people working today. Youth unemployment has dropped 5 percent.

Youth unemployment is way down. B.C. has the third-lowest unemployment rate in Canada.

We have the fourth-highest average hourly wage of any province in the country. We want to continue to grow that by increasing the number of high-paying jobs all across the province. That's part of the strategy.

We will not get there overnight. I've said that all along. But you have to have a plan to get there, and you have to continue to execute on that plan if you want to make sure you're going to meet your goals.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier tell us where we are, compared to other provinces today, with respect to private sector job creation?

Hon. C. Clark: The economy added 45,300 jobs. That's as of April 4. Those are net private sector jobs since the launch of the jobs plan. We have a lot more work to do. We are, as all economies are across this country, unique. We are a diversified but resource-based economy — not just one resource but a number of different resources that are driven by different prices around the world.

We are continuing to add private sector jobs. I don't have comparisons from all across the country. I suspects it's apples to oranges to bananas, given that each of the provinces has a different resource base and a different economic base.

I will say I am absolutely certain we would be a lot farther behind today if we did not have a jobs plan and if we hadn't executed on it as purposefully in such as we have. We're going to continue to do that. We're going to continue to work to grow private sector jobs, control the size of government, control government spending, balance our budget, maintain our triple-A credit rating.

The Conference Board of Canada has a very strong outlook for British Columbia, based on the plan, based on the confidence of our credit-rating agencies, based on our tax rates, based on our prudent fiscal management and based on our — and their — optimism that we will grow an LNG industry in British Columbia that is going to put us at the forefront of economic growth nationally.

J. Horgan: Well, I'll help the Premier out. StatsCan says that we're eighth. I recall, again, leading up to the creation of the jobs plan that we were going to be No. 1. "We're No. 1."

The Canucks wanted to make the playoffs this year. They had a plan to make the playoffs, and they didn't make it. They failed. We don't blame them for having a plan; we blame them for failing.

We had a plan to be No. 1 in job growth, and we're No. 8. It's not apples to apples. It's growth rates — growth rates in job creation. It's simple. These are numbers that are calculated every month. Last month British Columbia lost 9,600 private sector jobs.

I visited Tumbler Ridge last week and talked to many of the 400 workers that are out of work at the Wolverine mine, a sector that the Premier spoke about in her opening remarks. We have people losing jobs, shedding jobs, in the mining sector, and we have an increase in the number of temporary foreign workers.

[1715]

Before we get to temporary foreign workers — I don't want the Premier to be diverted here — I'd like to go back to last month. I know that month to month is a risky way to play the game, because the numbers go up and the numbers go down. But we are eighth out of ten provinces when the Premier ran an election campaign saying we were going to be No. 1 based on her plan. I appreciate the Premier wanted to be No. 1. So did I. So did all British Columbians. But we're not. We're No. 8. That's
[ Page 4394 ]
not an NDP position. It's not a Liberal position. It's the position that B.C. is in.

So would not the Premier agree with me that the plan is not working and maybe it's time to dump some veterans and bring in some new draft picks?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I'm not going to bring the Canucks into this. But I will say that the member is quite right, that looking at it month to month is a mug's game. There have been months where British Columbia has led the country in job creation, but he hasn't named any of those months.

He can pick month-to-month numbers if he wants. It's not a very accurate picture of where we're at or where we're going. It sure would be nice if the member would find his way, rather than throwing up obstacles to resource development at every corner and every turn, to support government in getting out of the way of resource development, getting out of the way of growing our economy.

Instead, his caucus and his positions on all of these issues that will allow us to grow our economy, allow us to create jobs, allow us to meet the Conference Board's expectations of British Columbia, which are very positive indeed…. Instead, he throws up obstacles at every turn — things, ideas, policies, plans that would shut down our resource economy entirely.

Our jobs plan is focused on growing the economy. We are focused on developing our resource sector. That's how we're going to put people to work. Our plan is a positive plan that's going to get us there. His plan is a plan that will mean going back to the days of high unemployment and government finding itself in the difficult position of not being able to afford the social programs that people depend on.

J. Horgan: Well, again, it's unfortunate that we get to these moments of rhetoric and partisanship, and that's the essence of the debate. Hopefully, this one will pass as quickly as it came upon us. I know that the Premier knows that I, for example, support the Red Chris mine. I support the Mount Milligan mine. Both of them are proceeding; both of them creating jobs. There's no animosity between the two of us about those issues.

I know that the Premier supports the Taseko Fish Lake proposal that's been rejected twice by the environmental assessment process. That's not the NDP that rejected that. It was the environmental assessment process.

Good projects should proceed; bad projects shouldn't. That's the way it works around here. That's why we have robust environmental regulations in British Columbia, and that's why investment should have the opportunity to come and make their case. We have no quarrel on that, the Premier and I — none whatsoever.

The notion that you're a good British Columbian if you favour bad projects and you're a bad British Columbian if you oppose them doesn't get us anywhere. I think we should instead focus on the reality and the facts. The facts are that the Premier said that we were going to be first in job creation when she launched her jobs plan. Since then we're eighth.

Again, we're out of the playoffs, so we need to get some new management, I would expect. That's what the Canucks did. That's what any prudent business person would do. If you're not meeting your plan, if you're not realizing the objectives you've set for yourself, it seems to me you might want to look for new management. Where is the benchmark? At what point is eighth no longer good enough?

[1720]

Hon. C. Clark: I certainly do support a fair hearing in the environmental process for projects like Kinder Morgan. I know that the NDP have a different position on that, and they'll be presenting that to the National Energy Board hearings when they happen.

I have supported, consistently, a fair environmental process for all of these proponents. I don't make an exception when it comes to Kinder Morgan. I think that differentiates us, from one side of the House to the other.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chairman, can I finish? I notice the bells are ringing.

The Chair: Sure. Go ahead and finish, if you'd like.

Hon. C. Clark: I'll say this. The member talks about supporting resource development. He says it, but all of the things in the NDP plan, all the things that they would like to do — and some of the things he's talked about today — are intended to put obstacles in the way of growing our economy.

I have more to say about the jobs numbers, and I'll speak about that if I can continue my answer when we return.

The Chair: Most certainly, Madam Premier.

I call a short recess.

The committee recessed from 5:21 p.m. to 5:36 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. C. Clark: Further to the member's question, I had a chance to go look at the Statistics Canada numbers that I think he was quoting. If you look at the numbers month to month that show British Columbia was eighth, you see the same month that Nova Scotia was third. Well, that's month to month. Over the course of the year since the jobs plan was introduced, B.C.'s third and Nova
[ Page 4395 ]
Scotia's tenth. You really do need to look at these things over a period of time to get an accurate picture of it.

Third isn't No. 1, though. The way we're going to get to No. 1 is by creating this natural gas industry, by removing obstacles, by supporting resource development across the province. We are doing that now. I'm very hopeful that we will find our way to No. 1 in the country if we continue along this path.

J. Horgan: The Premier has said repeatedly that she believes we should make temporary foreign workers the workers of last resort, and she's made that commitment that British Columbians should be first. Yet today we have over 74,000 temporary foreign workers in British Columbia and 143,000 people looking for work.

I appreciate there are skill issues involved. We want to meet our skills shortages with temporary foreign workers while we train them up. I think we all agree on that, but British Columbia is disproportionately carrying its weight on the temporary foreign worker front, many of them in unskilled jobs — particularly, the Premier will know, or her staff will certainly know, examples right here in the capital, where youth unemployment is relatively high, people are looking for work and temporary foreign workers are being brought in to do unskilled work.

Can the Premier comment on her commitment to jobs for British Columbians first and how we have come to have 74,000 temporary foreign workers in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll start by reminding the member — I know he knows this — that it is a federally managed program for temporary foreign workers.

He's right. There were 74,000 temporary foreign workers in B.C. in 2012. Over 29,000, almost 40 percent of them, are part of the youth mobility program, and they can work anywhere in the province. That's a reciprocal program. Canadian youth aged 18 to 25 can work overseas in 32 countries as part of working vacations and international co-op programs.

[1740]

If you've ever been for a visit to Big White, up in my neck of the woods, in the Kelowna-Okanagan region, you will know that the hill there is staffed, it seems almost exclusively, by Australians, many of whom are temporary foreign workers. Ski hills and some other specific businesses rely on temporary foreign workers, particularly this youth program, to be able to continue to run their businesses.

We have 4,300 who are part of the live-in caregiver program, 8,600 are pursuing studies, 4,000 are seasonal agricultural workers, and 3,400 come through NAFTA. Now, this is information that we get from the federal government, because, as I said, it's not a program that we manage.

The top four countries that temporary foreign workers come from are Australia — hence, my experience at Big White; the U.S.; Mexico; and the United Kingdom. But my view is very much this. We have an obligation as a government to ensure that British Columbians have the skills that they need to take advantage of the jobs when they come.

First of all, we need to do everything that we can to support the private sector in creating those jobs. Then we need to make sure that British Columbians are in a position to be able to fill those jobs at high rates of pay across the province by making sure that they have the training. That is a crucial element in supporting my intention to ensure that British Columbians are first in line for the jobs. They can't get the jobs if they don't have the training.

That's why we're reprofiling billions of dollars in our post-secondary system. It's why we're changing our apprenticeship system, and it's why we are refocusing in our secondary system to make sure that we are giving every British Columbian who is looking for training an opportunity to train for those jobs. It's why we are working with the private sector labour unions, very cooperatively, to try and make this work.

It's why we've been able to come to an agreement on a 15-point plan, which includes access, a recognition that there will need to be access to temporary foreign workers. It's why we led a delegation to Ottawa to make sure that we are coordinated in terms of immigration and skills training, to make sure that the people of this province are first in line for those jobs.

Temporary foreign workers will be necessary for some elements of the projects at peak times. The labour unions recognize that. The reason they do is because they know we can't attract these projects if we can't find a way to make sure that we don't run out of supply of labour. The long-term, permanent, high-paying jobs are going to go, for the most part, to their members.

They want to make sure we land these projects. They want to make sure that we take as many obstacles out of the way as we possibly can. That's why we are working as cooperatively as we can on the skills training front. We have a lot of work ahead of us. No government in the country — we're told by the proponents that no government they've dealt with in the world — has created such a comprehensive plan in advance of starting an LNG industry in the province.

As I always say, you've got to have a plan if you want to get to your goal. We have a plan.

J. Horgan: With the reciprocal youth program the Premier referenced, twice as many foreign youngsters are coming here than are going offshore. It's a disproportionate program, to be sure. It's not students coming here, as you say. It's folks working at ski hills, perhaps, and other things. They have two-year work permits, and they travel about, and good for them.

But it's the temporary foreign workers that are being
[ Page 4396 ]
applied for, for example, by HD Mining, in the Tumbler Ridge area. As I said to you earlier on in these estimates, I was in Tumbler Ridge. I visited with some out-of-work steelworkers — 400 high-paying, skilled, unionized jobs lost in a town of 3,000. That's a big dent in any community. It certainly was a big dent for Tumbler Ridge.

At the same time, there are applications from HD Mining to have 200 temporary foreign workers brought in to meet the needs of that project just down the street. I'm wondering if the Premier could comment on how that's fitting in with her jobs plan and how that's fitting in with working with private sector unions to ensure that they get a good crack at these jobs.

I'd also like to just again remind the Premier that although the temporary foreign worker program is a federal program, other jurisdictions — Manitoba and Quebec — have worked out arrangements whereby they have more say and more control over the program, more say and more control over what sectors of the economy are able to access temporary foreign workers to meet skills shortages if they emerge. It seems to be working fairly well in those two provinces.

[1745]

I'm wondering if the Premier has made any overtures to the Prime Minister or any federal ministers to see if we could have more control over something that's pretty important to British Columbia, and that's our labour market force.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, there are two. The member may know from having visited Tumbler and the region that the proposal for the mine — and it's not a mine; it's not an operating mine; it was a proposal for a mine — would have been longwall mining.

There are two small underground mines in Canada. We do not have a lot of workers experienced at doing this kind of mining. So the company went under the rules that the federal government set and sought and received permission to bring in temporary foreign workers to support them in doing that.

The connection, though, for here with the jobs plan is this. When British Columbians are trained and able to take the jobs, they can take them. But if they don't have the training and we don't have enough people with expertise in those fields or we don't have enough people with the expertise who are prepared to live in those regions of the province, they will not take those jobs. Our obligation, as I said — and this is part of the blueprint for skills training — is to make sure that British Columbians have the skills that they need when those jobs come open.

If we believe that underground mining and longwall mining are going to become an area where there could be real employment in our province, we will begin training people for those jobs, because we want those jobs to go to British Columbians first. But we also recognize that in our province, if we trained up every single high school graduate in British Columbia to the exact specifications for every single job that will be coming as we continue to grow our economy, we still would not have enough people.

In Alberta, where they do some of this kind of mining, they've worked with the union to bring in temporary foreign workers who are members of those unions from the United States to go and work in those mines if they haven't been able to find people with the skills, the willingness, to be able to take on those jobs.

There's a case where the private sector unions in this country have enthusiastically and publicly — well, maybe not enthusiastically — supported the use of temporary foreign workers that are members of their union in coming from the United States, an economy that is very, very busy and where sometimes it's very difficult to find workers.

My hope is that in British Columbia we can make sure that every British Columbian has a crack at those jobs. That means we need to make sure that we spend our money as well as we can — certainly better than we are today — in our secondary and post-secondary apprenticeship systems to make sure British Columbians have the training available so they can take advantage of this growing economy.

J. Horgan: I'm familiar with underground mining. I was in the Quinsam…. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and I both went underground in Campbell River to the coal mine there, and I can tell you that I don't want to be trained to do that again. It was an experience that I will remember forever, but it's certainly not something I'd want to do every day. But the men and women that work there enjoy what they do. They feed their families; they pay their mortgages.

The challenge with HD is not that it's a particular style of mining. Longwall mining is unique in Canada. But there are processing jobs. There are cleaning jobs. There are truck driving jobs.

There's a litany of opportunities for people in the region that are being denied because those jobs are going to be going to workers with temporary foreign permits, including those that are going to be driving vehicles on site. It's not operating. They're doing their core work. That's two years of activity that's creating opportunity in the region but not opportunity for the people in the region.

I know we can quibble about training opportunities. When I was there, I stopped in at Northern Lights College to discover that on July 1 they'll be down to one person answering the phone and directing people to other satellite campuses of the college.

[1750]

I'm wondering: after the announcement that Wolverine was closing down and the significant job loss, was there any action taken by the Premier to reach out to the people in Tumbler Ridge, in the community, to see what
[ Page 4397 ]
could be done to address those concerns? Four hundred people in a community of 3,000 — that's a big deal.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the Ministry of Jobs and the Minister of Jobs have been working hard on making sure that workers in the community are assisted to the extent that we can. I know that Canfor has done a jobs fair there. They did a number of interviews. They are very, very actively looking for workers.

The Roman coal mine is also, we hope, going to be taking on some new people. We've been working with them on that and, I think, the Grande Cache mine as well. We are working to try and transition the workers in this downtime to new jobs and new positions and support them in doing that.

The forest industry, as the member may know, is hungry for workers as they go through and see significant retirements in their business. Canfor is among the companies around the province that are working hard to try and…. It has a real interest in trying to find workers that have been displaced from other businesses that are no longer operating.

So we're continuing to work on that. Mike Bernier, the member from the region, has been involved as well. We're continuing to work on it.

My sympathies certainly go to the workers of the mine. We are enthusiastic supporters of mining. We are enthusiastic supporters of coal mining. We are very proud of our record in the last little while of making sure that mining projects find their way through the process as quickly as possible, to ensure that it's being done in an environmentally sound way but to ensure that we are putting people to work as quickly as we can.

It's a terrible thing to be out of a job wherever you are, and it's certainly terrible for folks in Tumbler Ridge. But we're working with the community and working with other people in the private sector there to try and transition as many of those workers as we can.

I'm informed that on the HD Mining site there are, I think, 31 Canadian workers on that site as well. It is not exclusively temporary foreign workers. That area is very active. There is lots of economic activity happening. We hope, through the jobs plan and through our purposeful focus on creating jobs and economic growth across the province, that they will continue to see more economic growth.

[1755]

J. Horgan: On September 26 last year the criminal justice branch announced that a special prosecutor had been appointed in regard to the RCMP investigation into allegations of Criminal Code and Elections Act violations on the part of the government and the B.C. Liberal Party. At the time, your office issued a statement: "The government of British Columbia respects the process and will cooperate fully."

Yesterday the Attorney General confirmed that the investigation into allegations of Criminal Code and Election Act violations is still ongoing, so I want to focus on your commitment to cooperate fully. Is the government cooperating fully with the investigation? And how has the commitment to fully cooperate, communicated to you by government members, the government's political staff and members of the public service…?

Hon. C. Clark: How can you tell when the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has joined the room? I don't have any comment on that. I don't have any information about it. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. As the member noted, I publicly said that I would cooperate in any way, but beyond that, I can't add any information.

J. Horgan: It was a directive from your office. So my question would be: have you, any members of your government or your staff received requests to meet with the RCMP? Have you, any members of your government or your staff been interviewed by the RCMP in regard to this investigation?

Hon. C. Clark: I can only answer for myself, and the answer is no.

J. Horgan: Have you, any members of your government or your staff received requests from the RCMP to provide information in the form of documents? Has anyone in your staff been asked to provide documents?

Hon. C. Clark: It would be inappropriate for me to seek or share any information on the work of the special prosecutor. I don't have any, and I don't have any to share.

J. Horgan: Well, you've pledged to cooperate fully, so I assume…. And again, your deputy was involved at the front end of some of these issues in terms of his review of the activity. So I will ask you if the deputy to the Premier, to your knowledge — and that could be ascertained fairly quickly, I expect — has been asked to participate or provide any documents to the RCMP.

Hon. C. Clark: It's independent of the government. It's independent of politicians for a reason. I haven't sought — I won't seek — any information about how the process is going. I'm going to leave that entirely up to them.

The Chair: Leader of the Official Opposition, I'll also remind you, please, to provide all your questions through the Chair.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair. I agree with the Premier that the special prosecutor process is absolutely separate and arm's length from government and politicians, but the RCMP is not. If there's an investigation
[ Page 4398 ]
ongoing — through you, hon. Chair — and a request for information comes to the Premier's office, I would expect that that would be something, after you've already argued publicly — through you, hon. Chair — that you want to cooperate fully, that you would be apprised of.

Is the Premier saying that she has not been apprised since September 26 that there have been any requests of her office, including the deputy to the Premier, for any documents?

Hon. C. Clark: I haven't been apprised of the status of the investigation. I haven't sought any information about it. I will not share any information beyond the facts that I've already shared, which is in answering no to the member's question about me personally. It would be inappropriate for me to do that. I think the member must know that, and he must know that this line of questioning is going to garner him exactly the same answer. It would be inappropriate for me to do that. If he's urging me to share information, I think it's an inappropriate request.

J. Horgan: Well, it's certainly garnered shorter answers, so there is some benefit to that.

I'd like to move now to the issue of affordability. Particularly, I want to talk about B.C. Hydro. The Premier will remember that in 2012 she intervened and cancelled the rate hearing and said at the time: "It's a tough economy, and hydro rates are just one other burden that government puts on people in terms of costs. So we're finding a way to pay down the deferral account to about $250 million." At the same time, the rate increase is only going to be 1.4 percent next year.

[1800]

Now, I can say that the rate hearing was disrupted and stopped before evidence could be given and cross-examination take place. The rate increase in that pre-election year was 1.4 percent. However, the Premier's commitment to reducing the deferral accounts to $250 million fell a little bit short, by about $250 million. The current deferral account total is in the $490 million range, and we now know, after the election, that hydro rates are going to be going up by 28 percent over the next five years.

I also want to, by way of context for you, hon. Chair, so you and the committee members have a full understanding of this dynamic that was at play when the rate hearing was cancelled and a commitment to keep rates down was made…. The chief of staff to the Premier, not with us today for these proceedings, was recently departed as chair of B.C. Hydro's board of directors.

During the election campaign that followed the cancellation of the rate hearing, another board member, Mr. Brad Bennett, rode shotgun on the "Debt-free" bus when we were increasing the deferral accounts and we were increasing overall debt. I'm just wanting to ask: was there at any time any discussion between your chief of staff and the guy riding shotgun on the "Debt-free" bus about the real situation at B.C. Hydro when you made an intervention to reduce rates before an election and then allowed them to go to 28 percent after?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member knows that in 2011 B.C. Hydro came to me and to cabinet and said they wanted to do a very significant rate increase. My response to that was to appoint my deputy, John Dyble, to go in and have a very, very close look at the operations of B.C. Hydro and try and find ways that we could reduce their costs and reduce the potential for a rate increase for people.

We did that. We were successful. Then after the election B.C. Hydro came back with another substantial rate increase. We went back in and did some more work with them and were able to reduce that again and, further than that, come up with a sustainable ten-year plan for B.C. Hydro so that we can make sure that rates are sustainable and predictable over the long term and that B.C. Hydro continues to be sustainable and is able to make the investments needed in the very old, decades old, infrastructure that W.A.C. Bennett had the foresight to build in this province — to ensure that it's renewed so that our children can have the benefit of that infrastructure when it's their time to take over.

J. Horgan: Our children will have the benefits of $60 billion in unfunded liabilities for power contracts going out the next 60 years. I don't know how they're going to manage that $60 billion, although it wasn't included in the "Debt-free B.C." commitment. Perhaps we can put that as an addendum on the next bus — an asterisk that says: "Debt-free except for the $60 billion in unfunded liabilities for power contracts that are well above the market rate today and will be for the foreseeable future."

[1805]

We can also, I suppose, pass on to our children the deferral accounts that the Premier said, in her pre-election enthusiasm, were going to be reduced to $250 million, were going to be rising to about $5½ billion and then going down, miraculously, to just under $5 billion in the ten-year plan that the Premier referred to.

I also think that declaring victory in George Bush–like fashion, a "mission accomplished" banner, prior to the election — "we've wrestled B.C. Hydro to the ground; we've got everything under control" — only to find miraculously months later, after the votes have been counted and the election has been concluded, that the situation is in fact exactly the same as it was before the election…. It's just that now we're being candid about it.

Again, I'd like to go back to the issue of the former chair of B.C. Hydro. Mr. Doyle is well-known to all of us in this Legislature. He's an outstanding individual. He has a vast amount of experience in a whole range of areas and now, apparently, in his latter years of his career has
[ Page 4399 ]
discovered that he has an ability to be a political adviser.

Now that he's the senior political adviser to the Premier, formerly the chair of B.C. Hydro would have been well-versed in the fiscal situation, well-versed in the markets, the cost of electricity, how much we were paying versus what the market could bear. I'm wondering if he, at any time during the election campaign, paused for a moment to just reflect on his views on where B.C. Hydro was going. Or did that only happen after the ballots were counted?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we went in and had a very hard look at B.C. Hydro. The result of that was a ten-year plan that is going to keep electricity rates as low as we possibly can while allowing B.C. Hydro to make investments in assets in the future.

I should note, actually, that the member is not correct. The commitment from the prosperity fund is not just to pay off the provincial debt. It's also to work with B.C. Ferries on their debt and B.C. Hydro on their debt, recognizing that debt will accrue to our children, although it is managed differently in each of those cases.

The ten-year plan is intended to make sure that government can set the first two years of rate increases. But after that at 9 and 6 percent — and he'll know this from the media that came out of it. Then after that the BCUC will set the increases for the following three years. Those will be capped at 4 percent, 3½ percent and 3 percent.

This is the balance we've been able to find between making sure we are able to renew our assets and making sure that we are keeping rates as low as we possibly can for the people of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: That's a grand yarn after the election but quite inconsistent with what the Premier was saying before the election. "It's a tough economy. The hydro rates are just one of the burdens that government puts on people in terms of costs, so we're going to find ways to pay down the deferral account to about $250 million and at the same time the rate increase is only going to be 1.4 percent next year." Now, that's a long distance away from 9, 4, 3½, 3½, 3 percent — a long distance away.

[1810]

Again, I'm curious about Mr. Doyle's role in this debate, although he was not appointed to do the review. Mr. Dyble, Mr. Milburn and others, I think, were tasked with reviewing B.C. Hydro when the Premier was sworn in. Fair enough. Good idea. I would have supported that if you'd asked me. I would have said: "Yeah, that's a good idea. You should do that."

What I don't support is intervening in an independent process to allow a Liberal-appointed board to tell a Liberal-appointed cabinet that you should intervene in an independent process to keep rates artificially low for political purposes.

Do I want to see hydro rates go up? Of course I don't. Do I want to see these affordability challenges for British Columbians? No, I don't. But what I do want to do is ensure that we have an honest discussion about the consequences of government action.

That's why we raised the issues around liquefied natural gas. That's why we raised the issues around the inability of the jobs plan to come even remotely close to the commitments that the Premier made. And most importantly, when we're talking about a Crown corporation that is directly managed by government appointees, one of which has recently departed from the position of chair to sit as the senior political adviser to the premier….

My question is again to the Premier. Did not Mr. Doyle make a note somewhere along the line over the past 18 months saying: "Oh, by the way, that 1.4 percent before the election might have been a good idea for votes but a real bad idea for B.C. Hydro"?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I said, B.C. Hydro came to cabinet with two different proposals for big rate increases. We wrestled both of them down. We did that through a professional, independent review of that conducted by Deputy Minister Dyble. That's how we were able to come up with the ten-year plan that will allow us to invest and keep rates as low as we possibly can. We do want to make sure that we get and keep B.C. Hydro on a stable footing.

We are also, and the member referenced this, in the midst of an independent review of the B.C. Utilities Commission. That includes three extremely able and knowledgable individuals, including Michael Costello, who served under the NDP government as well — although I don't want to tarnish his reputation. He is completely non-political, as far as I know, and free of involvement in any party, but certainly had the confidence of the New Democratic government when he served them and will now be serving this government in this role in the review.

I don't know who the member expects me to appoint to cabinet except for B.C. Liberal members. I guess if he's looking for a job, he should ask.

J. Horgan: I'm tempted to say: "Was that WWF or Greco-Roman wrestling to the ground there?" You did it twice, so you might have used both schools at that time.

It's not an independent review when you appoint public servants, government employees, to do the review. That's a government review. An independent review is done by people off site.

The reference to the Utilities Commission today — Mr. Costello, Mr. Ostergaard and I think Mr. Trumpy — I believe is on a tariff issue, not specifically on the Utilities Commission, but I could be incorrect there and perhaps we can clarify that.

There are two reviews underway at the present time, as far as I'm aware. One is on the industrial tariff, which is a consequence and concern when you've got 28 percent
[ Page 4400 ]
rate increases in a fragile economy, which the Premier has referenced in her remarks today. Energy-intensive industries don't want to see their bottom line rocked like that, suddenly, at a time when commodity prices are low and their ability to meet their shareholders' expectation is further exacerbated by government policy.

One of the government policies — the review of 2011 that Mr. Dyble participated in — was to review water rentals, and it was to review the dividends paid by B.C. Hydro to the Crown. I looked at the government documents after the election. The B.C. Liberals, through their budget documents, professed to be only taking on average about $243 million annually from B.C. Hydro in the form of a dividend to meet their budget requirements. Then after the election that went up to $460-odd million.

[1815]

That's a $200 million increase. The only place that can come from, when you're taking it from a public utility, is from ratepayers. That means a large portion of the rate increase that we are going to have to absorb as citizens and as industry and as commercial users is going to come and go directly to the bottom line of the provincial budget.

So again, I want to know specifically…. I've asked several times what Mr. Doyle's role has been in briefing the Premier on Hydro issues. Does he have no opinion after spending that much time on the board, or does he have an active role in reviewing the activities of B.C. Hydro even to this day?

Hon. C. Clark: The ten-year plan progress update that came out in April — I'll draw the member's attention to point 5 in that. It talks about the fact that B.C. Hydro's net income and dividend to government has been calculated using the same formula since 1992, when the member, for some period of time at least — between now and then — was advising the government of the day.

We do have, though, a plan to change that starting in fiscal 2018, to reduce B.C. Hydro's contribution to government by $2 billion over ten years. That's a very important part of making sure that the company is sustainable over the long term.

Same formula since 1992. We have not gone out and ordered B.C. Hydro to cut $300 million in rebate cheques pre-election. We didn't freeze hydro rates on our own. We didn't remove the BCUC from rate setting. We weren't responsible for the fact that there was no investment in the 1990s. All of those things were actions taken by the government that the member was advising all through the 1990s.

Instead of that, what we have said is that we want to find our way to reducing the net dividend overall by a couple of billion dollars from B.C. Hydro. We want to make sure we are setting out a long-term plan for people so that they know what the hydro rates will be, within a range, and capping them at a certain rate.

We're working hard to renew the BCUC at the moment, and I've referenced that. We also have a very active plan — the member will see this in the ten-year plan — to continue to invest in the infrastructure that is aging, infrastructure that was created by W.A.C. Bennett all those years ago and desperately needs to be renewed.

J. Horgan: Your government did intervene at the Utilities Commission repeatedly — in fact, the mother of all special directions, the Clean Energy Act, exempting billions and billions and billions of dollars in capital investment from any overview whatsoever from any independent source. You did intervene in rate hearings. You cancelled them. You have not allowed the Utilities Commission to set rates until two years from now, and there's a cap. And you have not taken less of a dividend over ten years. You're taking less of a dividend after the next election.

It's a ten-year plan, but the first four years of the plan is to take as much as you can, and we'll see how it goes after the next election, which seems to me what you just finished doing. "Let's stop the hearing. Let's intervene. Let's reduce rates below what Hydro needs to meet its obligations, and we'll see how the election goes. Well, it turned out okay, so let's let it rip. But make sure you keep taking as much as you can for the next four years, and then we'll stop it. And if the election goes okay, we'll let it rip again."

That doesn't seem to me to be a five-year or ten-year plan to help give certainty to industry or to consumers. That seems to be a political plan that has a four-year cycle, and that seems to me to be unreasonable.

[1820]

I have asked repeatedly on Mr. Doyle's role in all this, and I'll ask directly again. You can tell me all you want about W.A.C. Bennett. I'm happy to hear that. But I really would like to know: after W.A.C. Bennett passed away and Mr. Doyle became chair of B.C. Hydro and then your chief political adviser, did he continue to advise you on the precarious position B.C. Hydro was in? Or did it just never come up?

Hon. C. Clark: Something happened between W.A.C. Bennett and today, and that was ten years of neglect and mismanagement at B.C. Hydro under an NDP government that absolutely failed in every way when it came to managing the jewel of the Crown corporations in this province.

It was the NDP government that that member advised, which took the BCUC out of rate setting. It was the government that that member advised, which forced B.C. Hydro to cut a $300 cheque to every voter in the province just before an election.

Now, we all know how that turned out. It wasn't too well. It put B.C. Hydro on its back foot for a long time, and in particular, most notably was the government's failure to invest in infrastructure at B.C. Hydro, just like their failure to invest wisely in infrastructure at B.C. Ferries.
[ Page 4401 ]
Both companies continue to struggle to catch up from that decade of neglect.

What we have done in the ten-year rate plan is we've published it. We've made it public. It's a firm plan, and for the very first time we have a long-term, publicly available plan to guide government and to guide B.C. Hydro, which the public can understand so that they know where we're going and how we're going to get there.

Can we do it overnight? No, we can't. But as I have said a number of times, you can only get where you want to go if you have a plan to get there. It's a plan that we have shared with the public so that we will be held accountable for getting there.

The Chair: The Leader of the Official Opposition, and I'd remind the member to please direct comments through the Chair.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Certainly, the government did have a plan, and that was to intervene in a rate hearing, artificially deflate the rates required by B.C. Hydro to meet their obligations — obligations that were piled up over the 12 years that the B.C. Liberals were in power, obligations that were piled up by the government I'm talking to right now.

Again, I will ask a simple question. Does Dan Doyle provide advice to the Premier on issues of B.C. Hydro? Did he advise you at the time that you intervened and cancelled the rate hearing that that was the wrong way to go for that Crown corporation?

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Doyle advises politicians, including me, on a whole range of issues. We sometimes choose to take his advice; sometimes we don't. I can say that the member for Kootenay East has been an excellent leader with respect to B.C. Hydro and its future. He has worked incredibly hard. He has been the principal source of advice for our government and our cabinet, as he should be as the minister responsible for that.

I want to add another little fact for the member, because he may not remember. In 1994 and '95 the NDP government that he was advising at the time took more in annual dividend than B.C. Hydro made in net income. In 1994 it was $190 million income and $245 million dividend. In '95, $162 million in income and $198 million in dividend. That is no way to treat the crown jewel of Crown corporations in our province.

[1825]

We've decided to take a different path. That's a path where we set a plan for the future that includes putting B.C. Hydro on a sustainable footing, which means we're able to keep rates as low as we can at the same time that we continue to invest in the crucially important infrastructure that powers up our province.

That includes catching up on the ten years of neglect in the 1990s. We are still catching up for that failure of the government of the day to make those investments, but we are determined to do it, and we will get there, because British Columbians are counting on us to get there.

J. Horgan: There's something that the people of British Columbia can take out of these lovely several hours we've had to spend together. That is that you can just make stuff up and just throw it out there and call it facts. I suppose that's regrettable, and maybe that's the essence of the business that we're in.

But I can't continue to listen to references to 20 years ago when there are people who are going to have a very difficult time trying to feed their families and pay their bills when hydro rates have been doubled since 2001 and they've got 28 percent more to look at. You can talk about the 1990s all you want. The people of 2014 have got a hard row to hoe, and it's on your watch that it happened.

My next question would be about the clawback of child support. The Premier has had some comments about that publicly. I'm wondering if she's had, again, time to reflect on the consequences of her policy, the policy of the B.C. Liberal government, to take back court-mandated child support out of the hands of children because of a formula that's determined by one of her ministries that this is income that should be declared and removed rather than put into feeding a child, clothing a child, making a life better for people living in poverty. What's the Premier's view on that today?

Hon. C. Clark: I have always said that as we grow the economy, as we grow the amount of revenue to government because we are focused on growing the economy, on creating new mines — or enabling the private sector, I should say, to create new mines — enabling the private sector to grow a liquefied natural gas industry in our province, supporting the forest industry, agriculture, technology, manufacturing — all of those areas where we have so much opportunity…. As we grow the ability of government to be able to pay for social programs, we will continue to invest in those programs.

I have said publicly quite a few times that I certainly see support for people who live on social assistance as an area that should be increased when we can afford it. The fact is that we simply can't afford that right now. But as we continue to stay in balance, as we get closer to larger surpluses because we're focused on growing the economy, we want to continue to make sure that those programs are supporting people in the way that we all would like to.

[1830]

Having said that, though, social assistance is intended to be a bridge. We need to work hard to support people with disabilities to get into the workforce, as many, many of them would dearly love to do but require specialized support, specialized training in some cases, to get there. We need to support them in doing that.

We need to support people who are on social assist-
[ Page 4402 ]
ance, too, to find the training that they need to get back into the workforce. Sometimes that means overcoming unique barriers. We are working very hard on trying to create programs and build a system that's going to work better for folks getting into the workforce. But of course, we want to make sure the jobs are there for them to go to.

I am a firm believer that a growing economy, when you invest in training, is something that can benefit all people, particularly people who are at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale. We can lift people up into the workforce, and ultimately, that should be our goal. That's what we're working on now, and we're going to continue to work hard, with relentless focus, on getting there.

J. Horgan: During the victory speech of your Westside-Kelowna by-election, after being defeated in Vancouver–Point Grey, you said the following: "We want to leave our children better off than we were. We want to have the means to be able to look after those who are most vulnerable among us."

One year ago the then Minister Pat Bell found $15 million in contingencies to advertise the jobs plan, which we've now discovered is an abject failure. We're not in the playoffs. We're not even on the radar.

We have a $300 million contingency in this budget, $400 million in the next, $575 million in the budget after that, and $17 million is being taken away from children living in poverty, money that's been mandated by the courts to go to children. You're taking money out of the hands of the poorest people in our community. That's not giving opportunity. That's not giving hope. That's being petty.

You've got $300 million. You took $15 million to advertise. Why not take $17 million and make a child's life better? You can do it today.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm reasonably certain that the member opposite doesn't want to get into a long discussion about defeat in the election, so I'll leave that alone, although that was how he started his remarks.

As I've said, social assistance is the minimum amount that government provides for people to live on. We have always…. We deduct any income against that. It isn't intended to top up other income. As I said, I do hope that as we can afford it, we can increase rates for people who live at the bottom of the scale who rely on social assistance, people with disabilities and people without.

But we need to be able to afford it. Classic — typical of the members opposite, he wants to spend the money before we have it. We need to grow the economy. We need to ensure that our budget is truly balanced. We need to increase the amount of money that's flowing into government by pursuing economic and resource development opportunities across the province, opportunities the member consistently and loudly puts obstacles in the way of.

On this side of the chamber we support resource development. We aren't shy about saying that. And we support taking obstacles out of the way of responsible environmentally sound resource development. On that side of the House all of the things that the member says that we should do would remain elusive and unaffordable because he continues to put obstacles in the way of resource development and put obstacles in the way of creating jobs for hard-working British Columbians.

The Chair: Leader of the Official Opposition, and I caution you to please direct comments through the Chair.

J. Horgan: Chair, I'll do my level best to continue talking to you, because perhaps that will be more useful than what I've been doing to this point in time.

There are contingency funds in the existing budget of $300 million. A decision could be made today to take $17 million, a modest amount, from that money already budgeted, to put towards helping children living in poverty.

Message boxes don't fill lunch boxes. What does is a commitment by a government to the most vulnerable in our society, people living in single-parent families, often with parents with disabilities, and the court has mandated a contribution from the other parent be given to the child.

The province of British Columbia currently determines that that is income and claws it back. It's pretty simple. It's not about LNG. It's not about mining. It's not about growing the economy. It's helping the poorest of the poor. The government has the ability to do that. It's one of things that our community wants us to do.

[1835]

My question to the Premier. With $17 million out of $300 million, you could solve it right now.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I've already spoken to the principle of this, where we would like to go as we have more money in the budget, once we've stabilized the economy and are continuing to grow it. We want to make sure that we support people across the board better than we're able to afford to now, as we're able to afford it.

I don't have anything to add to the other comments that I made. We've been working hard to control government spending. I know the member is always, always finding ways for government to spend more money and never finding ways for government to spend less money and, certainly, rarely finding ways to grow the economy on which we all depend to be able to create government revenue.

The plan that we have is seeing success. What you see in Victoria, the member's own community, is that unemployment has gone down from 9.5 percent in 1998 to 5.1 percent today. We want to continue to reduce those numbers across the province. That's what success looks
[ Page 4403 ]
like, and that's how we begin to really move people out of poverty — through a growing economy.

J. Horgan: Parents on disability assistance who have a court order requiring another parent to provide funds for a child — not for club memberships, not for a new frock but for a child…. That's the principle we're talking about here.

We're not talking about growing the economy, LNG, getting a tax regime in place. We're talking about children — the most vulnerable. I'm very passionate about this issue because of my background, and I know that the Premier has had an interesting background as well.

We all know people who are in difficult circumstances, and the role of government is to help those people, not to ignore them. The role of government is to look at the resources available to them and make choices. The choice I'm asking the Premier to make is, I believe, a simple one. It's a compassionate one.

It's one that can be allocated in the existing budget for this fiscal, next fiscal and the fiscal after that. That would give the Premier three years to sign a whole bunch of final investment decisions, to have LNG coming out of the ground in Nanaimo, Prince George, Williams Lake, the Kootenays — wherever she wants to pretend it's going to happen. She has the money in those three fiscal years, based on the service plan, to provide this basic amount of money to children living in poverty.

Again, I will heap praise upon the Premier and her government from the highest building I can find if she will do the right thing, look at the contingency funds and make a determination today in the interest of children living in poverty. That's a simple thing, and it's a principled thing.

[1840]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, one of the many reasons that we've received so much praise from credit agencies around the world, external agencies looking at what we're doing, is because we have managed our budget so responsibly.

Part of that is making sure that the contingencies budget is managed well. The contingencies budget isn't money that you allocate at the beginning of the year and then spend throughout the year. The contingencies budget is there for things like natural disasters, fires, making sure that we can afford those unexpected costs.

It is a very different way, I understand, from the way with which the member is familiar with managing a budget. We've done it for 12 years in our province. We've done it well, and we've received support for what we've been doing from independent international agencies all around the world.

As I said, we need to grow the economy if we want to be able to continue to look after people. I said at the beginning that Western governments have the choice between managing decline and sinking deeper into debt, or we can grasp the opportunity for growth. It is only by grasping the opportunity for growth that we'll be able to continue to look after people.

If we don't grasp opportunities for growth…. In our province that very much means the resource sector. It means being clear and united in supporting our resource sector, whether that's natural gas and fracking in the northeast or it's mining in other parts of the province.

Whether it's agriculture — making sure that we can keep farms and make farms profitable, keep them in the black as much as we possibly can through government policy — or making sure that we're supporting our forest industry, all of those things that we need to do in the resource sector are going to matter in grasping this opportunity for growth.

We have a chance to do that. We intend to do it. As we succeed in that, we will have the resources that we need to be able to sustain our social welfare system, our health care system and our education system. Those are the resources that…. We're going to need those resources.

The only place we will get them is if we are part of a government and we're governed by a group of people who believe, rather than stumbling over obstacles that will ultimately get you to no, which is the NDP plan for success, in finding a way to get through the obstacles and to try and get to yes.

J. Horgan: Has the Premier asked any of her staff to look at options and alternatives to the current clawback system? Has she, perhaps, seen if she could get any advice from her staff or ministers about maybe designating this as not income to the parent but income to the child? Has that simple solution been contemplated by her or her staff?

Hon. C. Clark: We are not, as I said, contemplating a change in government policy today.

As I said, we would certainly like to be able to get to a place where people on income assistance and persons with disabilities can see more support from government, but there is a whole host of other ways that government has improved support for people who rely on social assistance in one way or another.

We don't charge families on assistance for MSP or for PharmaCare. Basic dental coverage is available for the children of people on assistance. For people who may need more than that basic coverage, the ministry also provides a range of medical equipment and supplies through the health supplements program.

In addition to income assistance, a single parent has access to about $385 a month in benefits that are provided through the income tax system. A single parent with a child under six also has access to $100 more per month, per child, through the universal child care benefit. Starting in 2015, families with children under six will
[ Page 4404 ]
have access to another $55 a month, per child, through the early childhood tax benefit.

We are doing everything we can in areas across government to try and improve government support in a variety of ways for people who depend on income assistance. I hope that as we can afford it, we are able to do more, but my view — contrary to the member opposite's — is absolutely that we need to work on improving, growing our investment in social programs as we grow our economy and grow revenue to government. The only way we will get there is by growing our economy, and that's why we're so focused on it.

The Chair: Noting the hour, I'll permit one final question.

[1845]

J. Horgan: Does the Premier believe, in principle, that child support payments could be considered child income and therefore not be clawed back, therefore leaving that money exclusively to the interests of the child? Is that a principle that the Premier would endorse, and if so, would she join with me making that declaration and allowing that money to go to the children that it was intended for?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we aren't contemplating a change in the policy today. We're not going to spend money before we have it. That's not what we were asked to do on May 14 last year. So we are going to continue to manage our budget carefully and prudently. As we grow the economy and we can afford to make new investments, we certainly will do that.

If I may, I move that committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Finance, Votes 22 through 25; Votes 45 through 50; legislation, Vote 1; and officers of the Legislature, Votes 2 through 9; and report further progress on the Office of the Premier and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:46 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