2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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, March 4, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 1

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan: Today I have the distinct pleasure of introducing someone whom I hold in high regard and someone that I’m proud to call a dear friend. This individual is visiting us today. His name is Leo Gerard. He is the international president of the United Steelworkers.

I’ve got to say this. His heart, I have to say, is larger than life itself, as he dedicates every single waking moment of his time to advance the rights of workers, to advance economic, social and environmental justice for all.

Most recently, without fanfare, without much ado, he’s found financial support and additional support for Lorelei Williams, who is a family member of the missing and murdered women, so that she can go to actively participate and tell the stories from British Columbia around the missing and murdered aboriginal women at the UN commission on the status of women in New York. Would the House please make welcome Leo Gerard.

V. Huntington: I’m pleased today to introduce Dr. Michael Markwick and his class of 20 students from Capilano University’s school of communication. The communication program’s focus is on shaping students as citizen leaders and advancing our democracy.

They had the honour this morning of being the very first delegation from Capilano University to be received by Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon to discuss their work, and I ask that the House please make them welcome.

E. Foster: I have three guests in the precinct today. First, my sister-in-law Brenda Foster is visiting from Nova Scotia. With her today are her brother and his wife, Robert and Cynthia Bailey, who live here in the greater Victoria area. Robert and I have been very good friends since the ninth grade. You don’t have to add that up to figure out how many years that is. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

G. Kyllo: I have two guests in the gallery today — my constituency assistant Holly Cowan, from Salmon Arm, along with her lovely husband, Brian Cowan. Brian is also my riding association president for Shuswap. I would like the House to please make them feel very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I also wanted to, in addition, recognize one of the particular members of the delegation that’s here from Capilano University, the communication students. Brittany Barnes is one of those communication students, and she is also on the executive of the student government at Capilano. A particular welcome to Brittany and to all her classmates who are here today. Will you please make them welcome.

B. Routley: It is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to introduce to this House the nominee for Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, the new federal riding in the upcoming election. Alistair McGregor is with us here in this House. Please join me in making him feel welcome.

J. Horgan: Following on the introduction from my colleague from Cowichan Valley, I want to say that I was in the precinct with a special guest, and I bumped into a school group from Langley Christian school. One of the teachers said to me afterwards: “You know, we’ve spent over four months trying to get in the kids’ minds that there are two levels of government in Canada, and now here comes the Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition and Her Majesty’s Leader of the Official Opposition.”

In the precinct today is the Hon. Thomas Mulcair. He’s in the building and in the House. Would the people of British Columbia please recognize that we have two official opposition leaders in B.C. today — me and the other guy.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Rudi Wallace, director of food security and access at the Mustard Seed here in Victoria.

[1340]

Joining Rudi is Teresa Hartrick, an incredibly talented young woman who I’m so fortunate to have working in my constituency office.

Would the House please make them feel warmly welcomed.

Hon. M. Polak: Soon to be joining us in the gallery are the students from Langley Christian School in my riding. There are 39 grade 5 students and eight adults, led ably by Mrs. Linda Boersma. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Lee: I would like to introduce 54 grade 5s, ten chaperones and Ms. Geetu Parmar of Confederation Park Elementary School of Burnaby, who are touring the Legislature today. I ask that the House do make them very welcome.
[ Page 6364 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

BURNABY HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD
AND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION

R. Lee: I would like to share the recent exciting and successful development in my riding, Burnaby North, with all the members of the House today. The Burnaby Heights neighbourhood is usually known as the area bounded by Boundary Road, Gamma Avenue, Hastings Street and Burrard Inlet. It has three schools: Gilmore, Rosser and Confederation Park. Today we have the group of Confederation Park Elementary School students visiting the House.

The Heights has had a street-level community shopping area along Hastings Street for over 100 years. With the great work of the Heights Merchants Association in improving the physical attractiveness and business environment of the area, the Heights is now a business improvement area, characterized by the design of three- to four-storey buildings which feature the distinctive culture of the older community.

The area consists of more than 350 merchants with a great variety of businesses, from restaurants of different cuisines; florists; hair salons; bookstores; financial, legal and medical services; to fashion, furniture stores and pet services.

The Heights Merchants Association also hosts exciting events in the area to attract customers. For example, on February 21 traditional lion dancers perform in the area to celebrate the lunar new year. In April the area will host an event called Crave, which is similar to Dine Out Vancouver, where participating restaurants will offer set menus at discounted prices. Every year on the first of Saturday of June, when the Heights merchants take their hats off to their customers and community, we have the best festival in Burnaby.

With a rich history, diversity and culture and the revitalized Heights Neighbourhood Association, the neighbourhood has become one of the landmarks of Burnaby North. I encourage all members of the House to visit the area and experience the dynamic colours and strong impetus in the community.

EYE HEALTH INITIATIVE FOR CHILDREN

J. Darcy: Yesterday many members of this House attended an event hosted by the B.C. Doctors of Optometry, where we heard what was truly an eye-opening presentation about the importance of eye health for our children.

When children don’t see properly, it affects their ability to learn. It affects their physical and their mental health. It affects their ability to succeed. That’s because 80 percent of learning is through the eyes. One in four children have a vision problem that affects learning, and 60 percent of children with learning disabilities have an underlying vision problem.

Those numbers tell a powerful human story. That’s why the optometrists of B.C. stepped up to the plate in a very big way last year with a program called Eye See, Eye Learn. I want to both commend them for doing so and also to acknowledge the wonderful work done by these health care professionals in our communities every single day.

Optometrists are now partnering with school districts to encourage parents to take their kindergarten children for an eye exam with a local participating eye doctor. If glasses are required, they are provided to these kids at no cost. Since this program was launched last year, over 1,000 children have been examined, and one in five needed correction to their vision.

[1345]

I’m pleased to say that after that meeting last year at the optometrists’ breakfast, Dr. Brenda Horner, a New Westminster optometrist…. I was able to introduce her to our school board chair, Jonina Campbell. Now New Westminster is one of the first districts involved, and New Westminster kids are having their eyes tested.

The optometrists of B.C. want to expand this wonderful program to all of B.C., and they need government support to do that — to ensure that a program that relies on the goodwill of optometrists and industry donors is sustainable into the future and also, very importantly, to promote the program to all corners of B.C. so that every single child in B.C. has the right to good eye health.

BLENZ CAFÉ SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
AT HOPE CENTRE

R. Sultan: What does the aroma of freshly brewed coffee and freshly baked croissants have to do with mental health? On the North Shore, we say: “Quite a lot.” Our new HOpe Centre for mental health and addictions is a striking architectural triumph, providing 26 beds for critical care and facilities for outpatient and community care, research and students from UBC medical school.

It was funded by Greta and Robert Ho, Dr. Djavad Mowafaghian, gifts from North Shore residents, land donated by the city and funding from the province. In the wonderful foyer, coffee and croissants are provided by Blenz Coffee, which provides meaningful employment for people recovering their mental health, including the manager who runs the place.

Blenz at HOpe is a social enterprise with a mission. The result is great coffee served by wonderful baristas, employed by a partnership between Blenz, the Canadian Mental Health Association and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.

As reported in the Georgia Straight recently, medical director Dr. Burgmann said: “The thing I love more than anything is that it’s open to the public, and people from the neighbourhood are coming in and grabbing a cup of
[ Page 6365 ]
coffee. Very quickly, it begins to erode the stigma of mental illness.” HOpe Centre’s reputation has grown quickly, and we are very proud. Don’t underestimate the power of coffee and croissants.

NEPAL AND
NEPALESE COMMUNITY IN B.C.

S. Hammell: I had an opportunity to visit Nepal about a year and a half ago, with the planning and opportunity to connect with the Nepalese community in Surrey. The community in B.C. is not large, about 200 people strong, with a large portion living in Surrey. For a public service announcement, the main organization is the Nepal Cultural Society of B.C. at bodncsbc@gmail.com.

Nepal is an amazing place and could be called as super, natural as B.C. The land mass is 147,000 square kilometres smaller than ours, but 23.23 percent is protected. It has an incredibly diverse geography and climate, and from a bird’s-eye view, flying from Pokhara, from Kathmandu and back, it looked and felt a bit like home: snow-capped high mountains, rivers flowing through hills and valleys, and then lowlands and plains.

Much changed, once on the ground. I was warned about the roads and the traffic. The population of Nepal is about 27 million, while ours is about 4½ million. Nepal has moved rapidly from an absolute monarchy to a democracy, and they continue to work on a constitution.

Nepal has good bones, one of the few countries in Asia to abolish the death penalty, the first country in Asia to rule in favour of same-sex marriage, a quota to ensure that women are elected to their political institutions, and although they haven’t got their constitution yet, patience is clearly the option favoured in building a strong and progressive democracy.

Nepal has a great future. Congratulations to the people from that country.

POLITICS AND DECISION-MAKING
IN POLICY DEBATES

G. Hogg: Albert Einstein, at a conference in Princeton, New Jersey, in 1946 was asked: “Why is it that while the mind of man has stretched so far as to discover the structure of the atom, we are unable to devise a political means to keep the atom from destroying us?”

[1350]

Einstein answered: “That is simple, my friend. It is because politics is much more difficult than physics.”

Most of us would agree that the field of physics has made great advances since 1946, and most would also agree that the field of politics, even in this House, has not made quite as many advances.

But there is reason for optimism. Research is now telling us that how we think matters more than what we think. Therefore, policy debates are more about values than facts. Facts play a role in raising the volume of debate, but the values drive the facts and the decisions.

How does how we know what we know affect how we do what we do? Well, it seems that on occasion people, even politicians, make poor decisions. We often cling to beliefs even in the face of disconfirming evidence and sometimes even interpret information in a manner that supports already held beliefs.

Reasoning is seen by most as a means for improving knowledge and decision-making. However, a great deal of evidence now suggests that, instead, reasoning often leads to cognitive distortions and poor decisions. The functioning of reasoning tends to be argumentative, and arguers are not after the truth but after arguments that support their point of view.

It seems that Einstein was right, that politics is more difficult than physics. But as Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” So with that thought, may we remain ever optimistic and positive in our duties.

MUSTARD SEED FOOD BANK
SERVICES AND INITIATIVES

A. Weaver: Today I rise to recognize the Mustard Seed, a non-profit organization that provides crucial service to address food insecurity in the capital regional district, mainly to children and families. Approximately 20,000 people, over 6 percent of the CRD population, are moderately to severely food-insecure. Since 2010 the number of individuals assisted by the Mustard Seed has increased from 4,000 to 7,000 per month.

The Mustard Seed has been exploring ways to move away from a traditional food banking model focused primarily on processed, non-perishable food items to one that provides fresh, healthy food, thereby improving health outcomes for food-insecure people. Their vision is to create a three-tiered food access system subsidized through social enterprise with emergency, preventative and retail components, with the latter two components supporting operational costs of the emergency programs. A proposed processing and community kitchen component would enhance food skills, literacy and provide employment and skills-training opportunities.

The Mustard Seed’s exciting vision aligns with the Ministry of Health’s priorities for short-term food relief and longer-term food security. While currently there is insufficient storage space available for both non-profits and food retailers to manage the necessary volume to meet the food security needs of our communities, the Mustard Seed is working hard to develop solutions. With the support of the community and government, the Mustard Seed hopes to realize their vision of a food-secure region with a transformed, sustainable, non-profit social enterprise model.
[ Page 6366 ]

I want to thank them for their more than 40 years of service in our community, and I commend them on their exciting new vision forward.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a group of students from Vancouver Island University, a group of business students who comprise part of my constituency and the member for Nanaimo’s constituency. Included in that group is Catherine Lindberg. Catherine is the daughter of my oldest friend, Gerry Lindberg, who I’ve known from the sandbox at three years old. It’s a stark reminder of age when your three-year-old friend’s daughter is here in her third year of university. Can the House help me welcome these fine students from Vancouver Island University.

Oral Questions

PARTICIPATION OF WORKSAFE EMPLOYEES
IN CORONER’S INQUEST INTO
LAKELAND MILLS EXPLOSION

J. Horgan: The Minister of Jobs will be aware that a coroner’s inquest has begun in her community with respect to the disaster at the Lakeland mill in Prince George. WorkSafe B.C. botched the investigation, and as a result, no charges were laid. But despite the failures at WorkSafe B.C., we learned this week that key individuals in decision-making roles at WorkSafe will not be compelled to testify. In fact, WorkSafe lawyers have gone to the lengths of disrupting proceedings and saying to the coroner that they’re not required.

[1355]

I would think when you’ve had a series of investigations on the watch of the B.C. Liberals over the past 12 to 24 months where no accountability was found and senior individuals were not compelled to testify…. One would think if the Premier really wanted to, as she wrote to the victims’ families: “It’s understandable that you and the families of the other victims have a lot of questions. You deserve answers. Your entire community deserves answers….”

If the Premier is going to say that to the people of Prince George, to the victims at Lakeland and to the people of British Columbia, surely she would agree with me that the CEO at WorkSafe and the vice-president of investigations would be on the inventory of witnesses that would be giving testimony in that regard.

Does the minister agree with that position?

Hon. S. Anton: The coroner is, indeed, holding the inquest into this tragedy, and her goal is to find out what happened so that such a tragedy can be prevented from happening again. Indeed, the families do deserve answers, and that is what the coroner is setting out to get.

I must emphasize that this is an independent proceeding, and it’s up to the coroner to conduct the proceeding. She has, I am informed, called 50 witnesses who have the best information, she believes, relating to the issues and the circumstances surrounding the deaths. They have been chosen for their personal knowledge and involvement, but there can be additional witnesses called. The witness list is not closed, and certainly, other witnesses may be added as time goes on.

I must emphasize the two things that I have already said. One is this is an independent proceeding. Second, it’s the job of the coroner and her stated goal to prevent an accident like this from happening again by finding out what happened at this tragedy.

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

J. Horgan: Well, I do. It’s with sadness that I say that the writer of answers on the Liberal side of the House has got pretty easy work. They’ve been repeating that refrain regardless of what the situation is. They did with the health firings. They’re now doing it with the tragedy at Lakeland, and I rather suspect they’ll be doing it again with the tragedy at Babine.

I know that the member from Prince George is heartfelt in her concern for her community. I know that to be true. But when the Premier of British Columbia goes to a community and makes a solemn pledge that there will be justice and then denies an independent public inquiry and then denies access to legal representation and then denies that the people that were at the top of the organization that should have been looking out for the people of Lakeland and the people of Prince George and the people of British Columbia, then there is a massive, massive disconnect with the reality of all of us and the reality of the people running this operation.

If the Attorney would like to stand again, will she agree with me that the CEO of WorkSafe should be on the invitation list to this inquiry?

Hon. S. Anton: The coroner is conducting her independent inquiry in Prince George. We should all have confidence in the work that she is doing. She is determined to find out what happened in that terrible tragedy — to find out the circumstances of the tragedy so that such a thing will not happen again in British Columbia. She has a witness list which she has proposed to call. It is not a closed list, and it is up to the coroner to decide whether or not there should be additions to that list.

There’s no question that in her conduct to date, the
[ Page 6367 ]
coroner has shown great interest in hearing from families, hearing from people around the issue and, most of all, finding out what happened so that this tragedy would not happen again in British Columbia.

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

J. Horgan: Again, the Attorney is identified in the letter from the Premier to the families of victims. In the letter the Premier says that the Attorney General will ensure that the concerns of the individuals are represented by lawyers from WorkSafe. Well, at the inquiry this week lawyers from WorkSafe put some of the victims on cross-examination without ever having seen any of the documents that they were asked to comment upon.

[1400]

How is it possible, Hon. Speaker, through you to the Attorney General, who should have some understanding of these matters…? How can the victims have adequate representation when the very people that the Premier said you would appoint to take care of their interests aren’t even briefing them on the material that they’re seeing in the inquiry?

That seems, again, to me to be a massive disconnect from reality. The people involved at Lakeland want justice for their families. They want justice for their communities. I would suggest to the Attorney General that she stand with me and those on this side of the House and call to ensure that the WorkSafe officials that botched the investigation, the WorkSafe officials that are not on the list of witnesses, be put on that list post-haste.

Hon. S. Anton: The coroner holds an independent office. She holds an independent inquiry. She has stated her goals many times during the course of leading up to this inquest that it is her determination to find out what happened at Lakeland and to prevent that from happening again, to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

The coroner, with the advice of her counsel, determined the witness list. It is not a closed list, because her goal, the coroner’s goal, is to find out what happened and to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again in British Columbia.

FUNDING FOR WORKERS AND FAMILIES
PARTICIPATING IN CORONER’S INQUEST
INTO LAKELAND MILLS EXPLOSION

S. Simpson: I attended the first day of the inquest into the deaths of Alan Little and Glen Roche. After the widows of the deceased both made very emotional and dignified presentations, Mr. Brian Primrose, a 30-year employee of Lakeland, spent the rest of the day on the stand — about five hours.

Mr. Primrose was an articulate and thoughtful witness about the tragedy at Lakeland. Unfortunately, he was essentially on his own. While the all the parties — the company, the union, the safety council, WorkSafe and the coroner — all have teams of lawyers there, there was, essentially, no one who truly was representing the victims. A series of lawyers cross-examined Mr. Primrose about complex issues that he had no help preparing for.

The victims have a right to support in preparing for their time on the stand, and they have none. Will the Attorney General immediately make funds available to allow the victims to hire their own legal counsel before this inquest loses any credibility due to the real inequity in how people are being treated?

Hon. S. Anton: The inquest counsel is there to assist the coroner — to help in conducting the inquest properly, to make sure that voices are properly heard, to make sure that the families are properly represented, to make sure that their concerns are properly heard.

This is an inquest whose job it is to find out what happened at this tragedy, to determine the cause of the accident and to ensure that such a thing can be prevented in the future by finding out what happened on that terrible day.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The day that I was there, the coroner’s counsel was the first to interview the witness, Mr. Primrose. He started by presenting him with a series of photos that Mr. Primrose had never seen — had no idea — and was asked to explain these photos of the mill and what they were and where they were. And he had never seen them. That was the degree of preparation that the coroner’s counsel provided to him.

These people were the victims of an explosion. We cannot allow them to become the victims of an inquest. When the opposition asked for resources to ensure independent legal counsel for the victims, we were told that the coroner’s counsel would fulfil that role. It’s not happening in any way. It does not resemble in any way the legal representation that everybody else has at that table.

The victims need their own voice at the table. They need to be assured that their questions are being asked and being answered. Will the minister approve resources today to ensure that they have their own legal counsel and get the answers and the satisfaction they need?

[1405]

Hon. S. Anton: The inquest is an independent investigation into these deaths, into this tragedy. The coroner has emphasized on many separate occasions leading up to this inquest her determination to get to the bottom of the tragedy and to prevent such a tragedy from happen-
[ Page 6368 ]
ing again in British Columbia. She has coroner’s counsel who assist her, who assist the inquest, to make sure that the evidence is properly called…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: …so that the determination can be made, so that the facts can come out, so that this kind of tragedy can be prevented from happening again in British Columbia.

LAUNDRY SERVICES AT INTERIOR
HEALTH AUTHORITY FACILITIES

J. Rice: The Health Minister suggested on Monday that cleanliness wasn’t part of health care. However, keeping a clean hospital, as the minister discovered in Burnaby, is what can prevent C. difficile outbreaks. Keeping a clean hospital is the best first line of defence against superbug outbreaks. Does the minister stand by his claim that cleanliness isn’t part of health care?

Hon. T. Lake: I was very clear the other day when I said that cleaning and doing laundry services were not front-line health care, not that they weren’t important. Of course, in an environment where people are susceptible to infection, cleanliness is absolutely important.

That’s why at Burnaby General they were able to reduce their C. difficile rates. The improvements they’ve made are truly remarkable, thanks to all of the staff — cleaning staff, nursing staff, all the professional staff — at Burnaby General Hospital.

We make sure, through the health authorities, that cleaning is audited and that the results are satisfactory to keep driving down the rates of infection in hospital.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: The Health Minister knows that living in the Interior means living with delays because of closed roads and closed airports. So a plan to ship laundry to Alberta or to the Lower Mainland carries a real risk that hospitals in places like Nelson and Golden and Williams Lake and Kamloops will be without clean sheets for no other reason than the weather. That’s why the minister’s plan to fire 175 workers in hospitals across the region could have real impacts on health care.

Will the minister admit this is a foolish plan that could seriously impact health care and stop it in its tracks today?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member opposite might be interested to know that we folks in the Interior actually have electricity now and televisions and all kinds of things in the modern world. We do not worry about accessibility. We have great functioning airports, we have great highways, and we have great people working in the health care system in the Interior.

The objective of Interior Health is to make sure they get best value for money so that money can be used for front-line health care, as I said. On this side of the House we will buy endoscopes over washing machines any day of the week.

M. Mungall: I’m glad the minister realizes that we have electricity. The other day he didn’t realize that cleanliness is actually important to health care — an idea that comes right out of the Dark Ages.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: Vicki Harris is a constituent of the Minister of Health. She is a single mom of three working at Royal Inland Hospital in the laundry. She does her best to make ends meet. She shops in Kamloops, pays taxes and contributes to the local economy. Doctors, nurses, care aides — everyone on the health care team — know her work is imperative to the health care system. Why doesn’t the minister?

[1410]

Hon. T. Lake: The work of all Interior Health Authority employees is valued. At the end of the day, the goal of the Health Ministry and health authorities is to follow the principles of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, which means that we get better outcomes for patients, we get better population health, and we get value for money.

We look for efficiencies on this side of the House in our core government. We expect health authorities, school districts, other organizations to look for savings as well. We want to make sure that health care dollars are providing front-line health care — more hip surgeries, more knee surgeries, more endoscopes.

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

M. Mungall: Well, Irma Stretch is another Kamloops resident, another constituent of the minister, who is on the front lines of health care. She works in the laundry, and she’s very efficient at making sure there are clean, sterile sheets for everything from X-rays to the operating rooms. If those sheets aren’t available because they’re stuck somewhere on the Coquihalla in bad weather — and the minister knows that bad weather happens in the Interior just as much as I do — no one is going to be getting their surgery, Minister.
[ Page 6369 ]

How can the minister be so out of touch with his constituents like Vicki and Irma who play a vital role in the health care system?

Hon. T. Lake: I had an opportunity to be in Kelowna General Hospital, where a good friend of mine — he happens to be my father — is being well looked after by the staff at Kelowna General Hospital. In fact, the food which he is eating comes from Vernon, which is up the highway from Kelowna. He remarked at how much he enjoyed the food and the care he was getting in Kelowna General Hospital.

The fact is, the members opposite make it sound like these are small villages in the middle of nowhere. Transportation systems, logistics, are pretty sophisticated all over the province. I’m sure that we can manage to get laundry services and have that laundry delivered around the Interior Health as necessary, getting good value for the taxpayer and making sure that we can do more hip replacements, knee replacements, colonoscopies and all the other medically necessary services that people in British Columbia need.

CHILD PLACEMENT ISSUES AND
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER

D. Donaldson: Last week in response to questions about why children were being kept in foster care despite close family being able and willing, the minister said it was complex. That’s not always the case. In a Supreme Court order, Justice Groves strongly criticized the ministry for failing to follow a court order, saying: “An order was made which binds the Ministry of Children and Family. They were represented. The court told them to do something. They have not appealed that order. They have not made application to reopen the matter. But still, they did not follow the order.”

Why did it take the minister 18 months to follow the court order to reunite a family?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I’ve said before in this House, the safety and well-being of children is the ministry’s first priority. And as the member and all members of this House well know, due to privacy laws we cannot speak about specific cases in this House. Now, any time a judge would raise concerns about the conduct of our staff, the ministry would conduct a fulsome review, and any measures taken would be informed by that review. The provincial director of child welfare is conducting a review.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: This is a court order. There is nothing complex about this case, as a judge made an order granting a grandmother custody of her grandchild. The ministry refused to follow the order for 18 months. The judge found that not only was the ministry ignoring this court order. They were treating the grandmother “as an annoyance, as opposed to a custodial parent.”

[1415]

If the minister won’t take responsibility for the actions of her ministry, will she at least apologize to the family?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Perhaps the member did not hear my previous answer. That is, in fact, why there is a review underway.

I would remind the member that because I cannot discuss cases in this House due to privacy law, I would again invite the member to make inquiries directly with my office. We’ll facilitate any conversations that can be had on the matter with the member. Unfortunately, to this time he has not done so.

N. Simons: The problem is when it starts to look like a pattern in the ministry, that really needs to be addressed at another level.

I’ll quote Justice Groves again: “I have concluded that the ministry is acting like the orders of the B.C. Supreme Court are an annoyance, something they might consider following but do not necessarily have to.” That’s the Supreme Court justice saying that.

If not this minister, who in the Ministry of Children and Family is responsible for ignoring Supreme Court orders?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Regardless of which member of the opposition chooses to ask the same question, the same answer will be given. We cannot speak to cases in the House. As I said, any time a judge or others would raise concerns about the conduct of our staff, the provincial director would do a review. That is underway.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: It’s a serious problem, and I think that the minister should pay significant attention to this trend that seems to be occurring.

After 18 months where a ten-year-old wasn’t returned to her grandmother, the judge said this: “An order of the B.C. Supreme Court — an order which, if the court finds someone in contempt of, could result in a fine or imprisonment….” This is a judge cautioning the ministry that if they don’t obey his order, they could be found in contempt.

That’s a problem, and the problem lies in the ministry for which this minister is responsible. I think that the public deserves an answer as to how it could happen that this kind of circumstance happens to a family in our province.
[ Page 6370 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, the safety and well-being of a child is always the ministry’s first priority. However, I cannot speak to specifics of any case in this House. The members know that. As it relates to the circumstances that a judge has raised about the conduct of our staff, the provincial director of child welfare is conducting a review.

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION

K. Corrigan: In 2007 the Minister of Education at the time, now the Minister of Jobs and Tourism, said there were as many as one million British Columbians who struggled with basic literacy, with things as simple as being able to read a restaurant menu — one million people in the province.

In that same year the government eagerly embraced a recommendation from former Attorney General Geoff Plant to offer adult basic education at no cost, thereby allowing thousands of British Columbians to complete their high school education or upgrade to qualify for post-secondary courses.

My question is: why today has this government abandoned its promise and its commitment to adult education and decided, once again, to impose fees on hard-working adults who just want to complete their high school education?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The recent changes in adult basic education provide that it is free in the K-to-12 school system. It is free to non-graduates, and it is provided at 18 post-secondary institutions around the province often free of charge, because those institutions make their own decisions about whether to charge tuition.

[1420]

The tuition is set at a maximum of $320 per course. There’s a $6.9 million fund available this fiscal year to assist with the transition to the new regime, and grants are available for low-income students.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: The minister knows that it’s not free in post-secondary institutions. It’s not free for students that want to upgrade and go on and get into another course. These are British Columbians who are willing to do the work to better their lives and those of their families, yet this government is creating new barriers. The minister knows this simply means that thousands of students that would have gone on and completed their high school or would have gone on to post-secondary education are simply not going to be able to do it.

My question, again, to the minister: why is the minister, why is this government, breaking its promise to adults in this province who simply want to finish their high school education?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This government is very concerned about individuals who want to improve their qualifications, to increase their talents, to work on their abilities, to be the best they can be. With that in mind, we have increased the grant budget by 33 percent this year, to $7.6 million.

The net effect is that an individual with an income less than $23,647 will pay no tuition to do adult basic education. A family of three with an income of less than $36,192 will pay no tuition for adult basic education. Anyone within 10 percent above those thresholds will only pay half of the cost.

ATTENDANCE OF GOVERNMENT STAFF
AT MEETINGS ON BUS SERVICE
ON HIGHWAY 16

M. Karagianis: Recently the Minister of Transportation claimed to have had 80 meetings with communities along the Highway of Tears to talk about the bus system. However, a freedom-of-information request produced zero documents about any of those meetings. I expect that the Minister for Aboriginal Relations probably attended those meetings. It’s in his constituency. It’s part of his file.

I’d like to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Relations: how many meetings did he attend and where were they?

Hon. T. Stone: Indeed, the member is correct. There were approximately 80 meetings with First Nations leaders and municipal leaders and a number of other organizations. These meetings took place last summer, and these meetings were attended by Ministry of Transportation staff.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: This is the first time that we have heard in this chamber that it was only staff that attended these meetings. So all of these communities, these 80 communities that the minister claims to have consulted with, actually had no consultation from this minister or from the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

We know along this highway that women are hitchhiking every day. They are looking for solutions from this government. The women’s inquiry said the recommendation was transportation solutions, public transportation, along that highway.

The minister has claimed repeatedly in this House that he’s had consultations. Now it turns out he has not. How does he explain the fact that he has misled this House about the meetings he has had?

Madame Speaker: The member needs to withdraw that final remark.
[ Page 6371 ]

M. Karagianis: I would rephrase the question. Will the minister explain his claim of 80 meetings with communities and consultations along the highway?

Madame Speaker: And withdraw. On your feet, please.

M. Karagianis: I withdraw the previous term that I used.

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. T. Stone: After the performance that we saw yesterday on the line of questioning on PavCo, and today….

[1425]

What’s outlandish are the claims that the members opposite just seem to make up on the fly. It’s a sad state of affairs here in British Columbia when this is the best that the members opposite can do to hold the government to account.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Please proceed.

Hon. T. Stone: I will say once again for the member opposite that last summer staff from the Ministry of Transportation spent several weeks travelling up and down Highway 16 meeting with First Nations leaders, meeting with local government leaders and leaders of a wide variety of other kinds of organizations. There were approximately 80 individuals that the staff met with, and again, those meetings took place last summer.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In Section A, I call estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and here in Section B, continued committee stage on Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTANTS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On section 17 (continued).

K. Corrigan: We’re pretty well finished with section 17, but I did have one more area. I just wanted to clarify with regard to section 17(c). Section 17 provides that the board of the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia, the new board, will be able to make bylaws respecting members, including “(c) certification or licensing requirements for members to provide specified types of accounting services.”

I was asking questions when we finished off yesterday about whether that meant there was the possibility that there could — like in specialties in the medical profession, above and beyond the MD or somebody being a generalized doctor — be specialists and whether or not that could happen as well. My understanding is that that is the case.

Maybe we’ll just start off with a reconfirmation that that’s where we finished off yesterday.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise that this is based upon is that the accounting profession is becoming more and more complicated as the decades go by and that we are already seeing some degree of subspecialization within the fields of accounting, which they have recognized with various subqualifiers such as international tax specialization. This leaves the door open for them to create formal categories of that nature.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, although it’s not definite, it is foreseen that what this will provide for…. It could very well happen that there will always be the overall designation as a CPA, but there could be additional specialties that could be required. As well, the audit function — I can’t remember where we ended up on this, actually — is something that would be seen as part of the basic designation in all cases, or could it be a specialty, as well, that is above and beyond the CPA designation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the point we reached yesterday was that auditing, as stated in the core competencies that the training program requires the students to go through, is one of the components of basic, shall we say, accounting training and the threshold requirement to receive the chartered professional accountant designation.

It will be up to the profession to decide, within its own parameters, who actually is prepared to or is designated or qualified to sign off on financial statements. Obviously there may be subsets of that, ranging from small, local enterprises through publicly traded companies. It will be up to the profession to determine the thresholds of training and experience that will qualify an individual to sign off on a variety of financial statements.
[ Page 6372 ]

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister…. This might require some speculation. Is it possible that the fact that…? The purpose of this bill is to merge the CAs, the CGAs and CMAs — the merging of the three. This ability that is being given to perhaps have specialties — is it possible that wouldn’t have been required if the three had stayed separate?

I guess the question for the minister is: is it because the three are coming together that it’s needed to have these specializations, or would that have happened anyway?

[1435]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In fact, this isn’t a change of any substance, in that we’ve already seen, in the field of chartered accountants, that they are starting to self-designate in terms of certain specialties and qualifications — to have subspecialties.

As we covered yesterday, the CMAs have not had an audit function to date. The member’s very valid concern, I think, is whether the auditing function will become uniform amongst these newly branded accountants now that they’re CPAs. Once again, we leave that up to the interim board of this new body to sort that out. In the new designation, we expect that there will be some parameters around that, which will be imposed by the profession itself.

K. Corrigan: Now, I know that the minister said, essentially, that it was decided to leave the consultation up to the practice itself. There was a certain amount of reviewing of that consultation by the ministry before this was drafted. In this move to try to bring everybody on board from all three disciplines, is there a concern that perhaps some of this was not fully explained or understood by the members, who may have expected: “Okay, we’re going to merge. We’re all called CPAs”?

Then suddenly, down the road, we’re going to end up with specializations, which will mean that some of those that are within that subset will say: “This is not what I expected, because now I am seen as a lesser or less important part of this subset because they have specializations which we don’t have.” I don’t know if that’s been considered.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The arrangement is that with this new designation, the existing members of the three professional bodies will be grandfathered in. There will be a transitional arrangement so that they can determine the scope of their individual practice within the CPA designation.

As the member opposite has suggested, it may well evolve that they do become subspecialized and perhaps limit their practice to international tax or auditing public companies or auditing energy companies, for all we know. That could be the kind of thing that they determine needs some kind of specialized training or subspecialty designation, which is what section 17(c) is designed to provide.

I think it’s also very important in this profession, more than almost any other I can think of, that they are acutely aware of the reputational risk and the liability associated with making errors.

K. Corrigan: Well, using the comparison, again, of the medical profession, those that have the designation as being MDs, doctors, being physicians…. My understanding is that they don’t make nearly as much money, generally, as the specialists do.

I guess one of the concerns, then, is that these members will come together believing that they’re all equal. But specializations could, partially as a result of this merger, emerge or be decided on by the group. Some of those specializations say “an advanced audit function,” or whatever that is. Those people could be paid significantly more and create dissension in the ranks, or splits. It’s certainly been the case in the medical profession. It’s created a certain amount of angst.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is indeed an interesting question in a publicly funded medicare system, because some specialties make it a point of noting that they make significantly less than other general practitioners.

In this field, of course, this is a completely market-driven phenomenon, in that the ability of the accountant to charge a particular fee depends upon their degree of experience, respect, etc., which they have to build up over a whole career. This is, I think, in large part a self-resolving issue because the market will determine what they can charge and what they can pay. Clients will have a significant say in that. So the actual compensation scheme for this variety of accountants who will emerge underneath the CPA designation will probably be very similar to what it is today.

[1440]

K. Corrigan: Actually, I don’t have any more questions for that section.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

K. Corrigan: Section 18 provides that the board can make bylaws respecting professional accounting corporations. My question is: do these accounting corporations exist now, and can the boards of the various three professions now make bylaws respecting the issuance of permits to professional accounting corporations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In fact, at the current time the chartered accountants are in a position to incorporate their personal practice and conduct their affairs accordingly. This would mean that there would be a uniformity amongst accountants, that they would all then, once they receive the CPA designation, have the capacity to form a personal accounting corporation.
[ Page 6373 ]

K. Corrigan: So right now it’s only the chartered accountants and not the CMAs and not the CGAs that can have corporations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: Is there any understanding that this created any kind of controversy or concern? Or was this something that was welcomed by all three bodies?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is something that was agreed upon amongst the three professional groups. I suspect it’s largely a matter of the significant costs incurred in incorporating a professional corporation that may have led the CMAs and the CGAs to not get around to it.

K. Corrigan: I guess I’ve got a general question about sections 18, 19 and 20. It talks in those three sections — and forgive me for putting sections together — about the ability, in this section, about making bylaws with regard to accounting corporations. The next one is with regard to registered firms, and the next one after that gives the board the ability to create bylaws respecting limited liability partnerships.

I’m just wondering…. I think I have a fair understanding, or some understanding, but perhaps the minister could explain the difference between those three with regard to the accounting profession.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, accounting corporations in this circumstance provide that an individual may incorporate their practice and thereby get the benefit of the federal taxation regime applicable to corporations. Then, of course, any funds that they pay out to themselves as the shareholder would be subject, again, to the tax regime.

In terms of firms, this will be dealing with issues such as how firms name themselves and the need to have the firm name registered. Perhaps the accountants will explore the issue of whether one can name one’s accounting practice in a way that does not include the names of the practitioners. So it would be Advance Accounting firm rather than Jones, Smith and Wilson.

In terms of limited liability partnerships, these have been a beast created by the federal government about ten years ago, and there has been a significant move of professional groups to move into the LLP category so that they can manage their affairs accordingly.

K. Corrigan: The difference between an accounting corporation — which is, I guess, a company — and a limited liability partnership is that one has decided to become a company, and the other one is that a group of people have formed a partnership. My understanding would be that the major difference would be the tax implications of those two types of arrangements and not in terms of how they work together. Maybe I can get some clarification on that.

[1445]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is correct. At the heart of the matter…. In most of these circumstances I believe they would be driven by the tax effects, but they also have ramifications in terms of distribution of liability, the issue of winding up and how the entities are created and how they are regulated. So it is quite a different regime depending on whether one or one’s group decided to form a limited liability partnership or to form a corporation or to remain in the traditional individual firm format.

K. Corrigan: There is nothing, then, other than our discussion earlier about accounting corporations and the fact that previously only chartered accountants could have accounting corporations…. Apart from that, there is nothing in these three sections that is particularly different from the practice that previously existed. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member’s query is answered by saying yes with respect to chartered accountants. And the other two bodies are now moving to a uniform structure that’s the same as that enjoyed by chartered accountants already.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

K. Corrigan: Section 21 allows the board of the professional accountants to “make bylaws respecting designations, including (a) the use and display by a member, a professional accounting corporation or a registered firm of a designation and the initials signifying that designation under this Act….” Is it expected or anticipated that there are going to be major changes? Or is that going to be left up completely to the new board or the interim board to decide about the use of the designation, the CPA designation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here, of course, is that the accounting profession is built on public trust and must do everything it can to maintain that public trust. And that public trust is summarized or expressed or branded or advertised with one of the designations that they have used historically. This, being a new designation, is already in visible use, as the member noted yesterday, and has become nationally recognized.

It is up to the interim board to sort out how they are going to integrate the legacy designations with the new designation. Presumably, in a small, perhaps individual,
[ Page 6374 ]
accounting firm, if they’ve ordered 1,000 pages of stationery that says CGA, they’ll probably have to stamp CPA after every single one of those designations — if that is what the interim board determines.

As I say, this is primarily directed toward making sure that the public are assured that the individuals they are dealing with are in fact what the public think they are.

K. Corrigan: I remember reading somewhere, as I was preparing to debate this bill and ask questions about it, something about a timeline — it may be in another section of the act — a discussion about a ten-year period for the use of the designation. I’m sure I read that somewhere. It may have been in the submission that was made by the Chartered Accountants, the Certified General Accountants and the Certified Management Accountants of B.C. Anyways, is there a period?

Is there anything that’s going to happen in regulation under this act that is going to limit the amount of time that somebody could, for example, use a CGA designation? Or is that something that’s going to be left completely up to the profession themselves?

[1450]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that we understand there is a ten-year transition period for the use of these suffixes to their name to demonstrate their professional designation. There’s also, in section 70, a regulation-making power in the event that the profession calls upon government or government decides that there’s a need to step in and sort this out. The goal is to have this ten-year grace period resolve itself.

K. Corrigan: The idea would be that for ten years a company or an individual who had been a chartered accountant, a certified general accountant or a certified management accountant could use the CGA, the CMA or the CA alone. Or would it always have to have the CPA designation attached to it?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a very valid question. The basis for this is that they will be required to use both. If they have an historical or a nostalgic affection for their old designation, they can carry on with that for up to ten years. But they will be required to use the new CPA designation so the public can be assured and clear on the face of it which legislation applies to them.

K. Corrigan: The minister just referred to, for example, a company — say, a CGA company, a certified general accountant company — having letterhead. If there was letterhead, 1,000 pieces of letterhead, as was suggested could be the possibility…. We do know accountants and lawyers and so on have a lot of letterhead around and write a lot of letters. My understanding is that you wouldn’t be able to use that letterhead because it would just have CGA on it. Unless you in some way stamped on the CPA, you would not be allowed to continue to use that. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear enough with my rubber-stamp metaphor before, but that’s exactly correct. The individual will have to put both designations on their visible components of their practice, whether it’s a sign on the door, their letterhead or a webpage. So the member opposite is correct. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear earlier.

K. Corrigan: You probably did. It probably just didn’t quite make it to me.

Getting back to the ten year, it appears that that’s agreed on. I’m just wondering where that comes from and whether or not that is…. I think my original question was: is that something that is going to be enshrined in some kind of legislation or regulation, or is it expected that this has been agreed on and it’ll be in the bylaws or regulations of the CPAs?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The latter part of the member’s statement is entirely correct. This has been agreed upon nationally in the professions, and it will be part of their bylaws to institute this ten-year grace period.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

K. Corrigan: Again, this whole section that we’re dealing with right now is all dealing with giving the power to the CPA board and the ability to make bylaws. This section gives the board the ability to “make bylaws respecting practice reviews, investigations, hearings and extraordinary suspensions.”

I have a fair amount of interest in that area, but because it’s going to be dealt with later in the act, I won’t get into the specifics of that. Just confirming that that’s the purpose of it — simply to give the board the ability to make bylaws — and not getting into the specifics of it at this point in the act. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

[1455]

K. Corrigan: With respect to section 23, again, this section gives the board the ability to “make bylaws respecting reviews on the record of an order of a panel of a disciplinary committee.” It refers to disciplinary committees and the ability to review.
[ Page 6375 ]

Again, that will be covered later in the act. Just a confirmation that this simply gives the power to the board to make bylaws with respect to those reviews.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

K. Corrigan: Section 24 provides that the board can make bylaws respecting the tariff of costs to partially indemnify the board for the expenses it incurs to conduct an investigation, a hearing, a review on the record or expenses it incurs concerning a proceeding, with regard to an extraordinary suspension.

I’m wondering if these types of powers were invested in the former three boards before the merger. If so, all three? I’d like to know what the landscape was before.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: These capacities or abilities were invested in the chartered accountants body, the institute of chartered accountants, but not in the other two. Once again, they’re seeking a uniformed approach to this issue and have requested that the approach taken by the institute of chartered accountants be adopted for all of them.

K. Corrigan: Can I assume, then, if this was the practice of the chartered accountants, that the CGAs, the certified general accountants, and the certified management accountants or their representatives are in agreement that this is a good way to go?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: Maybe just a bit of an explanation about how the tariff of costs would work. Who would be paying the tariff? How would it be? What is the setup as it exists now, I guess? I’m just trying to get a sense of exactly what these tariffs cover and how they are charged.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer is that much like Law Society hearings, the legacy legislation for the institute of chartered accountants and the new legislation provides that either the CPABC or the respondent can be entitled to costs as a result of the hearing. Clearly, if the respondent is vindicated, they may seek costs against the CPABC and vice versa.

K. Corrigan: The tariffs. Would this be a charge that goes on all CPA fees, a very small charge that then goes into a fund in order to cover those kinds of costs? I’m just wondering what the source of the funding is.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that this is much like the Law Society arrangement, in that the member’s annual fee will cover the entire administrative cost of the CPABC, including any tariff costs that may be assessed against them by one of their committees.

K. Corrigan: The CGAs and the CMAs did not have this tariff system. How was it handled in those two bodies previously?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There was no cost regime within the CGA and CMA investigation and disciplinary arrangements. They simply did not have access to this tool.

[1500]

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if these types of investigations, hearings and reviews and the costs associated with an extraordinary suspension…. They could all cost money. Does the minister know how the costs for these processes were covered, or did they simply not have those processes?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: All three of the legacy bodies most certainly had disciplinary processes and hearings and so forth, but only the Institute of Chartered Accountants was able to assess or recover costs during those processes.

K. Corrigan: Where would the money come from to cover that? Would it be from…? The minister said that the tariff is part of the costs of the organization and would be part of the annual fees. So where would the money come from for the CPAs and the CMAs, then?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite referred to CPAs and CGAs, but I’ll assume she meant CMAs and CGAs. It was indeed from their general revenue that these amounts were paid.

This is an evolving scheme, obviously, with professions. They find the costs of hearings are sufficiently high that there has to be some kind of cost recovery process. This legislation provides explicitly, in section 24(2), that it is not to provide for the recovery of members of a committee or the employees of the CPABC. It’s essentially designed to recover disbursements on a tariff rather than on actual outlays.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I guess I’m not quite understanding the concept of tariff then. The money comes into the organization — all three organizations — in the form of the annual fees that the members pay. What has been said here is that now those annual fees are going to pay for all these different types of hearings. But it sounds to me like there’s only one source of funding, which is the annual fees that the members in all three professions previously paid or in the unified profession will pay now.

I’m trying to understand what it is about the tariff scheme which is different than just paying in money and then using that to pay for these types of hearings.
[ Page 6376 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the best parallel is probably to the superior court’s process where, when one engages in litigation, at the end there’s a costs award. Here that is done on a tariff.

Most of us are familiar with the tariffs that have evolved over time in the B.C. Supreme Court rules. This is a similar kind of arrangement. The tariff is not charged to each and every member. The tariff is available and may be applied by a committee to either itself when it’s concluded that the hearing process was unnecessary, or that tariff can be applied to the respondent accountant who is being investigated.

If, for instance, an accountant is found to have somehow erred in a significant way that requires professional investigation, that investigation is conducted. There then may be a hearing. There then may be a review on the record. At each stage, the bill for disbursements would pile up. Then, if the respondent accountant were found to be guilty of the professional misconduct in question, they would be assessed a bill on the tariff of costs for a portion of the costs of running the hearing.

K. Corrigan: I understand now. This is like an award of costs, essentially, in a legal hearing — the same way. I thought it was something that was awarded in every single hearing, regardless of who was found to be at fault or who was found liable. What you’re saying is that there can be costs awarded to the successful party. Okay, I understand that. Thanks very much. That makes more sense.

Then subsection (2), which says, as the minister has referred to, that the tariff of costs must not provide for the recovery of remuneration of members of a committee or employees or legal expenses “other than those incurred to conduct a proceeding before the committee.”

In other words, that’s listing the types of costs that would be associated with a hearing or an investigation or whatever. Those costs cannot be included in the tariff. Is that correct?

[1505]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, the member is on the right track. This is much like a bill of costs in litigation in the courts in that it does not apply to the fees of the individuals involved in the disciplinary process itself. They will be there as part of their membership of a committee, much like benchers of the Law Society.

The premise here, of course, is that the cost of these hearings could become astronomical. To an unsuccessful defendant or respondent, it could be ruinous. The tariff premise is designed to provide for a significant cost recovery, but not complete cost recovery, and no cost recovery to members of the committee or to employees of the CPABC.

K. Corrigan: Having a tariff of costs…. I want to reiterate, then, that where the CGA and the CMAs did not have that kind of scheme, they’re satisfied that this is the way to go despite the imposition — the change that it could be?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

K. Corrigan: Again, this gives the board another type of ability to pass bylaws. In this case, they can make bylaws respecting insurance against professional liability claims — something that would be expected. Is this something that previously existed in this form with all three of the professions that are being merged?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Not surprisingly, as the profession has evolved and become more convoluted, difficult and expensive, all of the legacy bodies have had insurance requirements, and this is a reconciliation of their requirements so that the professional bodies can require members to carry a certain level of insurance, much like the Law Society does.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

K. Corrigan: This is another section giving the board the ability to make bylaws, in this case particularly, with respect to chapters, branches and affiliations “for the social and educational welfare of its members and students” and “authorization of the CPABC to enter into contracts…to affiliate with a body.” Was this something that existed in the past with the three organizations that are being merged?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This turns out to be a composite of the three legacy bodies in that the Chartered Accountants Act made no bylaw-making powers. It didn’t provide for them regarding chapters, branches or affiliations. The CGA act provided for chapters and branches and for affiliation with other accounting bodies in Canada. The CMA act provided for affiliation with other accounting bodies of any jurisdiction, with no provision for chapters and branches. Clearly, they have come to a composite view that is expressed here.

K. Corrigan: The way it’s worded is interesting. It says “for the social and educational welfare of its members and students.” I’m just wondering if the minister could explain what those types of chapters or branches would be. Would it be expected that it would be a chapter…? I’m just not sure what kind of chapters those would be. Is there any thought of what they would be?

[1510]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise is that, much like the Law Society, there would be a Cariboo branch, a Kootenay branch, a Vancouver Island branch, so that these could be designed to encourage the professional development of the members in a social environment, one would presume. Being accountants, one would hope that these would be very sober and numerical occasions.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

On section 28.

K. Corrigan: Section 28 provides: “A bylaw must be confirmed at (a) a special general meeting called for the purpose of considering the bylaw, or (b) the next annual general meeting,” which is pretty typical.

But this is the part that I’m interested in. The board has to “file a copy of a bylaw with the minister within 30 days” after confirmation and the bylaw then “may be disallowed by the minister within 45 days after the bylaw is filed under subsection (2).”

I am wondering if the minister had the ability to veto bylaws in the past for any of the three organizations and why it is felt that the minister should have the ability to veto bylaws of the accounting profession.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that, although it would seem highly unlikely, nonetheless, it’s important that the public interest be protected through the statutory and regulatory regime that government maintains.

If, through some bizarre combination of circumstances, the joined accounting professions decided to pass a bylaw which was particularly self-serving — in order to protect themselves from liability or to constrain others from entering the profession, for instance — government would have the option of limiting that activity, the practical effect being that once the bylaw were made known to government, it would be suggested that the combined professional body may want to reconsider.

It’s rather unlikely that government would actually be overriding these potentially troublesome bylaws, but that power does exist to protect the public interest.

K. Corrigan: Well, the explanation is fair enough. The minister spoke about the public interest or something that might be self-serving. I can certainly understand that explanation.

But I’m not sure why it is that, if those are the concerns that the minister has, it would be such an encompassing and absolute power — to simply say that the minister can quash. Just like the minister might be concerned about a bylaw which is self-serving or inappropriate in some way and must be limited, one might think that the power of the minister to quash those bylaws should in some way be limited as well.

I’m wondering why there were absolutely no parameters, no type of limitation put on that ability. The way it reads now…. I’m not saying that this minister or any particular minister would willy-nilly quash bylaws, but it is an absolute power. I wonder if there is any thought about putting some kind of structure around that, some type of limitations on the types of bylaws that would or could be quashed by the minister.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is actually essentially reproduced from the Health Professions Act and seems to be the trend and the mechanism by which government regulates professional bodies. The practical effect of this is that it is rarely if ever used, because of the internal balancing that occurs between the professions and the ministry involved, so that we’re aware of only one such quashing or refusal of a bylaw, which has occurred in neither the health nor the legal nor the accounting professions.

K. Corrigan: Does the minister have examples — any examples — of when a bylaw under the Health Professions Act or that profession has been quashed?

[1515]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We are not aware of any such occurrences under the Health Professions Act.

K. Corrigan: It seems like a very wide power and allows a great deal of discretion. I’m sure it wouldn’t be abused, but certainly the ability is there. I would have thought maybe some parameters about unreasonableness or inappropriateness or things that break the law or something like that would be appropriate.

Maybe I’ll ask the question. Was the inclusion of this fairly extensive power discussed with representatives from the merged profession? Was there full agreement, or was there concern about this?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is consistent with the prior legislation affecting the three legacy bodies, and no concerns were expressed about this. It’s also consistent with engineers, the Health Professions Act and so forth.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if…. Maybe I’ll just give the minister the opportunity to explain exactly what this section does.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that professional accounting corporations, which are designed, essentially, as a tax vehicle for the benefit of the accountant, will be subject to some degree of scrutiny through the bylaws of the CPABC. If the minister forms the view
[ Page 6378 ]
that the bylaw is not adequately protecting the public, the minister can take some action to correct the situation.

This is perhaps reflective of the prior section, in that, if the profession were to pass some bylaws that were unduly permissive — to permit, shall we say, accounting corporations to avoid ongoing liability after they’ve been wound up, leaving the member of the public exposed — the minister could step in accordingly.

K. Corrigan: With regard to amending or repealing or being made…. The general power that we talked about under section 28(3), which allows the minister to disallow a bylaw, would not cover all these circumstances. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: One can imagine a scenario, obviously, in a dark place and probably a different country, where the profession passed a particularly self-serving bylaw, and the simple fact of changed economic and commercial circumstances meant that disallowing that bylaw would not accomplish the necessary task. In fact, an affirmative bylaw would be required to protect the public interest.

As the member has noted, this would provide the power for that positively stated bylaw or an amended bylaw to be put into place, if necessary — although this seems to be a vanishingly small likelihood.

K. Corrigan: I thank the minister for that explanation and the one previously about the operation of the section.

I’m just wondering. Is there some kind of precedent that has been set, some kinds of problems that have occurred in the profession in the past, that there would be a very specific focus on professional accounting corporations, as opposed to the limited partnerships or firms? Is there something specifically that’s happened?

Maybe a little bit more elucidation. I know there was reference to the possibility that there would be an inappropriate tax benefit. Is this referring back to Enron and all that kind of stuff? Just maybe more explanation of why this is necessary.

[1520]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: My recollection is that the vogue of professional corporations came on strong in the 1990s with the changed tax rules. Of course, one can imagine that there might be a bit of adventurous activity as people try to do creative things with that new authority.

This authority actually exists in the prior Chartered Accountants Act and has effectively been adopted by the other two legacy bodies so that it can be uniform amongst all of them. Again, this is obviously a good-faith exercise where they seek to regulate themselves, but of course the public, through the mode of elected government, must retain the ultimate authority to regulate the profession.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I’m glad to hear that this is something that was already there. Just getting back to the question before, I’ll maybe re-ask a bit of it. Is this as a result…? It may have gone back many years, but is it, to some degree, a recognition of the real problems that happened in the accounting world with Arthur Andersen and Enron and those scandals that shook the foundations of the financial world in the United States? Is that part of what this would address?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This, fortuitously, is not related to those major accounting scandals that occurred around the turn of the century. This is actually a reflection of the ongoing situation in British Columbia and Canada where, fortunately — and perhaps it’s a testament to the strength of the profession — those have been extremely isolated to the point where they have not been of economic consequence.

Nonetheless, in anticipation of what the member opposite points out could emerge, this leaves the authority with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to correct such a situation.

K. Corrigan: Has this section, because it was in previous legislation prior to merger, been used before?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re not aware of any use of the predecessor section affecting chartered accountants.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

K. Corrigan: This is a new part to the bill. Part 3 deals with students and membership, which is a really important part of the process for professional accountants. Section 30 provides that the board may determine requirements for enrolment, curriculum of studies, standards of skill and competency and the rules for examinations or other evaluations. It is an important piece of the legislation.

I’m wondering if there’s any…. Maybe looking at several sections that deal with the educational programs, examinations and equivalent examinations and so on, are the requirements or the provisions that are in this act similar to the provisions that were in the previous acts governing the three merging organizations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The three legacy bodies each had provisions in their legislation dealing with this, but this represents a joint view of the three bodies about how to modernize this, and in particular with the recognition of examinations held by other bodies, given that they are seeking to come to the highest common denominator on this.

If they’re going to accept any qualifications from another Commonwealth country or from Quebec or, for
[ Page 6379 ]
that matter, another common-law province, this provides them with the tools to actually acknowledge or reject those prior examinations and qualifications.

[1525]

This is recognition that the accounting profession is increasingly crossing boundaries and that we need to make sure that standards are maintained.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister could just give me a very short explanation of how it works. Section 31 — I guess I am skipping ahead. For example: “The CPABC may establish educational programs in accountancy for students.” I’ve been reading some of the background information.

I’m just wondering if I could get an explanation of exactly what that educational program will likely look like. The students will have had a certain amount of education, probably an undergraduate degree in an area. It may be accounting, maybe not. It can be a variety of things.

Exactly how much control does the profession then have with regard to the enrolment and training and the course of studies, the curriculum and all of that? Does it control everything? Where are the courses done, and who actually puts the courses on? Those kinds of things.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working arrangement which is falling into place as a common approach to this is something that’s evolved over the last decade.

The current expectation is that there will be an undergraduate degree with specific course content requirements. That may not be a bachelor of commerce; that may be an economics degree with some accounting overlay.

Then after that there will be a three-year CPA education program, which would be conducted part-time, and a minimum of two years of practical experience followed by what the chartered accountants currently call the uniform final examination. I think most of us know from life experience that this is a particularly harrowing and demanding course of study. It’s to ensure that standards are met.

The legacy bodies have had a variety of paths to entry to professional designation over the years, and they have landed on this as a common approach. Given the increasing complexity of the world, it would seem this is quite a sound approach that we’re observing.

K. Corrigan: Well, the discipline of accounting is a difficult one and requires significant training and expertise and competencies. I’m just trying to get a sense of who actually conducts the courses or will be conducting the courses under this merger.

To learn to do an audit, to gain the competencies in taxation and finance and financial accounting is very difficult, so I’m just wondering how it is that the students get those competencies. Say if they came from an economics degree, which was my undergraduate…. There’s no way I could have been an accountant — that’s for sure. I’m wondering who actually puts the courses on, delivers them and puts the content together, and how it’s delivered.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: These two provisions, sections 30 and 31 — well, 32 is included in that, of course — will enable these bodies to put together a rather elaborate training and examination arrangement whereby some of this will be acknowledging university courses from recognized universities. That would be accepted to be the qualification for a particular component.

They are contemplating the introduction of a CPA western school of business, which will conduct some of the course components on line. The premise is that this will be available to accounting students in the four western provinces and the Yukon territory so that the studies can be in a uniform standard, whether they’re conducted in a university or college, whether they’re conducted on line or whether they’re conducted face to face. All three of those components will be built into this program of study after the undergraduate degree is obtained.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you. That’s helpful.

The CPA western school of business doesn’t exist yet. Is that correct?

[1530]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m gratified to report that this is an outgrowth of the comprehensive education program that the institute of chartered accountants offered to date. The curriculum has already been agreed amongst the three legacy bodies. This new delivery vehicle is, I suspect, being created for revenue and governance reasons so that the new institute for chartered professional accountants can have substantial control over content.

K. Corrigan: The CPA Western School of Business is going to be an on-line school, and it’s going to be controlled by CPABC. Is that correct? People would pay to take their courses, and then CPABC would get the money for that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The understanding is that the CPA Western School of Business will be both virtual on line and face to face, that it will convene programs, much as the old Law Society bar admission program used to do before the introduction of PLTC.

In addition, the revenue stream for the CPA Western School of Business, as far as we know, is not part of the legislation. That’s been left with the professional bodies. Whether they will decide to have the principal for the articled student liable for those fees, as is the case with the Law Society, or whether they will impose some fees on the students themselves remains to be seen.
[ Page 6380 ]

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, the CPA Western School of Business doesn’t exist yet. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Our understanding is that the CPA Western School of Business is already underway, much like the CPA designation has already been advertised in anticipation of this legislation passing. We would always be concerned that they’re being presumptuous, but under the circumstances, it really represents a rebranding of the institute of chartered accountants training program that’s been in existence for many years.

K. Corrigan: The Law Society courses have always been, in my understanding…. Certainly, when I was taking the bar courses, they were not seen as a money-making operation for the Law Society. The fact that these courses could go on line and could be available, presumably, to individuals around the world if they wanted to take them…. Is this seen as a way to make money, or is it non-profit? Do we know?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The CPA Western School of Business is designed as a break-even operation. There is to be no net profit. I suspect, being accountants, they will provide for some retained earnings which they’d reinvest, but we leave that up to them.

K. Corrigan: Then with regard to making arrangements with a post-secondary institution, is it the case that a significant portion of the courses that the students take now are courses that are offered through post-secondary institutions? I’m just trying to really understand where the competencies are coming from.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise is that institutions will be offering courses in a variety of competencies, including things like audit accounting, and that the newly merged CPA training regime may accept some of those for full-course, advanced-standing value. For others they would require complementary training. It depends on the course and the institution.

But the member’s premise is correct. Students will be able to save some steps by taking courses in university that will give them credit in the downstream program.

[1535]

K. Corrigan: It is expected that the courses that we’re talking about would be courses that would be taken while the student is a CPA student, after they graduate. This is not something that it’s expected that they do before they apply. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise is that they could do them either before arriving at an accounting firm for their articles and taking on the training program or during the training program. Some of them will have to take more courses during their training than others, depending on what they’ve done prior to arriving at the training program.

K. Corrigan: Then the other component of enrolment and training that is contemplated in these sections is the involvement of the student in a firm. Will that remain the same? My understanding is that it’s a period of two or three years, and of course, somebody has to pass the exam at the end. Will that essentially remain the same as it has for chartered accountants over the years?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The new regime is essentially identical to the chartered accountants regime as it now stands. I think we’re all aware that the duration of accounting articles has increased over the last 25 years.

K. Corrigan: Is it expected that the equivalent or a new iteration of the uniform final examination will continue to exist, that there will be some kind of fairly rigorous examination that will come at the end of the training for these students?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Sections 30 and 31 approved.

On section 32.

K. Corrigan: Again, in this part that deals with students and membership, section 32 provides that the board “must hold examinations for admission as a member, or arrange that examinations for admission as a member be held, at least once a year.” Is this anything new, or is this just the way it’s been in the past for the three legacy professions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a continuation of the current arrangement.

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

K. Corrigan: Again, is this something new? This provides that the board “must by bylaw establish the conditions under which persons who have passed the examinations of other corporate bodies that have the same or similar objects may be admitted as members.” Are we talking about other jurisdictions here? Maybe a bit of an explanation of what is contemplated in this section.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just to clarify, this is part of the compliance obligation for labour mobility under the Canadian national agreement on internal trade. Of course, the professions have largely anticipated this because their
[ Page 6381 ]
members do move between jurisdictions as work appears and declines. They’re also, obviously, increasingly involved in transactions across provincial borders.

This is designed to ensure that there’s suitable equivalency and a perhaps limited recognition of equivalent examinations. If one had done an examination in Quebec dealing with the Quebec income tax act, clearly that’s not very useful in the rest of Canada because Quebec has its own regime. But if an individual has completely qualified in Saskatchewan, then there should be a great deal of equivalency because their corporate and tax regime would be very similar to that in British Columbia.

[1540]

K. Corrigan: I certainly recall from the background reading that I’ve done and looking at the history of this merger between the CAs, the CGAs and the CMAs that part of the impetus for this was the intent to harmonize the regimes in different provinces. And not only that — to have some harmonization around the world with the globalization of the accounting profession, like other professions.

This is not new, I take it, though. Or is this a new provision in this act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: All three of the legacy acts have similar provisions. Of course, they’ve matured over the last 30 years, and this represents the current state of the art. I also note that provision 33, subsection (2) provides that they must be reasonable so that the CPABC would not have the option of creating some absurd trade barrier to protect the incumbent members from visitors.

K. Corrigan: Yeah, I did see subsection (2), which says that the conditions under which somebody is admitted from another body “must be reasonable and are subject to amendment by the Lieutenant Governor in Council” — cabinet, basically. So that particular power previously existed for subsection (2)?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that the legacy legislation for chartered accountants did have a virtually identical provision in section 11, and the other two acts had no provision for this.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if there has been any history of there being — with the chartered accountants who had this provision — any instance of the conditions that have been set by the chartered accountants being overruled or amended by cabinet.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Not to our knowledge.

Section 33 approved.

On section 34.

K. Corrigan: A similar question as I’ve asked on many other sections. Is this simply transferring a process — in this case to do with appeals and provisions with regard to appeals? Is it simply bringing this into the merged group?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, the institute of chartered accountants legislation provided for this. The other two did not. So this is unifying and harmonizing those statutes.

K. Corrigan: It’s interesting. The pattern that we seem to see here is that a lot of these processes that are included in Bill 4 and that will govern the chartered professional accountants were already included in the governing legislation for the previous chartered accountants, so I’m just wondering. Has this created any kinds of problems?

I know I’ve kind of asked that question before. It just seems that many of the processes are transferring over the chartered accountants governing legislation, so I’m just wondering whether that has created any problems in trying to merge the three, as far as the minister knows.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that the chartered accountants legislation is the most recent of the three. It was heavily amended in 2003 and, perhaps, is a more modern iteration of an increasingly sophisticated and transboundary practice.

[1545]

The other two legacy bodies have come to the conclusion that they would like to move up to that highest, best standard rather than to remain with their prior arrangements.

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

K. Corrigan: Section 35 provides that the board must admit a person to membership in the CPABC if the person passes examination, satisfies the board that the person is of good character, pays the appropriate fees and meets any other requirements for admission specified in the bylaws. Is this, again…?

Well, I’m going to just touch on another subsection here. It also says: “The board must admit a person to membership in the CPABC if the person is entitled under the Labour Mobility Act to be admitted to membership in the CPABC.” That sort of harkens back to the previous section that we talked about. Is this provision any different than that which we talked about previously, where the board would establish conditions? This seems a little more onerous. In other words, really, the board doesn’t have the ability to establish conditions if they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Labour Mobility Act. Is that correct?
[ Page 6382 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This provision is actually carrying on provisions in each of the three legacy acts and clearly is designed to prevent arbitrary discrimination against an individual who has in fact satisfied all of the requirements to become a fully practising member of the CPABC. Subsection (2), of course, is designed to make sure that that discrimination doesn’t occur to the person I was talking about, who may have trained in Saskatchewan and fulfilled all of the criteria in subsection (1) but happens to be moving here from Saskatchewan.

K. Corrigan: The Labour Mobility Act is applicable to which jurisdictions in Canada?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The Labour Mobility Act is a piece of British Columbia legislation which enacts the Canadian national agreement on internal trade, which the member is probably familiar with. It has a bit of a mixed record in that some provinces have been less compliant than others. It’s been perhaps honoured in the breach in fields like food processing. Fortunately, accounting is less controversial.

Section 35 approved.

On section 36.

K. Corrigan: Section 36 says: “The classes of members of the CPABC are as follows: “(a) chartered professional accountants, including fellows; (b) associate members; (c) technologist members; (d) other classes of members established by bylaw.” I’m wondering if the minister could explain what associate members and technologist members are.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m advised that the baseline goal, the comparator, to having an MD in the medical profession is subsection (a). The associate membership status, (b), is being created as a placeholder for the profession to determine the content of that term. One would hope that it’s designed to allow for individuals to practise in this field who don’t perhaps seek to be fully qualified in audit and international tax. It could be left up to the profession to decide if that was a light kind of category. Then “technologist members” is designed to capture the individuals who do a lot of the increasingly complicated back-office work of accountants.

[1550]

Obviously, the attraction there is to subject them to the same kind of professional discipline that applies to full accountants so that professional standards can be imposed upon those individuals in the event that they do something untoward.

K. Corrigan: All of the provisions that deal with things like membership, passing exams, and so on — all of the standards and requirements would apply to technologist members? It sounds like they would, because they would become members of the CPABC, and I’m wondering how that is dealt with.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that to be a CPA, one must be in category A. That is that the qualifications outlined in the previous sections are designed to be the threshold test to become a chartered professional accountant. These other categories are designed to capture individuals who work within those firms, perhaps like legal assistants or conveyancing clerks, so that they are deemed to be part of the profession for a variety of reasons.

K. Corrigan: I may have missed part of that answer.

Section 30, for example, provides that the board may determine requirements for enrolment and training and studies, and so on, for students.

Does that then obligate the board? Because these are members, even though they’re called technologist members, does that obligate the board, then, to make some provision, even if it is a provision in the bylaws that says: “Oh, and by the way, the technologist members don’t have to do this”? Does it obligate them to make some positive determination of what, for example, the training would be for the technologist members?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Fortuitously, the interplay between sections 35 and 36 provides for different examinations and standards to be applied to a technologist member than to a CPA member. We leave it up to the profession itself to sort out what those parameters might be, much as we leave it in the health fields to sort out the difference between an LPN and a registered nurse, and so forth.

K. Corrigan: Yes. I appreciate that, and I get that. It’s probably being picky with the words, but when it says that…. It essentially says that a technologist member or an associate member — but let’s focus on the technology member — is a member of the CPABC. Then, if you look at section 30, it talks about the requirements for students. So I’m just wondering whether some of the other sections require the board to be proactive in terms of education, and so on, but perhaps not. I may be overblowing the words that are here.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m always happy to answer the member opposite’s questions, because they’re always cogent and well-thought-out. I think sections 30, 35 and 36 are designed to work together, and we essentially delegate it to the profession to sort out the practicalities.

K. Corrigan: I’m sorry. I do have one more question about the technologist members. Just maybe a little bit more information about what is meant by a technologist member, and if it was explained while I had another
[ Page 6383 ]
member speaking to me, I apologize.

I know the minister referenced back-office work. The reason I’m asking this question is that I know that later there are sections that deal with the responsibilities of a member in terms of sort of signing their name or that there has to be supervision, and so on.

I’m just wondering what the status is, I guess, of the technologist members: what kind of work they’re going to have, what kind of responsibility they’re going to have in the organization.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This turns out to be a legacy designation from the CMA Act in section 6, which provides for technologist members. Apparently, there are very few of these members, and whether that is a classification that survives the evolution of the profession, we will only find out with time.

K. Corrigan: Do we have any understanding of what they actually do and what their responsibilities, training and so on are?

[1555]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We don’t have that answer readily available, but we’d be happy to provide it overnight.

K. Corrigan: The reason I’m asking is I just want to be sure that when somebody is signing their name as a CA — sorry, a CPA; I just haven’t been watching those commercials properly — there is a guarantee that’s a very high-quality designation. If somebody was a technologist member, it sounds like it would not have the same level.

My guess is it would not have the same level of training, so whether there could be a way that the guarantee to the client — or that the client assumed they were getting — as to who was doing the work…. It could be diluted if you had other classes that didn’t require as much training but could sign as a CPA. And that designation is very important. So that’s the genesis of my concern.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The presumption is that the classes subsection 36(a) — chartered professional accountants — would be the ones carrying the CPA designation. These other designations would be members of the CPABC, but whether they’re allowed to carry the designation of CPA is something we’ll have to answer overnight in response to the member’s query about technologist members.

Sections 36 and 37 approved.

On section 38.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to see whether or not…. I assume this is something that previously existed in the other three organizations. This has to do with collecting of fees, dues and assessments. Is this just simply transferring those same kinds of abilities over from the legacy designations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That’s correct.

Sections 38 and 39 approved.

On section 40.

K. Corrigan: Section 40 is a fairly lengthy section dealing with professional accounting corporation permits. I’m going to ask specifically about subsection (f): “each person who provides accounting services in British Columbia to the public” on behalf of the professional accounting member in good standing, or "under the direct supervision of a chartered professional accountant member in good standing who is an employee or shareholder of the professional accounting corporation.”

It says that a permit must be issued, and that’s one of the circumstances that is contemplated. I’m concerned about this. I’m just wondering if, No. 1, I guess, whether or not this is something that is, again, transferring from previous legislation to the CPAs. Then secondly, a little bit of a concern about what direct supervision means. Again, it gets to: are people…? Clients — can they be assured that the work that is being signed by a CPA is, in fact, the work of a CPA?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member makes an important point. The preamble in the first section of section 40(1) provides that “the board must issue a permit to a corporation,” and it carries on to state, “if the board is satisfied that,” and then it lists the subsection criteria.

So coming to subsection (f), the premise here, of course, in subsection (f)(i) is that a CPA in good standing either must be the person providing those services or someone under the direct supervision of a CPA member in good standing.

[1600]

That contemplates, obviously, the students who are working toward their CPA, accounting clerks and so forth, much like in a law firm, where only the signature of a member of the Law Society can appear on an opinion letter even though it may incorporate the work of librarians, students, articled students and so forth.

K. Corrigan: Also in section 40. I guess what I needed confirmation of, or was seeking a confirmation of, is essentially that what this section says is that if you have a professional accounting corporation — so if CPAs have incorporated — this cannot be purely a business interest. It needs to be made up of the directors and the president and so on.

It can’t be just a business entity that is holding itself out
[ Page 6384 ]
as CPAs or something that is owned by anybody other than CPAs. They need to be CPAs — those that are running it and so on.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

It can’t be some other kind of business, which I assume means that what we’re not going to have is the buying and selling of CPA corporations simply as business entities — that they really do have to be comprised of CPAs. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise that the member asks on is correct in that, much like law corporations — and medical laboratories, for that matter — the beneficial interest and the voting shares and so forth of an accounting corporation must be held by someone who is directly accountable to CPABC, so in the event of disciplinary or other proceedings the accounting corporation can be promptly and effectively managed by the disciplinary body.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

The Chair: Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on section 41.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chamber.

Section 41 — I’m going to need a little help with this one — deals with voting trust, proxies and similar agreements being forbidden. It says:

“A shareholder of (a) a professional accounting corporation, or (b) a holding company owning shares in a professional accounting corporation must not enter into a voting trust agreement, proxy agreement or any other type of agreement that vests in another person who is not a chartered professional accountant member in good standing the authority to exercise the voting rights attached to any or all of the shares of the professional accounting corporation if the exercise of those voting rights could result in persons who are not chartered professional accountant members in good standing holding the majority voting control of the professional accounting corporation.”

This seems to be allowing, though, that somebody who is not part of the profession could have up to 49 percent of the shares. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The presumption here, of course, in concert with section 40, is that the voting shares in the corporation must be in the hands of a chartered professional accountant. If there were beneficial interests in the corporation, such as the children of the accountant or a family trust, the responsible member — that is, the chartered professional accountant — could not enter into a voting trust agreement or proxy agreement or any other kind of control on their voting behaviour that would be controlled or managed by a non-CPA.

The premise here is that the CPA who is the front-and-centre individual in the section 40 professional accounting corporation must be unencumbered in their voting behaviour. If there are non-voting shares or if there are other beneficial interests — perhaps some kind of a financial arrangement with, for example, the children of the CPA who has incorporated — they cannot control that voting behaviour.

[1605]

K. Corrigan: The minister is contemplating where it could be a family trust or something like that. But really, in this case up to 49 percent of the voting shares could actually, it looks to me, be in the hands of anybody else. It’s not necessarily family, is it?

I just don’t see that limitation. For somebody who’s not a chartered accountant, I presume that they could have those shares up to just less than half.

It seems almost inconsistent, although not necessarily. Technically, it seems almost inconsistent, but maybe I’m misinterpreting the section. It seems inconsistent with section 40 in our discussion, which basically was that we wanted the chartered professional accountants to be the ones who are in control of the corporations. This seems like it could be a bit of a loophole — I mean, up to 49 percent. Am I misinterpreting this section?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps for clarity, we could contrast and connect section 41 with section 40(1)(e) on non-voting shares. This would be a prime example, under section 40(1)(e)(iii), of “a person who is a relative of or resides with a chartered professional accountant…who is a shareholder,” etc.

Non-voting shares apparently can be held by, for instance, the children of the accountant, but the accountant who is responsible for the voting shares cannot enter into any kind of voting trust agreement or proxy agreement whereby their vote would be controlled by this non-accountant holder of non-voting shares.

K. Corrigan: Okay, so what the minister is telling me is that, because of the operation of section 40, when we’re talking about these voting shares — the voting rights that could be up to 49 percent — it’s limited to those categories that are referred to in section 40(1)(e). Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I would not want it to be interpreted that way, because I think the premise is that voting shares in section 40 must be legally and beneficially owned by a chartered professional accountant or some other structure that puts that chartered professional accountant squarely on the hot seat in terms of the voting shares.

That’s in section 40(1)(b), and only non-voting shares would be available to others under section 40(1)(e). The premise, I think, of section 41 is that that voting member
[ Page 6385 ]
under section 40(1)(b) is not subject to the influence of collateral agreements with individuals who are not chartered professional accountants.

In other words, voting shares are the sole purview of chartered professional accountants or their connected chartered professional accountants, and these family members cannot exert control over the vote.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

K. Corrigan: Is this significantly different than what was in the legacy organizations? These are provisions with regard to the registration of firms.

[1610]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Section 42 represents a significant housekeeping improvement on section 14.1 of the Chartered Accountants Act, which has a rather convoluted approach to this. Section 42 of the new act is a much clearer rendition of this issue.

K. Corrigan: But in terms of the actual operation, is it essentially the same as it was before?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Parts of section 42 — that is, section 42(3) — are very similar to the existing components of the Chartered Accountants Act. Other parts have been significantly clarified and improved.

Section 42 approved.

On section 43.

K. Corrigan: Section 43 basically looks to me…. It says: “The civil liability for professional negligence as an accountant of a member for her or his own professional negligence is not affected by the fact that the member is carrying on the practice of accounting (a) as an employee, shareholder, officer, director or contractor,” and so on, “(b) through a registered firm, or (c) through a limited liability partnership.”

Is this essentially saying that civil liability is going to be there no matter what kind of structure the CPA is operating under?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here, of course, is that this is legislation — this section — purely in defence of the public interest, in that if litigation were commenced, then it would seem that naming any or all of the entities would still catch the individual in terms of liability so that there cannot be some kind of elaborate arrangement whereby civil liability would be avoided by creating some kind of arrangement which sheltered the ultimately accountable parties from liability.

K. Corrigan: If the way that a member or a group of members is operating is as a corporation and somebody were to sue that corporation and then that corporation was to not have the appropriate finances…. One of the worries in other areas is that there are shell companies. Is this to prevent that? If so, how does it do that?

I guess, basically, if there was a suit…. I mean, for accountants, it can be millions and millions of dollars. If there was a suit, what is the protection either in this section or in this act that…? If there’s a very significant lawsuit in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars, as has happened with lawsuits against accounting firms, what is the protection that that holding company or that corporation will not essentially be a shell and that, therefore, the person who is suing and is given a judgment will not be able to get that money?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is actually a significant enhancement of the existing section 14.3 of the Chartered Accountants Act. Seeing at least three current or former members of the Law Society on the other side, we all remember the lengthy legal topic of piercing the corporate veil, which is exactly what this section does.

[1615]

K. Corrigan: In other words, the assurance I’m getting from the minister is that somebody can’t have a corporation in order to avoid liability. There is liability to that individual?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the member notes, this is designed to make sure that liability flows to where the responsibility lies and, of course, with compulsory insurance requirements to where the ultimate source of compensation lies.

Section 43 approved.

On section 44.

K. Corrigan: This is a new part that deals with designations and prohibitions. Overall, would it be fair to say that essentially what this does is recognize that we’re going to have this new designation of chartered professional accountant, and here are all the ways that that designation can be used? It’s as a CPA or a fellow of the Chartered Professional Accountants or associate and some of the other things that we’ve talked about. That’s simply what this is. It would be similar to the rules that are already in place for chartered accountants and CGAs and CMAs. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is correct that all three of the legacy statutes have similar provisions and this is simply outlining when these initials can be used and by whom.
[ Page 6386 ]

K. Corrigan: I have a specific question that arises from curiosity. Subsection (6) says: “A professional accounting corporation and a registered firm may use or display the designation ‘Chartered Professional Accountant’ or the initials ‘CPA’ signifying that designation.” So that would be an accounting corporation or in a registered firm. They can use the CPA.

But then it says in subsection (7): “Subsection (6) only applies to a registered firm that is a partnership, including a limited liability partnership, if (a) each partner resident in British Columbia is a chartered professional accountant…” and each partner that is not resident in British Columbia and not a CPA is a member of the organization in their jurisdiction, essentially — or Bermuda. Why is Bermuda in there?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member asks the exact same question that I did. And it turns out that this particular subsection is designed to deal with the big accounting firms with offices in many locations so that there’s a suitable control over the local content of that in terms of subsection 44(7)(a).

In terms of subsection (b), that if these individuals are practising elsewhere they have to be in a situation where they are in an enactment that corresponds to this act — that is, the CPA legislation across Canada. And it turns out that Bermuda is a particularly popular spot for some of the corporate financial interests of these entities. The premise is that Bermuda should be here so that we can understand and manage the functioning of these international accounting firms.

K. Corrigan: Okay, so on reading this section, then, my understanding is that the designation can be used if the partners are from British Columbia or, if they’re not from British Columbia, they’re members of a body — that’s CPAs, CAs or CMAs — in a different province or Bermuda. So just Bermuda, other provinces and, then, not the rest of the world? It just seems very odd to me.

[1620]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that we’ve talked about 40 accounting bodies being included in this for the purposes of correspondence. There are three, of course, in each of 13 jurisdictions in Canada, adding up to 39, and the 40th is Bermuda.

K. Corrigan: It concerns me. I mean, I don’t know about the standards of Bermuda or what the taxation rules are, what the disclosure rules are, or what the accountability rules are in Bermuda. What it sounds like to me — what it could be — is that head offices are going to Bermuda for tax reasons, and that this is basically saying to the accounting world: “Look, you’re going to have your head office in Bermuda. We’re going to allow you to shelter tax, and we’re going to say that we’re going to give you a particular ability to do that by saying that you can be called a CPA in British Columbia if your head office is in Bermuda, because we know it’s a tax haven.”

That would be my reading of it, but maybe I’m…. I’m asking that. I shouldn’t say that’s my reading. That’s what I wondered about.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This concern, of course, is valid. It turns out that Bermuda has adopted Canadian accounting standards, which makes it an orphan unless it’s part of a larger accounting phenomenon. This is not related to corporate structures and cash flow of accountants so much as the application of accounting standards. The Canadian standards will be applicable in the 39 — three times 13 — bodies in Canada plus, as I said earlier, No. 40 in Bermuda, where they seek to be part of the disciplinary regime and the management regime in Canada.

K. Corrigan: Are there a significant number of accounting firms that are headquartered in Bermuda?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To our knowledge…. We are unable to answer that at the moment, but from life experience it turns out that Bermuda is, as the member alluded to, a place where companies often seek to incorporate. But the international accounting firms tend to be partnerships of partnerships, and so it really doesn’t make much difference to them in terms of their tax treatment.

This inclusion of Bermuda is to provide the opportunity for Canadian accountants and those trained on Canadian standards to work interchangeably. So a Canadian accountant could work in Bermuda because they are working in the same tax rules. Obviously, they have different income tax rules, because it’s a British colony, but nonetheless, the accounting standards applied are interchangeable. So someone who is qualified in Bermuda could work in Saskatchewan with not too much difficulty and vice versa.

K. Corrigan: Just maybe one more question on this. Is the minister saying that the inclusion of Bermuda is not because the laws of Bermuda are favourable, including the tax laws? Is the minister saying that’s not the reason for this?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The entire working premise of this statute, of course, is regulation of behaviour of accountants and their ability to obtain a professional designation, not about their income. That would be covered in taxation legislation. One can expect the accountants to do clever things there, but this legislation has no effect on their locale of income or where their income would flow. This truly is directed at their professional standards and the portability of professionals between jurisdictions.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that. This act may not deal with taxation, but it does give the ability to account-
[ Page 6387 ]
ing firms to have members who are — and perhaps even a majority of members in an accounting firm — attached to or practise out of Bermuda.

[1625]

Obviously, that was put in there because there was a specific request by the accountants to include Bermuda as opposed to the United States or any number of countries in Europe that I would presume would have similar accounting standards and rules. So I just want to get this clear — whether or not this is because the accountants wanted this, for whatever reason. You know, what the reason is for the inclusion of Bermuda as opposed to other places.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m advised that this is because Bermuda has harmonized its accounting standards, with their CPA designation, with Canadian standards rather than choosing American or British standards. This has some logic to it in that the related 40 bodies that are using the same accounting standards are seeking to have the same disciplinary regime and the same professional structure. As I said earlier, it bears no reflection on where income is recorded or where they’re deemed to be resident for tax purposes.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’m glad to hear that. The minister just said that it has nothing to do with taxes. I’ll take the minister at his word.

Is the minister, then, saying that there are not other jurisdictions which also have the same accounting standards? There’s only a certain number of accounting standards, and I’m wondering if the minister is, then, saying that there are not other jurisdictions that would fall in the same category as Bermuda.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite is right in that there is some degree of universality of accounting standards at the basic level, but then there are, above that, generally accepted accounting principles. And then, above that, there are national standards. Bermuda, being a very small jurisdiction, rather than generate its own standards, decided to adopt Canadian standards. The 30,000 accountants in British Columbia would be readily transferable between Bermuda accounting rules and British Columbia and Canadian accounting rules. So this is really a portability issue rather than anything to do with taxation or residence.

K. Corrigan: I’ll ask one more question on this, unless I just have to ask another one after that.

Is the minister in the last answer, then, saying that there are not other countries that have adopted the same accounting standards? I appreciate the answer that this is more than talking about just GAAP, that it’s more specific than that. There are not other countries that would be similar to Bermuda that would also benefit from being included?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Bermuda has, as I said earlier, adopted Canadian accounting standards and formed a formal affiliation with the CPA body that is recognized across Canada that leads to this legislation. So on the current state of play, there are no other jurisdictions that seek to be affiliated with CPA standards in Canada. Therefore, no other jurisdictions appear here.

Section 44 approved.

On section 45.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move the amendment to section 45 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 45 (4), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(4) A Subject to section 44 (1), a person must not use or display the designation “professional accountant” or the initials “PA” signifying that designation or, in any manner, imply, suggest or hold out that the person is a professional accountant.]

Amendment approved.

On section 45 as amended.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister could please just read out the amendment. I’m sure I’ve seen a copy, but I don’t have it with me. Is it here?

[1630]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps we could take a moment. It’ll be much easier if the member opposite has the amendment in front of her.

K. Corrigan: We’re back now to discussion of section 45. Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that.

Section 45 deals with the use of designations. That would be the CPA or the other designations that we’re talking about. Subsection (1)(b) says: “Except as authorized by this Act, and in the case of legacy designations, as authorized or required by the bylaws, a person must not…use or display in a language other than English a designation or the initials signifying a designation that is equivalent to the corresponding designation or initials referred to in paragraph (a)….”

I’m wondering why it is that there is a prohibition on using a language other than English.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that French designations, as we know, can be very different and confusing to the public. If an individual were to be perhaps conveniently using a designation from another language group, it might appear as “CPA,” which could cause diffi-
[ Page 6388 ]
culties. The premise here is that a person must not put up a sign and say: “Oh, my name followed by ‘CPA’ is just a title I picked up in Romania or South Africa. There’s no harm to be done.” If one is holding oneself out as a CPA in this province, one must be a chartered professional accountant.

K. Corrigan: I may have misinterpreted the intention of this subsection, because I would have thought the operation of it was that what is being prohibited is translating “CPA” into, for example, Chinese characters or Dutch or something else. Is that not the result of this section as much as what the minister was referring to?

[1635]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member points out a very interesting point. We’ll have to get back to her tomorrow.

K. Corrigan: I’m not sure that tomorrow we’re going to be back in this place to discuss this legislation. I suspect that we’ll probably finish — a little bit later than I expected, actually, but we will finish today.

I do want to make the point that it looks to me that whether or not it was intentional, what this section says is that the designation “CPA” has to be in English and only English, which I find could be problematic.

When I think of the great number of people in British Columbia who come from a variety of backgrounds and who might not be able to read English…. It would create confusion, I would think, for an individual who didn’t speak English, as much as, on the other hand, I think the point of the section is to avoid any confusion or any possibility that somebody could use a translation as a way to avoid this strict requirement that there be a proper designation.

On the other hand, maybe this wasn’t the intention. But it does look to me like it prohibits using anything but English. In our multicultural society, that’s problematic and could create confusion. I’m not sure if the minister has anything to say about that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re endeavouring to get the answer as soon as possible. Perhaps what we could do is move on and come back to the section.

The Chair: We’ll stand down on section 45 and move to section 46.

K. Corrigan: I’ve still got another question on 45.

The Chair: Okay.

K. Corrigan: This is a different subsection of section 45. Again, this has to do with the use of designations.

Section 45(2) says that “a person must not, in any manner, imply, suggest or hold out that the person is a certified public accountant or a certified public auditor or use or display the designation ‘certified public accountant’ or ‘certified public auditor’” unless they are, essentially, chartered professional accountants.

But there are CPAs that are in existence. First of all, the CPAs are not merging in this merger. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise of subsections (c) and (d) is…. The member is correct that the term “certified public accountant” has been used for many years in the United States. The concern here, as stated in subsection (c), is that if an individual were to put out their name, saying that they are so-and-so CPA from Oregon, they would have to put “(Oregon)” behind that to make it clear that they are not a chartered accountant here, but they are, rather, a certified public accountant from the United States.

K. Corrigan: But do we not have certified public accountants who became certified public accountants in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That designation has not previously been used in Canada — the CPA letters.

Fortuitously, I can answer the earlier question in that we’re advised by our legislative analyst that the effect of subsection 45(1)(b) is that if one is authorized to use the letters “CPA” by the CPABC, one can use it in another language.

[1640]

K. Corrigan: Going back to section 45(1), then. It says a person must not: “(b) use or display in a language other than English a designation or the initials signifying a designation that is equivalent to the corresponding designation or initials referred to in paragraph (a).” Does that only refer to designations that are not from Canada?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We apologize for the delayed clarification of this.

The opening phrase “Except as authorized by this Act” governs the situation that we have been grappling with in that we understand that the entire section is designed to protect and limit the use of the CPA designation here in British Columbia within the terms of the act. The premise is that if one is a CPABC, one can advertise that in other language scripts. That is entirely permissible, and the section is designed to capture those who are not entitled to hold themselves out as certified professional accountants here in British Columbia.

The somewhat mysterious drafting of this section is also challenging for this side, as well as that side.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that. It does refer back to subsection (a), which then refers back to several subsections of section 44. So I’m going to have to go back and go through it. My reading, as I’ve read it so far, to me would not allow that.
[ Page 6389 ]

I actually missed the first phrase that the minister used in saying that that would not apply in this case. I don’t think I need to continue on with that, if that’s the assurance. That’s the way I read it. If that’s the assurance from the minister, then I’m fine with that.

I wanted to go back to the use of certified public accountant and just finish up with that. What happens to those people who are certified public accountants in British Columbia? Are there any that are certified public accountants but would not have the ability to put the Oregon, which is the example that the minister used, behind their name? What would happen to those people that have been certified public accountants but…? Would everybody that is a certified public accountant in British Columbia have the ability to put something beside their names that would protect them so that they could continue to call themselves certified public accountants?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In answer to the member’s question, the section has the effect of obliging an individual who is not a CPABC member or from a corresponding jurisdiction across Canada to define the jurisdiction where that title came from. As mentioned earlier, perhaps having “(Oregon)” behind them.

In order to clear the air, we’re advised that the use of the designation other than in English is covered in section 44(8), which is reassuring to both of us.

[1645]

Section 45 as amended approved.

Section 46 approved.

On section 47.

K. Corrigan: This section talks about what the practice of professional accounting is comprised of. It includes performing an audit engagement, an assurance engagement or a certification, declaration or opinion with respect to information related to financial statements. Is this anything different than would have been in the legacy legislation or framework?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This section is new. It does not appear in the legacy statutes. It’s designed to capture the three different engagements associated with financial and statements of business.

First of all, audit engagements, which we’ve discussed earlier; review engagements; and, lastly, compilation engagements. This is designed to define the core aspects of accounting for disciplinary reasons and for practice entry reasons and to clarify the services that pose a higher risk to the public so that third parties can understand what they’re entitled to and what they’re getting when they engage a CPA.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that.

Is there anything in there that seems to gather a little more turf than was already in the scope of practice of either CGAs, CMAs or CAs?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that this was not an expansion of designated turf. It was more a matter of defining the existing core turf or mandate or practice scope of this profession as embodied in the CPA designation.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (2) says that only a chartered professional accountant member in good standing can perform the services that we briefly touched on. It’s a fairly long description. We didn’t go deeply into it, which is fair enough. But then subsection (3) says that the restriction that I just talked about — that it has to be a member in good standing — doesn’t apply to students if they are “under the direct supervision and control of a chartered professional accountant member in good standing,” a corporation or a registered firm. Would that be any different than the practice in the past?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is not a change from prior practice, but it is a codification and compilation of the current state of practice in this field, which helps, of course, to clarify who is entitled to do what rather than perpetuating any controversy over turf.

K. Corrigan: When it talks about direct supervision and control, this is no different, then? I mean, there’s always a concern that a student is doing too much work or that you would have a firm that has many students who are doing the work. Is there any concern at all that this is the right way to describe it? What kinds of controls are in place in order to ensure that…? Or are there any controls to ensure that direct supervision is adequate and that there are standards related to that supervision?

[1650]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This actually has some parallel to the development of a law, in that there’s been the common-law approach, if we want to call it that, of what direct supervision constituted and whether students were under the direct supervision of their masters or principals. This is effectively a codification of the existing practice. The term the member points out, “direct supervision,” will need to be sufficiently codified in their bylaws.

K. Corrigan: This subsection as well, subsection 47(3), says that the requirement that the person doing the work needs to be a chartered professional accountant member. The exceptions include: “(c) an employee in relation to services provided to her or his employer or in her or his capacity as an employee of an employer that is not a registered firm.”
[ Page 6390 ]

I’ve just got a big question mark beside that. What does that mean? That seems very, very wide, and I really don’t understand it.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This anticipates the scenario where a company of some substance has individuals within the firm whose task is to perform the compilation of accounting materials. Because they’re an employee only working within the confines of the firm — that is, the company — and they only report to people inside the company, there is no liability. The employee would not be sued by their employer if there were any error or omission.

That makes perfect sense, in that that employee may well be someone who chose not to complete their final examinations or who formerly worked as a freestanding accountant but decided to go into a firm and let their designation lapse.

They have many skills which need to be utilized in our society, but they bear no liability because they’re an employee. Their employer cannot sue them or seek to have them disciplined, because they are only performing the tasks their employer wants them to perform.

K. Corrigan: It sounds to me like the minister is essentially saying the equivalent, in the legal field, of in-house counsel. But my reading of that section is that it could be wider than that, that it could be used in a variety of circumstances. A company that is not a registered firm but is holding itself out to be an accounting firm could have somebody in it that is providing these services.

It just looks to me like it’s pretty loose. I understand what the minister is saying that that is supposed to say, but to me, it could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Maybe the minister could assure me that that language is tight enough to ensure that that’s the only type of situation that could apply.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The key word here is “registered.” If it is a registered firm within the terms of the act, then it would be an accounting firm. This provides that the employer cannot be a registered firm.

We’re talking here about a large company, a utility, government — those situations where some of this accounting-related work needs to be done but the individual doing the work is not a member of CPABC. They may have been in the past. They may have elected to discontinue their membership, but they can still provide valuable services to their employer, so long as their employer is not holding themselves out as an accounting firm.

Sections 47 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.

K. Corrigan: Section 50 is the beginning of part 7, which deals with practice reviews, investigations and hearings. It’s an important part.

[1655]

I don’t have many questions about the first section — just to flag that this is what this part is about. I will have a few questions as we go through here.

With regard to this first section, the definitions section, subsection (2). My question is: does subsection 2 mean that former members — and I know there’s later reference to it — can be investigated? I looked through the various sections, and I just want clarification about whether or not former members can be investigated through the investigation processes in hearings and so on as long as…. I know there’s a further section that says six years but they can be investigated. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The definition in section 50 under “respondent” means “any of the following is subject to a hearing.” One can substitute for “former member” a CGA, a CMA or a CA under the legacy legislation.

The working premise here is that the disciplinary functions of those three legacy bodies will disappear and that anyone with those prior designations, who perhaps decides to quit before becoming a CPA, is still subject to discipline.

K. Corrigan: Then I would assume that would be subject to the later section, which has a limitation period of six years. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 50 approved.

On section 51.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if maybe the best way to deal with this…. We’re dealing with practice reviews, and then we’re talking about investigations and hearings and so on. Maybe the best way to get through this more quickly would be to get a little bit of an overview of when practice reviews are used as opposed to investigations, as opposed to hearings.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Practice reviews differ from investigations because they focus on competency in the practice of accounting rather than on conduct issues. They can only be conducted in relation to practices of current members and registered firms. The CPA Act will establish a separate process for professional accounting corporation permits. Corporations holding those permits will also be subject to a CPABC practice review process.

K. Corrigan: Because the two different sections…. When we get on to talking about hearings, it also refers to fitness, professional conduct and so on. I’m at a bit of a loss
[ Page 6391 ]
to really understand what the difference is. Maybe a bit more about when a hearing would happen and what the difference would be with a practice review. And what’s the difference between a practice review and an investigation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: A practice review is designed to go over an accounting practice to determine — where there have been any problems, where there’s been a suggestion of a problem, but it’s not clear entirely to the disciplinary body — what is going on.

Investigations, on the other hand, are conducted to determine whether grounds exist for a disciplinary hearing. So an investigation is a much more substantive process than a review.

K. Corrigan: With regard to the reviews, investigations and the hearings, is this essentially a rollover from one or more of the three legacy organizations, or is there anything significantly new in this?

[1700]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that this is an updating and codification of provisions in all three of the legacy statutes.

K. Corrigan: Going back to the statement earlier from the minister that the practice review was to deal more with competency. Just looking, again, ahead to section 53 — and I apologize because I know we’re not on that section — it says that a hearing may inquire into the competence “to practice or professional conduct of a respondent and decide whether the respondent” is incompetent, unfit or “has committed professional misconduct.”

I’m wondering if some of those criteria are the same in both and have to do in some cases with competency as opposed to misconduct. So I’m wondering if the hearing would be used, when we’re talking about competence as opposed to misconduct…. Well, actually, professional conduct can be a review as well. Is it, then, partially a matter of the degree of severity that we’re talking about as opposed to the subject matter of the review or hearing?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the member opposite is on entirely the right track in that an investigation can lead to a hearing, as provided in section 53, into competence, fitness to practise and whether or not there has been professional misconduct — all of which could lead to serious restrictions on practice, penalties and public display of the conclusion from the hearing leading to potential liability.

On the other hand, a review is perhaps more like the equivalent that’s been undertaken by the College of Physicians for about the last 20 years, which is: where there may be a suggestion that a review would be required for one reason for another, the reviewer could have the authority to meet with and enter the practice of the individual to discern whether or not there are issues.

The premise of an investigation is that there is a suggestion of a serious issue that needs to be investigated, and of course that leads to all kinds of potential for involvement of legal counsel to determine the proper parameters of such an investigation that could go to the core of one’s professional abilities, whereas a review is a much lighter touch.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the patience in discussing this in the questions. I think it’s important to understand what it’s going to look like.

From looking at the sections, though, it looks like what could happen and may happen regularly is that the start would be or could be a practice review or an investigation, and then after that, once the evidence has been gathered, that could lead to a hearing. Is that correct?

I’m just trying to get a sense of what the…. If somebody is involved in a practice review, they have obligations to provide information. But if it later turns into a hearing, my guess is that the member would want to have much more protection and perhaps legal protection. I’m just trying to get a sense of how the pieces fit together.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The parameters of a review would be outlined in the joint bylaws of the three bodies. They will, of course, be developing those with their interim board.

The member is correct. This is an important step, and this has been an evolving phenomenon in professional practices in the last 20 years in that some individuals ask to have a voluntary review to see if their practice is up to snuff, to make sure that they’re up to speed. Other reviews may be requested by the professional body or imposed. Of course, if a review disclosed some substantial errors, malfeasance or competence issues, then that could obviously turn into an investigation and a hearing.

[1705]

In this kind of world, if it proved to be a competence issue due to illness, for instance, then there would probably be some kind of voluntary result from that rather than a formal hearing leading to disciplinary proceedings.

K. Corrigan: In serious cases of misconduct, presumably this process…. There are penalties that can be very serious of up to $100,000 for a corporation, $25,000 for an individual. Presumably, that could all lead to…. There could be criminal or civil penalties as well.

I’m just wondering a little bit about… Again, I am putting sections 51 to 53 essentially together. At what point, if at all, would legal representation for the member come into play? How does that fit in with the requirements that members provide information — they share information, they let the investigator or the reviewer see their records and so on — from their business? How does legal representation fit into this?
[ Page 6392 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, any person in our society can seek legal counsel at any point. I think what the member alludes to here is if an individual found themselves subject to a review or investigation, at what point could they retain counsel? The answer is at any point.

Legal counsel may help to expedite the entire process rather than seek to slow or preclude it. One of the key issues for legal counsel for a respondent would be to challenge the jurisdiction of the reviewer or investigator. So these sections are designed to give the statutory jurisdiction that’s necessary for a reviewer or investigator to make the inquiries they need to, to protect the public interest.

Sections 51 and 52 approved.

On section 53.

K. Corrigan: We’ve actually probably covered most of the questions that I have with this section. It talks about hearings. Essentially, the hearings are a serious matter. It would be done by way of a panel. After a hearing, the member could end up being suspended, reprimanded, having their membership cancelled, conditions imposed or fines and so on.

Would it be expected that if somebody got to the point of having a hearing, they would probably have a lawyer available? Would the lawyer be able to take part in those proceedings?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member essentially alludes to Charter rights. The individual would be able to retain counsel at any point. Whether they are represented by counsel at the hearing is not specifically addressed in the statute. They would be enabled to invoke their Charter rights and have legal representation there.

These hearings would unfold within the parameters of the statutory jurisdiction that the act would provide. I think the member has pointed out that there’s no particular trigger in here for legal counsel. The individual may decide they want it early, they may decide they can’t afford it, or they may decide that they have no need for legal counsel.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister, then, saying that at a hearing, if there was legal representation, there would be the ability to cross-examine, ask questions — things like that? Or is this a different type of process?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Those parameters would be set out in the bylaws. One can imagine that there may be some disagreement between legal counsel for a respondent and the hearing panel itself, which may lead to deliberations by the panel on submissions from counsel about the role of counsel there. But that is beyond the scope of the current statute.

[1710]

K. Corrigan: Just one more question on these sections, then. What is the practice now? At these panels, which I presume exist at the moment — at least perhaps with the chartered accountants, maybe with the other designations as well — is legal counsel involved? Can they be involved in the hearings now? Do they get involved in the proceedings by asking questions or interceding in other ways?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: For reference, the existing ICABC bylaws provide for the panel structure, including the fact that the disciplinary panel may retain counsel. Obviously, if one side can retain counsel, then the respondent can also retain counsel. The parameters of the hearing process are laid out in fairly broad terms, not like a Law Society hearing so much, where they are laid out in clear terms. But there’s a procedural basis in the bylaws for the conduct of the hearing.

K. Corrigan: Just to clarify, if that is the case now that there is the ability to have legal representation both by representing the body and the individual as well, does that include cross-examination and questions from the lawyers, or not? That’s just a curiosity. If you can’t answer right now, I’m happy to get that later, but I’m just interested.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The existing ICABC bylaws provide that in conducting the hearing, the panel shall allow the parties to be represented by a member or members of the Law Society of British Columbia. They do not specifically outline the conduct of the hearing in terms of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, but one can well imagine that in a procedural fairness approach, counsel would likely insist on that.

The Chair: The member has no further questions on part 7?

K. Corrigan: No, I do.

Sections 53 to 56 inclusive approved.

On section 57.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move the amendment to subsection 57(5) standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 57 (5), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(5) A member of the board who takes part in the decision under subsection (1) must not sit on any hearing or appeal review on the record with respect to any matter in relation to which the member of the board exercised the power of decision.]

Amendment approved.

On section 57 as amended.

K. Corrigan: I could stand up and suggest that I was go-
[ Page 6393 ]
ing to ask about that very thing, that I foresaw it, but in fact, I did not. So I’ll ask the question I was going to ask. And that makes sense — the amendment that I’ve just read.

I just wanted to ask a general question about extraordinary suspension, which is what section 57 deals with. Essentially, what it says is that if there’s a determination or a belief that it would be prejudicial to the public interest to delay a hearing concerning a member, I guess the board can appoint a panel to consider whether or not the membership of that person should be suspended or the permit of a professional accounting corporation should be suspended and so on.

[1715]

Just maybe a bit of an overview of whether or not this is something that has existed in the past with any of the three legacy designations, whether or not it’s new, and a little bit about how it would operate.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Two of the three legacy acts do provide for an extraordinary suspension. The rationale for this is that a specially convened three-member panel could immediately suspend a member from practice. One can conceive of situations like small strokes or brain tumours or serious mental illness, where this could be invoked on an urgent basis.

The premise is that there are some procedural fairness issues here to be dealt with and that a board member taking part in an extraordinary suspension is not permitted to participate in any disciplinary hearing or appeal related to that decision.

This truly is an extraordinary remedy in the case of the public interest being in jeopardy because of a rapidly evolving situation. One can also anticipate reports of fraud that would lead to an extraordinary suspension.

Section 57 as amended approved.

Section 58 approved.

On section 59.

K. Corrigan: Maybe this question will be with regard to section 59…. Well, I’ll just start with section 59. I’m just wondering if the minister….

This is part 8, “Custodians.” Sections 59 through to 66 deal with custodians. I’m wondering if the minister could explain what the intention is. In what circumstances would it be appropriate to have a custodian appointed and acting?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This entire section, as the member opposite notes, is new. It’s designed to provide a process that enables the CPABC to obtain a court order appointing a custodian for an accounting practice — a member of a registered firm or professional corporation where they’re currently active or formerly active — in certain very specific cases which give rise to concerns about protecting the interests of clients and the public — and, of course, protecting their assets as well.

Sections 59 to 70 inclusive approved.

On section 71.

K. Corrigan: Part 10 has to do with transitional provisions, repeals and consequential amendments, which are fairly significant, given that what we have here is the merger of three professional accounting bodies into one. So there are some pretty significant transitional provisions here.

Actually, 71 is just the definitions. I’m going to leave it for a couple of sections here.

Sections 71 and 72 approved.

On section 73.

K. Corrigan: Section 73 provides for transition to have an interim board, and this is one that I think is worth discussing. The minister has said, when we’ve talked about a number of sections, provisions and parts of this act, that what’s going to happen is that, essentially, the bylaws of the new merged board are going to be determined, at least initially, by the interim board. So I think the makeup of that board is important.

[1720]

First of all, section 73 provides that the members of the various boards for the CGAs, the CMAs and the CAs are dissolved and then that there is the creation of an interim board. The makeup is six people that were on the board of governors under the CGAs, six people who were on the board of the CAs, and then three people who were on the board of CMA, and the minister is appointing the last three.

I’m just wondering how it is that we came to that. I’m also particularly interested in the fact that there are only three coming from the CMA group, as opposed to six from the CGAs and the CAs.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The relative numbers of practitioners in each of these legacy bodies are reflected in the number of persons appointed to the board on their behalf. So the CMA population is roughly one-half of each of the CA and CGA populations.

K. Corrigan: Then the appointment in subsection (b), that the minister “may appoint up to 3 persons to the interim board of directors of the CPABC who are not members of a former entity on the date this Part comes into force and may set the term of their appointment.” Why is that section there? Why three people who weren’t on any of the boards?
[ Page 6394 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The basis for this is that the public interest must be protected. We would be loath to see a situation where the 15 members chosen from the legacy organizations decide to set up an interim board which was highly exclusive or designed to restrict entry to practise or that did not keep in mind that their primary obligation is to the public interest.

The premise is that we’ll have three appointments to the board on behalf of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council so that that public interest can be protected. Of course, to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest, they cannot be members of those three legacy entities. One would assume that we’ll be on the search for retired accountants who have perspective on their profession but have no, to put it bluntly, skin in the game at that point.

Section 73 approved.

On section 74.

K. Corrigan: Section 74 says that “the initial bylaws made by the interim board appointed under section 73 come into force when the bylaws are made.” Is this the source of the authority, then, for what the minister has referred to often in these last couple of days when we’ve been dealing with this — the fact that this will be the source of the new bylaws of the merged chartered professional accountants board?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 74 approved.

On section 75.

K. Corrigan: Section 75 is a transitional section that deals with property liabilities and agreements. Subsection (1) says, “All property, rights and interest of each former entity continue to be the property, rights and interests of the CPABC,” but subsection (4) says: “The amalgamation of the former entities does not constitute an assignment by operation of law, a transfer or any other disposition of the property, rights and interests of a former entity to the CPABC.”

[1725]

My reading of the first subsection is that the property is going to be merged, and the rights and interests and so on are going to be merged. I’m not quite sure what subsection (4) means, then. First, confirmation of what the first section means and then what subsection (4) means.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The intent of subsection 75(4) is to avoid triggering capital cost issues, property purchase tax — all those kinds of transactional hurdles that occur when there is a transaction between two arm’s-length entities. As the member correctly points out, subsection 75(1) is designed to vest that property in the new entity, and subsection 75(4) is designed to avoid triggering the transactional costs of that transfer.

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying, then, that all the property is going to become one but what would be for most organizations transactional costs that are associated with that don’t accrue to the CPABC. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That’s correct in that the goal is in continuing the property rights under subsection 75(1), no transactions will be triggered, and subsection 75(4) is just for clarity to make it clear that there are no transactional taxes or fees to be triggered by this merger.

K. Corrigan: Well, if that subsection (4) wasn’t in there, what would happen? I’m just seeing it, and I may be misinterpreting what seems to be a benefit to the members of CPABC which wouldn’t accrue to other organizations that decide to merge. What would be the cost if that subsection wasn’t there? What would be the types of costs that would accrue if subsection (4) wasn’t there?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: One of the primary concerns is that contracts they may have for property or for photocopier leases and all those other numerous things that are part of office work may find themselves with a prohibition on assignment of rights or obligations from the assignee. This is designed to avoid that step by simply replacing the name of one of the three legacy entities in those contracts with the new entity, CPABC, to avoid triggering a whole series of commercial headaches and tax liabilities.

K. Corrigan: Well, would other organizations…? If three corporations were to merge, would they have the benefit of saying: “Well, you don’t have to pay those transactional costs”? I mean, I know it’s different. This is a governing body. I’m just not sure why legislation should be given to CPABC that other organizations wouldn’t have.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is not uncommon in amalgamation of entities, particularly public interest bodies. The primary focus of this body, of course, is to protect the public interest. Extra transactional costs imposed on them will slow down their work, drive up the fees and, in fact, not serve the public interest. So this is, as I say, in keeping with the general practice dealing with amalgamations.

K. Corrigan: I do appreciate that there is a difference between a body such as this and simple corporations. I was just trying to understand it. I’m certainly not disparaging the CPABC. I’m just trying to understand why that provision would be in place. I thank the minister for that.

This doesn’t mean, though, for example…. I think they talked about photocopying leases. That would not in any way negate the obligations that the three organizations
[ Page 6395 ]
have at the present time. It wouldn’t negate any of those contract obligations.

[1730]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct. Perhaps the simplest metaphor is changing one’s name on marriage. Not a lot changes, except the name.

Sections 75 to 104 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 4 — CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTANTS ACT

Bill 4, Chartered Professional Accountants Act, reported complete with amendments.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTANTS ACT

Bill 4, Chartered Professional Accountants Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading on Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. Polak: Amendments are proposed to two acts, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act and the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, which we passed in November of 2014. The majority of the amendments in this proposed bill are to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act and continue to do what we do on an annual basis.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The proposed amendments add lands to four class A parks as a result of private land acquisitions: 86 hectares are being added to Octopus Islands Marine Park; 84 hectares added to Small Inlet Marine Park as a result of a private land acquisition on Quadra Island; 109 hectares are being added to Bodega Ridge Park on Galiano Island as a result of two private land acquisitions, and further, 38 hectares of foreshore fronting the existing park and the additions are being added to this park; and 1,219 hectares are being added to West Arm Park in the Kootenays.

In addition to these private land additions, lands are being added to two other class A parks. Two hectares of land are being added to Denman Island park as a result of the administrative transfer of Crown lands from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. The boundaries of E.C. Manning Park are being modified. Approximately 2.06 hectares are proposed to be removed from the park to enable the replacement of the three Cambie Creek bridges on Highway 3 by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. To mitigate this deletion, the amendments add approximately 3.2 hectares from an unused highway right-of-way along the Skagit River to the park.

Bill 8 also proposes to change the names of two parks, Haynes Point and Okanagan Falls, to reflect the traditional Okanagan First Nation names. This proposal falls in agreement with the Osoyoos Indian Band as part of this government’s goal of reconciliation with First Nations.

[1735]

Finally, the amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act make a number of administrative corrections and improvements to legal descriptions, as follows.

The name of Burges and James Gadsden Park is being corrected to rectify an error dating back to 1965.

The description of Omineca Park is being moved from schedule C to schedule D of the act so that the enabling provisions of section 30 of the Park Act, which grandfathers pre-existing uses, apply. This will allow for the continuation of three range tenures that were in effect on the establishment date of Omineca Park and approved by the land use plan.

Megin River Ecological Reserve is being moved from schedule B to schedule A, as an official plan has now been prepared for the ecological reserve.

The written metes and bounds descriptions of five parks — Carmanah Walbran, Strathcona, Sulphur Passage, Wells Gray and White Ridge — are being replaced with legally mapped boundaries and official plans,
[ Page 6396 ]
which are much more understandable to most people.

A number of area figures for parks are corrected primarily as a result of improved measuring and mapping techniques, and one corrects a spelling error in the Cariboo River Park description.

As noted, this package also amends the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014. The amendments propose to correct two administrative errors in the description of Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park. A First Nation font and a degree symbol are missing in the description.

These are the amendments in Bill 8, and I move that the bill now be read a second time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for moving this legislation.

As folks will know, I’m a big fan of parks, and New Democrats are big fans of parks after, of course, reaching the big goal of 12 percent of B.C. protected in parkland and, going one further, 13 percent of B.C. being protected as parks.

Why is that so important? Well, it’s important for a number of reasons. It’s important because species rely on untrammelled, untrampled, unindustrialized, uncondo-ized nature — native, wild places. Not the kinds of places that we find here in Victoria or downtown Vancouver but places where they can live without us human animals getting in the way.

Of course, we rely on our parks, as well, for humans to reconnect with nature. That’s why I’m excited that this bill is both responding to concerns that people have had about needs to improve parks, why it’s improving things like legal designations and why, in the case of Manning Park, we’re not just losing park space to roadways. We’re actually regaining park space in another area. It’s vital that we not chip away further at our park system, that we protect it and value it.

There are a number of parks here that I’ve visited, had the joy of exploring, that are now becoming parks. They weren’t before, when I may have visited the areas before. I think of Denman Island Park, a park which has expanded. I remember when we first brought it into the provincial park system here a number of years ago. Now that’s being expanded further, and that’s exciting for that community.

I think of up on Quadra Island. My colleague from the North Island had certainly worked hard, along with a community group, the Save the Heart of Quadra Parks organization. I’m told, and I have certainly heard from those that have worked with that organization, that the late Judy Leicester was very, very invested in saving those pieces of land from logging and reached out to the ministry after years and years of work.

Finally, we’ve been able to see that that park has expanded. The heart of Quadra has been saved in good measure because of the actions of citizens — citizens standing up for nature, standing up for an incredible canoe trail, I’m told, that you can portage through. One day I will get there. I have not visited that park yet.

There are a lot of parks in this province, and slowly and surely, my husband and I are working our way through, ticking off a number every summer, not because we have a checklist we want to get to, but there are just so many incredible places to be to renew our spirit, to get in touch with nature.

Too often I think in this day and age we get focused on our laptops, our iPhones, our Blackberrys, our buzzing electronic devices, and we forget to breathe. We forget to connect with nature, and indeed, that has separated us from nature. I have a great benefit in my community of having the Stanley Park Ecology Society, which very much focuses on reconnecting with nature.

[1740]

For too long we’ve believed in dominating nature rather than being in relation with nature. That’s led us to make some rather disastrous decisions long term.

This bill, I think, is important because it certainly expands parks. It protects more areas. Citizens want that. Citizens demand it. And nature needs that support.

I would say that some challenges with our park system today, and this bill does not do anything to address those challenges, are with connectivity. We have a real challenge for species where we protect a park, and then it becomes a little island where the creatures, the species, get trapped, in essence, because everything else around that park may have become urbanized — may have had roads, bridges, etc., industry, cities or what have you built up around them.

Then the species that are there may not have enough land to actually live. They may not have enough land to actually do what they, through their biology, require. Certainly I’ve heard about that in the Kettle Valley area, where the Kettle-Granby grizzly bear has found its habitat really challenged. It has some parks, but they’re not connected. So when it leaves the park, it’s no longer protected. Certainly, that has proven a challenge to that population of grizzly. We’re not planning by ecosystem or planning by biology of the animal but too often planning by circling little dots and little lines on a map.

I would hope that as B.C. Parks and as the Ministry of Environment move forward, this government will really take into consideration the needs of the animals that are in those parks and the needs of the species that are in those parks, whether it be animals, whether it be lizards, whether it be bumblebees, birds and bees, flowers and trees — on and on you go. If we don’t, we really risk creating population islands that, if you have one outbreak of a disease or one wildfire, you could lose unless we build resilience into that system.

Another challenge that B.C. Parks put forward to the Minister of Environment, on November 14, 2014, is that financial pressures in recent years have “forced B.C. Parks to shorten operating seasons, eliminate park ranger pos-
[ Page 6397 ]
itions, reduce preventative maintenance and implement other program cuts.” And we’ve seen that. We’ve seen that in our parks across this province, where you’ll go for a hike and discover the door on the outhouse has fallen off or an important boardwalk to make a park more accessible for people has broken through, increasing safety and liability issues. Those things occur.

Certainly, it’s a big park system, so you’re not going to be able to get everything right away, but there are some things that you need to address. Parks should be safe places. Wild places, certainly the backcountry, are not always the safest places, so don’t get me wrong. There are places that not everybody is going to be able to go in this great, vast province of ours. But we should be doing what we can to invest in our parks to make sure that they are safe where they need to be, that they are accessible where they can be and that they are certainly places that you can feel proud of.

I love the park system that we have. But when you cut 60 park rangers, as the government did in 2010, that makes it so that you can’t as effectively protect the wild spaces. You can’t as effectively stop poachers, stop people from cutting wood and from going through, as we’ve heard in some areas, stripping out plants that they can then sell on the market, whether it’s the flower market or medicinal or what have you. We have heard of a number of cases of people doing that and getting away with it. There’s nobody around to see what’s actually happening in the parks, and I think that’s a real challenge.

It has not been a priority of this government, unfortunately. Some will say they can’t manage the parks they have now, so why are they expanding them? Well, we know it’s vital to protect areas and that the system we have doesn’t quite do that well enough.

I think that while we consider the need for our parks and for protected and conservation areas, we also need to consider how we better manage and how we better support those areas. Maybe it’s just to say that certain areas, of course, as we have done, are off limits. But in order to do that, to stop somebody from coming in, whether it’s on an ATV or a snowmobile…. In some cases, there are caribou. I know one of the parks, West Arm Park, is supposed to help the southern Selkirk caribou populations. We need to find ways to better support those creatures to have the space they need.

[1745]

With our big brains and our ability to get anywhere now, with vehicles that seem to be able to now manage to get up steeper and steeper slopes and into more and more wild spaces, we sometimes need to take a step back.

There’s been a movement to re-wild certain places. Now, B.C.’s pretty wild, but I think of what they’re doing in the United Kingdom these days. They’re talking about re-wilding the United Kingdom. Why are they doing that? To try and find a way to connect back to what we have here and what is threatened in many places here.

They introduced beavers in England. They tried to get rid of beavers in England. Why did they do that? Why did they get rid of them all? Well, they were nice to wear on hats. That was one of the reasons they did that. But they also fundamentally didn’t understand beavers’ importance in stopping flooding. They didn’t understand that.

They thought they were responsible for all sorts of problems. In fact, by getting rid of the beavers, they managed to get rid of the fish. They managed to make the fish disappear. They managed to get rid of a whole bunch of other creatures that relied on that circle of life. That’s something we do not want to see in this great province of ours. That’s why parks are so important, as well as protected areas and thinking on an ecosystem basis.

I want to thank the constituents, the citizens of British Columbia who stand as friends of a number of parks, who work as volunteers to improve our parks, who support parks through fundraising, through donations, through keeping their eyes out, who support our parks by getting out into them, bringing their kids out to get to see them.

I think of a number of young kids that I got to meet this summer out at Cape Scott Provincial Park — the northern tip of Vancouver Island — and the wonder that they had. They weren’t amazed because they had an iPad app that could do something incredible. They were amazed to see phosphorescence in the water. They were amazed to see kelp. They were enjoying creating interesting sandcastles and other kinds of things that people do so well in our parks, learning about risk, learning about independence, learning about how to take care of each other while mom and dad were off in the distance further down the beach.

It’s that kind of wonder that I found as a child in B.C. Parks that I think we need to think about and find more ways to get more people to be able to embrace that in parks while managing their impact. So I’ll be supporting this bill. We will be wholeheartedly supporting this bill on the New Democrat side. I’m glad this has come forward.

I’m also happy to see that, finally, a historic injustice is being addressed in the southern Okanagan. It’s a challenge, and I know it was controversial amongst some. But in speaking to First Nations in the South Okanagan, the Osoyoos Band, as well as archaeologists and other…. What they’re finding at Haynes Point is really incredible and speaks to the history of this land long before we arrived as settlers.

It’s important that we recognize that history and that we recognize that living people have connections to the folks, to the remains, to the historic things they’re finding at what is now formerly Haynes Point. Parks in many places have been used to shut people out — to shut First Nations people out, and indigenous people in many nations across this world, because they were set aside as game preserves.
[ Page 6398 ]

As we industrialized, these were areas that could be saved for, at the time, the elite. Well, we know now that parks are about everybody, and they should be about everybody. They should be about the wild places and the wild creatures as well.

We have to acknowledge the history of long occupation on this land by First Nations, and I think that what they’re doing in southern Okanagan is very important. It’s controversial, I know. I certainly have read the articles, but I think it’s the right and the just thing to do.

With that being said, I would urge the government to invest in B.C. Parks. Find better ways that we can support our parks. Find better ways that we can connect them ecologically so they’re no longer just little islands of protection but expressions of our belief that this wild place, this “super, natural British Columbia,” can continue to be that way for many, many years to come, for generations upon generations.

We’ve been given a gift. It’s time that we stand up for our provincial motto, “Splendour without diminishment.” That’s what we should be doing for our parks and our wild places. I’m pleased to support this bill.

A. Weaver: This is one of these pieces of good news that we sometimes get to debate and discuss here in the Legislature. It’s a very fine bill, one that I, too, will be pleased to support. Increasing our parks through collaboration with First Nations and community groups is something that should be applauded, and I thank the government for bringing this forward.

[1750]

Increases to the size of Bodega Ridge Park in Galiano, close to home here, by 147 acres through the acquisition of two pieces of private land is a good piece of news for the residents of Galiano Island and others.

I do have a question that I will pose now. I’m hoping that, as we ponder this bill and we move forward to committee stage….

I have amazing and wonderful staff that I have the pleasure to work with. What they did was they added up all the numbers in the differences between the proposed protected areas now relative to the ones that existed in the act prior to the introduction of this Bill 8 here. The problem we have is a good problem to have. It’s that when added up in here, we see that about 19,494 hectares will be added to B.C. parklands, whereas the government press release says that 1,500 hectares will be added.

I don’t know where the difference is, but I suspect it comes from a difference in the size of Wells Gray Park, which, when one compares the present bill with the previous bill, increases by 16,526 hectares. I think the government, frankly, has undersold the good news in this bill. I think it’s actually….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Some cynical members to my right are doubting that, but the numbers actually suggest that even more parkland is added than was initially thought. In that respect, I’m very supportive. I hope to have some clarification of that as we move forward.

You know, too often in this place these pieces of good news are lost because they’re not controversial. There won’t be controversy. They won’t make the news. There was a little bit of news. But this is a good bill. It’s supported by environmental groups. It’s supported by First Nations. It’s supported by community groups. It’s a good thing.

With that, I’m very pleased to speak in support of this bill, and I look forward to it passing rapidly through this Legislature.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley. [Applause.]

B. Ralston: I’ll have to wait a minute until the applause dies down.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to use the occasion of the bringing of this bill before the House to talk about B.C. parks. Speaking as a representative of Surrey-Whalley, I know that my constituents enjoy B.C. parks as an affordable place to take a vacation, to camp — and, on occasion, even to hunt, but not in B.C. parks. Everyone knows that families particularly enjoy camping.

When my kids were younger I remember going out on family vacations. Spending time in a tent didn’t particularly thrill me, but the kids were just overwhelmed with excitement and interest at just the prospect of being in a tent in a campsite, sitting around the fire and eating one of those camp meals that one eats.

B.C. parks are really an intrinsic part of the experience of citizenship in British Columbia, and that’s why it’s a shame that that doesn’t seem to be recognized to the degree that it should be by the government.

Following the speech of my colleague, the spokesperson and the member for Vancouver–West End…. He cited a freedom-of-information request where B.C. Parks made representations to the minister and the Ministry of Environment for the budgeting process.

What they said is the following, that financial pressures at B.C. Parks have “forced B.C. Parks to shorten operating seasons, eliminate park ranger positions, reduce preventative maintenance and implement other program cuts. The organization cannot continue to operate at the current funding levels without seriously encroaching on other budgets within the ministry,” or further reducing services.

Often one hears from senior public servants that if one wants to expand a program within a ministry, you’re encouraged to — and I think the expression is — find the money within your own budget.

[1755]

That’s what’s being referred to here. If the ministry decided to expand the budget for Parks, they would be obliged to take that from other budgetary allocations within the ministry. In other words, no extra money for anything to do with parks.

I think that’s something that the public doesn’t particularly support. I think people now understand and are prepared to pay money for camping reservations and even for firewood and campsites — those sorts of things. But increasingly, there are charges for parking at parks, and those are going up. It’s something that eats away at the affordability of a fairly affordable family vacation for people, many of whom I represent in Surrey. I think that’s regrettable.

It’s a view that’s shared by others. The spokesperson for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society of B.C., Peter Wood, who’s the director of terrestrial campaigns, said the following: “We remain concerned that B.C. Parks are underfunded on the whole and unable to ensure adequate monitoring and enforcement or visitor services.” The budget is $31 million, the annual operating budget, largely unchanged over the last 13 or 14 years. Hence, the requirement that park fees increase.

Again, this is a credible, widely based organization that has expressed these concerns about the operation of B.C. Parks. I would encourage the minister, perhaps too late in this budgetary cycle but for the next budgetary cycle, to consider some of the representations that are being made.

In addition, there’s a group of retired park employees who have banded together and see it as their mission — I think because of a kind of accumulation of life experience and their life’s work — to make representations and to monitor what happens in B.C. parks. Again, they have expressed concern about the park legacy, about the neglect of maintenance, about the degree to which our natural heritage and the opportunity for citizens to enjoy it at an affordable price is being threatened.

Finally, in concluding, I want to make mention of the Octopus Islands Marine Park addition, which the minister referred to. I want to compliment the partners who contributed to the land purchase. It’s an addition of 86 hectares, I’m advised, and a number of partners contributed to the purchase, including Merrill and Ring Forestry LP; B.C. Marine Parks Forever Society; Save the Heart of Quadra Parks; and Vancity Community Foundation, supported by Vancity credit union.

These are citizens or companies or organizations that have stepped forward, recognizing the profound ecological value. Quadra Island and that part of the southern coast is a really extraordinary, beautiful and gorgeous part of the natural environment. It’s really very encouraging that these groups are prepared to step forward and purchase that and make it part of this marine park, preserving it for all of us for generations to come.

I think they deserve special recognition and special commendation here in the Legislature. I’m sure that probably the government and the minister have already conveyed that to them, but I think it bears repeating once again.

I support the bill. I thank the minister for bringing it forward, and I’m glad to have had the opportunity to talk about the importance of B.C. parks to British Columbia.

L. Krog: I’m pleased, as are many members on this side of the House, to rise and pay thanks to the government for the introduction of Bill 8, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. Rather like one of my grandson’s favourite aspects of Chinese food, I’m going to be a little sweet and sour here. We’ll start with the sweet, and we’ll move to the sour.

[1800]

By sweet, I will say to the minister that any enhancement of protected areas in this province, in the face of climate change and world population increase, is a good thing.

I don’t think anyone in this chamber would ever suggest that those wise folks who managed to set aside Stanley Park would face any historical criticism for having made that momentous decision so very long ago. Certainly, no one attacks Teddy Roosevelt’s memory for Yellowstone, and I think it’s fair to say that no one is going to attack the government of British Columbia, whether it be Liberal or New Democrat, that preserves land.

I have a small sentimental attachment to the Okanagan Falls Provincial Park, but that’s only because it’s on the way up to See Ya Later Ranch, which is a wonderful vineyard in Okanagan Falls — although I rather thought Hawthorne Mountain was a rather pleasing sort of name myself. But I’ll be interested to see what the reaction is of folks up the hill.

However, it is entirely appropriate to recognize those aboriginal names of significant historic impact. It’s always intriguing to me that people are surprised that on natural habitation sites for aboriginal peoples, they discover that aboriginal peoples did actually occupy these sites for thousands of years.

In adding this land, I appreciate that the government has had to make, presumably, some financial commitment. I suspect that our critic will ascertain what the potential cost of these acquisitions were, but I’m going to expect that we’re talking no small amount of government dollars. I do appreciate what it costs to acquire significant land. Certainly, having been around in the ’90s for a while when, I might say with some small amount of pride, the volume of protected areas in the province was actually doubled under the B.C. NDP in its time, I appreciate what those costs are.

I know that when the province made a significant contribution — and indeed, the majority contribution — in the purchase of what is now known and was historically known as the Parksville Flats, the Englishman River estuary, that was no small expenditure. Likewise, Neck Point
[ Page 6400 ]
Park in Nanaimo, a well-used and well-loved park — a city park now but, again, acquired initially with provincial money — was a great enhancement as well.

Having said that, I want to move on to the sour, only for a moment. I don’t intend to be long today. I know the minister is listening to my words very carefully, because I have written to her, as has the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, the riding to the south. That is with respect to the Morden minesite.

If the province has money to acquire new properties, and I strongly encourage them to continue that policy, then surely the province will also give equal and important consideration to the preservation of the Morden mine tipple, which, as I’ve said in this House several times before, is in fact — next to one in the United States — the only remaining mining tipple in North America, that last remnant of the great age of coal extraction at that time.

I appreciate that some members may have concerns about preserving the industrial history of the province. But having said that, it was the discovery of coal in Nanaimo that essentially gave Victoria its greatest boost, which enabled Fort Victoria to become a coaling station for the world fleet.

So it strikes me that when we’re talking about the preservation of land, as the province has undertaken in Bill 8, important land that has significant importance for people living near it, for people who want to use provincial parks, surely the government should give equal attention to ensuring the preservation of an aspect of the province’s industrial history that is significant, that would preserve an aspect of our heritage and at the same time promote potential tourism and business opportunities for entrepreneurial people, just as these acquisitions will as well.

The more enticing the park — and certainly we’ve got some enticing pieces of land referenced in this bill — the more likely visitors will come. Visitors come. They bring money. They spend money. It’s all good for the economy.

[1805]

I would implore the minister, who obviously has access to some money in her budget, to do something with respect to the preservation of the Morden mine tipple before it disappears, because once it is gone, it is gone forever.

Surely, the minister would not want to be the minister that presided over an aspect of neglect by government that led to an aspect of our industrial history disappearing forever when, in fact, surely, we owe that much to all the wealth that was extracted, particularly out of the Nanaimo area, that helped build this province. Surely, we owe it to those who worked in that industry. Surely, we owe it to all the sacrifices that were made.

Enhancing that site would also provide an opportunity to recognize the significant numbers of workers who were killed in the mining industry in this province and in particular in Nanaimo. The disasters are numerous to record. Indeed, reference was made during the debate around the apology to the Chinese in this province for the head tax by various members about those who perished in mining, let alone the building of the railway.

Again, slightly off topic, but I ask the minister to continue to give consideration, as she’s obviously done to the preservation of important lands in the province, and to likewise give significant attention to the important aspects of our history that are soon to disappear if action is not taken.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of my constituents from Saanich North and the Islands. Not the least of reasons why is because one of these parks is in my constituency, the Bodega Ridge addition protected area, the result of two private land acquisitions totalling 109 hectares and a foreshore addition of 38 hectares. The additions extend the park across the width of Galiano Island, located in the southern Gulf Islands. It protects sensitive ecosystems, riparian areas, important habitat and sensitive shoreline area.

The park additions, as the minister well knows, are within the relatively rare coastal Doug fir biogeoclimatic zone. Hiking trails, enhanced recreational opportunities — the marine foreshore additions provide increased protection to the natural cultural and recreational marine values. The total area of the Bodega Ridge Park will be 397 hectares, 320 of which are upland and 76 of which are foreshore.

This is a real accomplishment. I do congratulate the minister and government for doing this. These kinds of acquisitions are so important, particularly in southwest British Columbia, which is under so much development and growth pressure. As my colleague has just said before, if we don’t take advantage of these opportunities to protect these special places, they will be gone forever.

I do want to mention and also congratulate the organizations, the conservation organizations, the groups, citizens themselves, who contribute to the acquisition. Very often land acquisitions like this are accomplished by partnerships of various groups. Conservation organizations have become quite skilled at cobbling together funds from various sources. That’s certainly true of Galiano. The Galiano Conservancy in particular is a very strong and effective advocate for protected areas on Galiano.

Also, the Quadra Island area and the marine additions around Quadra Island — a number of groups involved with that, including the B.C. Marine Parks Forever Society, Save the Heart of Quadra Parks, Vancity. Also, I understand the Sierra Club of British Columbia and Sierra Quadra were involved in that particular acquisition. My congratulations go out to all of the groups who work so hard, work with whoever they can, including governments at all levels, to protect these special places.

[1810]

Some of my colleagues have mentioned the problematic context, though, which these parkland additions
[ Page 6401 ]
occur within, and it is troublesome. The cuts to the number of park rangers, which we just found out in estimates — a 26 percent reduction since 2010. The degradation of maintenance in parks. It seems that while we are adding to our park system, we have fewer and fewer people to take care of them and fewer and fewer resources to take care of these special places. Bill 4, the legislation that was passed in the last session, in 2014 — where at least ten parks are being considered for boundary adjustments that would facilitate industrial development.

Our side of the House opposed that legislation. It was not even spoken of, really, during the 2013 election campaign. It was a surprise to many people. Government refused to take that bill out and consult with the public about whether it made sense. That kind of thing, that context, is very troublesome.

While we’re adding small bits and pieces here — and one must be grateful for small mercies — on the other hand, we do have the park system in British Columbia as a whole, in our view on this side of the House, being threatened by other legislation that’s going to facilitate industrial development.

I do want to end, though, on a positive note and echo my colleague from Nanaimo’s comments. He was mentioning opportunities for acquisitions in that area and encouraging the minister to continue to use whatever resources she has available to try and continue to add to protected areas, particularly in the areas that are subject to such strong growth and development pressures.

There are other opportunities in British Columbia. The Sacred Headwaters would be a brilliant acquisition if we could make that work. That’s under consideration by government now. The Okanagan grasslands national park proposal would be another excellent addition to the park system in British Columbia.

You know, I think this side of the House does have some credibility on this issue. As mentioned before, in fact, the three NDP regimes in British Columbia…. We haven’t formed government that many times, but we have created most of the parks, protected most of the land in British Columbia. So I do think we have some credibility when we speak on these issues.

There are opportunities within my constituency. One issue that I will get around to asking the minister about more specifically is the national marine conservation area proposal for the southern Strait of Georgia. That proposal was made in 1995. It’s been about 20 years, and it still seems to be in limbo. That’s a very important marine protected area — well, conservation area — not necessarily all protected but a very important initiative.

I believe the province has to be more of an advocate there. They have to be pushing that bus and not just following along with the federal government. We need to be more aggressive in pushing that proposal forward.

There are a number of Crown parcels in the southern Gulf Islands that subject to First Nations’ approval — and, perhaps, co-management agreements with them — would be excellent opportunities to add to our park system within my constituency.

There are a lot of opportunities. I understand the minister has modest resources, but my experience — and I do have some background in…. For example, the Burgoyne Bay protected area on Saltspring was established in the last days of the NDP regime, and I played a role in that.

There are opportunities there that one can take advantage of by cobbling together, working in partnerships, with sometimes very modest amounts of funding — and particularly where Crown lands are involved if you can get First Nations’ support. Possibly, one way of doing that is through co-management agreements with them. There are opportunities out there to be had, and I strongly urge the minister to do whatever she can to take advantage of opportunities when they arise.

[1815]

With that, again, I congratulate the government and the minister for establishing these new protected areas. It’s a good thing.

G. Heyman: It gives me pleasure to stand and speak to this bill introduced by the Minister of Environment to add to B.C.’s parkland. It’s certainly a different approach in this bill than the one we saw previously, which had a different impact on parkland. But this is, as other speakers have said, a good bill.

It’s a bill that should be commended and will be appreciated by British Columbians, not just for the specific actions in the particular bill but for the direction which it’s taking and the respect it shows for the value of parkland to British Columbians, young and old, and for the role that parkland and protected areas play, not just ecologically in British Columbia but in righting the balance of what many people have called a nature deficit among today’s younger people.

Like most British Columbians, I have spent many days and many pleasant hours in B.C.’s parks. By doing so, I’ve learned about the nature that surrounds us. I’ve learned about the balance. I’ve learned about ecosystems and wildlife. Like many British Columbians, I’ve travelled the province and found that a provincial park was, at the end of a day, a handy and affordable place to camp, to stay, to relax before moving on to other travels. By doing so, I and many other British Columbians have been able to delve more deeply into the nature of the very wonderful places and the variety that British Columbia has to offer.

We see this bill brought forward that reinforces the importance of parks to the heritage and life of British Columbia, the role of parks in making us all somewhat calmer and more peaceful. They establish within our consciousness that kind of connection that we need to have with the environment and ecosystems as we make other decisions in other places in British Columbia around development — choices around development and how
[ Page 6402 ]
we are going to bring that development forward in a way that respects the balance that we must maintain in our environment — the environmental values that we must protect, the land, the air and the species we must protect and the habitat on which those species depend. That’s all important.

By having parks, by having places to go where we actually experience the impact of relatively untouched nature, as well as some of the areas that are even wilder and allow the more adventurous to go hiking, we reinforce those values for British Columbians.

I said at the outset that I commend this bill. I’m speaking in favour of it. I want to open on a positive note, and I’ll also close on a positive note. But I do want to raise a couple of issues of concern in the middle of my remarks.

One of them is that as valuable as this bill is, it does remind me of the bill we debated in a different session that actually allowed alterations to parks and incursions on park boundaries for industrial development. It remains to be seen to what extent that will take place. We do know that there are a number of areas — ten parks being considered currently for boundary adjustments. That is not something we take lightly on this side of the House, it’s not something that British Columbians take lightly, and we’ll be watching that very carefully.

We don’t want to see our parks be something that can be protected and maintained only up to a certain point, and when a developer wants to move in, the boundaries will be adjusted or the values will be sacrificed or the integrity of our protected areas and parks will be in some other way put at risk.

I also want to note that since Environment estimates in 2010, as others have said, we’ve seen cuts in park ranger positions from 221 positions to 164. That’s a 26 percent reduction.

[1820]

It’s a bit of a contradiction to create more parkland while at the same time reducing the number of people who can watch over the parks and ensure that their integrity is maintained. I have been watching for much longer than just the past five years a systematic degrading of the park rangers’ service as well as other workers within the Ministry of Environment who, in a variety of ways, protect our environment, watch over the conservation of wildlife and species and ensure that all British Columbians and visitors to British Columbia treat these areas with the respect and with the integrity that they need and deserve.

It’s a matter of priorities. It’s a matter of values. I understand that government often places environment, parks and recreation farther down the pole of values and priorities. But if we’re serious about protecting parkland, if we’re serious about protecting nature, if we’re serious about maintaining the heritage that we’ve enjoyed — and that our parents and grandparents have enjoyed — for our children and grandchildren, we need to treat this with seriousness. We can’t treat it as something that can be maintained and watched over by a skeletal service. We need to ensure that that service is robust and has the resources that it needs to do its job.

I also note that the annual operating budget for B.C. Parks is $31 million. That’s not enough, as other commentators have said — many of them who work for the minister in the ministry. I would just simply comment on that by contrasting the $31 million, or $2 per hectare, that’s in the Parks operating budget with the fact that park fees continue to increase, which…. I’ve noted before that while camping in B.C. Parks is a relatively affordable experience for British Columbians who can’t afford to recreate or take vacation in more costly ways, it is starting to creep up, and it is an issue for many families, especially poorer ones.

I’ll also note that at $2 per hectare or a $31 million total operating budget, on the one hand, for Parks…. We also saw in this budget $20 million, or roughly two-thirds this amount, set aside for maintenance and upgrading of natural gas roads. I’m not saying those roads aren’t important. I’m not saying that they don’t need to be upgraded. I am saying that they are remote, that they’re for the benefit of a relatively prosperous industry, and that contrasts for me and many others very starkly with a bare-bones budget for the ministry.

Let me close with a couple of other positive notes. First of all, I want to note that the renaming of parks in cooperation with the Osoyoos Indian Band to give them their traditional names, recognizing their significant cultural value to the Osoyoos Indian Band’s traditional territory, is a good initiative. I expect we’ll see other initiatives like it in the future. We should all commend it, and we should take pride in it, because it connects us not just to generations of immigrants to this country but to the people who had a connection with the land, which we are trying to maintain in parks, since time immemorial.

Finally, I would like to comment on the Octopus Islands Marine Park addition and the Small Inlet Marine Park addition on Quadra Island.

I want to give particular thanks to the minister for helping to make this happen. I know this was a long-term project. It seemed to many people to take many, many years to happen, but I know that she was instrumental in making it happen. By doing so, she made very many people who had worked toward this end on Quadra Island very happy. It was a good culmination to years of community effort and fundraising to try to complete that marine park. So she deserves recognition for that.

The other person I want to note, although many, many people had a hand in this, is an old friend of mine named Judy Leicester. Judy was an activist in Sierra Quadra Island. That’s how I met her, when I was active in Sierra Club B.C. She was obviously also very active in the Quadra Island Conservancy.

[1825]

The completion of this park was her passion. She devoted countless hours of energy in the final years to making it happen and, tragically, died after a severe but short illness mere months before this came to fruition. Judy would be very pleased with this part of this act, as will be her many friends and family on Quadra Island who will take particular pride in her accomplishment and in this bill today.

I just want to ensure that Judy Leicester’s name lives on in connection with this bill in the record of this House. With that, I’ll take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close debate.

Hon. M. Polak: I’m pleased to hear what I think is broad support for this bill and look forward to that support as we move ahead on the motion for second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole house to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I now move committee stage debate on Bill 3, the Building Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — BUILDING ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 6:29 p.m.

On section 1.

D. Eby: Just before I begin, if I might take an opportunity to thank the minister’s staff. Obviously, they’d be staying late anyway on this kind of thing, but I know that hanging in limbo for a bit, for half an hour at the end of the day, can be a different story. So thank you to them for their patience and for assisting the public in understanding this bill, and certainly the opposition.

[1830]

I’d like to begin with the definition of “administrative authority.” There’s a reference to “means the person.” I’m wondering whether this definition would include a corporate person, or this is intended to be a natural person that could act as administrative authority under this act.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just before I start, I thought I’d introduce the people who are with me today, who have been on standby since about 3:30 yesterday afternoon, actually. They were here, and so they’ve been back and forth. But they’re only ten minutes away, so when we saw the second reading take place, they were able to come over from their offices.

The person to my right is Jeff Vasey. Jeff is the assistant deputy minister, office of construction standards. Jeff has been on this file with me for, I think, at least seven or eight years, with regards to this work. He has been at this a long time. Christine Webb is the manager of building policy and codes development, building and safety standards branch, to my left. Then there’s Lee Nichol, further to my left, who is a senior policy analyst in the building and safety standards branch.

A person in the administrative authority is basically a corporate or a regular person. In a legal sense, it’s a standard drafting definition.

D. Eby: Under the definition of “extra provincial building credential,” there are two terms in this definition. One is “official recognition,” and the other is “another jurisdiction.” I will take them in order, and the minister can feel free to answer both at once.

Official recognition, I assume, is pursuant to some legislation on the provincial or municipal level, but if there is something else, I would like to know what the other types of official recognition could be.

Then “another jurisdiction.” Again, I’m assuming this would be another province or a city, but if that’s something else, I would like to know what those might be as well.

Hon. R. Coleman: That’s for qualifications that will be recognized across other jurisdictions. A bit of it is about labour mobility, other people’s qualifications. They may have professional qualifications that would also allow them to practice here — i.e., an architect who also has the qualifications to be a building official, those sorts of things. That’s to allow that labour mobility piece on qualifications to take place.

D. Eby: Actually, I don’t have any further questions on section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

D. Eby: Can the minister explain why the city of Vancouver has been excluded from the application of this bill? It seems to me that the largest city in the province…. You want a standard building code. Why are they not part of this?
[ Page 6404 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s pretty straightforward. The provisions of this act are applicable to all the jurisdictions in British Columbia, with the exception of Vancouver city. The city has its own code by means of the Vancouver building bylaw and the regulatory regime for buildings under the Vancouver Charter and is unaffected by these proposals.

The provisions of the act also do not apply to buildings in or about certain aspects. But it’s mainly the city of Vancouver, which has its own code. That’s under the Vancouver Charter, so they get a ride. It’s not just under this legislation, because the charter has lots other things that they’re exempted from because of the Vancouver Charter.

D. Eby: The second subsection there applies to buildings “in, on, or about a mine,” other than bunkhouses and cookhouses. Again, why would these buildings be exempted? Are they regulated in some other part of provincial legislation?

[1835]

Hon. R. Coleman: This was copied over from the Local Government Act — this particular piece of the section. The provisions of the act don’t apply to buildings in or on or about a mine. That would be…. If I’m talking mining, I’m probably talking about the area of the mine where you would actually be grinding with the mineral and then having the flotation. The copper mine, where it floats on the thing and all that, wouldn’t be covered. However, unless they’re bunkhouses, cookhouses, those sorts of things, they would still be covered under the building code.

D. Eby: Are those other facilities, then, covered under some other area of provincial regulation? Is there some sort of a code that stipulates building standards for these types of facilities?

Hon. R. Coleman: I should have just gone to the end of the sentence there. They are actually regulated. Those in particular are regulated under the Mines Act. That’s the provision that exists in the Local Government Act today.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

D. Eby: There are, I note, a number of different standards with respect to the regulations in this act, and subsection 3(1) illustrates this. There are some that are the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There are some that are the minister. Before I get into the question, I just want to clarify that that is actually a difference with a distinction, that it’s not a difference without a distinction.

My understanding would be that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is cabinet, and then the minister is the minister. But I would first like to save us all a lot of time if I’m wrong on that. If they are all cabinet, that would be helpful to know. When it says “The minister may,” is that referring to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or is that referring to literally just the minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is nothing in this section that actually gives any…. There’s nothing about the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is the minister’s regulation which is….

Just so that we are clear, and just for the member opposite, the Local Government Act allows a minister to make regulations, regulating building generally for matters not including the building code. This general ministerial power to regulate building has been in place for 38 years. It was transferred from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the minister in 1977 in an amendment to the Municipal Act. It has been there ever since.

The language in section 692(1)(d) appears verbatim in the 1979 consolidation of the Municipal Act, which is in the B.C. Statutes of 1979. Since 1977, there have been 17 Ministers Responsible for Housing who have had this particular authority.

D. Eby: That was a blowout answer. That was far more than I expected to receive, actually, in the level of detail. I thank the minister for that, and his staff as well — very helpful.

Subsection (a) gives the minister the authority to establish one or more building codes. I thought this was to establish a single provincial building code. Why “or more building codes”?

[1840]

Hon. R. Coleman: The current, existing building code basically deals with new buildings.

We find that as we move forward now to looking at the age of buildings and things for renovations and those sort of things, to be able to upgrade some of the building code in and around those, to try and get the things where we codify in renovation — things like better doors, windows, R-factors, those sorts of things — we’re going to need additional code work with municipalities and our folks to be able to do that. This gives us the ability to do that.

D. Eby: Subsection (b) creates the opportunity to regulate building for “matters not included in a building code.” I would assume this would include regulations for builders — actual construction workers, contractors — but I might be wrong about that. Maybe the minister could clarify “matters not included in a building code” that are anticipated as being regulated under this head.

Hon. R. Coleman: This doesn’t have anything to do with contractors or building people. There only is one sec-
[ Page 6405 ]
tion that deals with the qualifications of building officials. Builders for the residential side for units under four are licensed builders in B.C. under the Homeowner Protection Act. They have to be a licensed builder. This piece of legislation has nothing to do with that. It’s just the code.

The reason for this is new technical requirements. One of the examples…. The language has actually been carried over again from the Local Government Act. In this case, it’s been in place for 36 years, dating back to the Municipal Act.

It ensures that we have the authority to make regulations like the “solar hot water ready” change, which isn’t right now in a building code. It allows us to add something like that to the building code. As innovation comes along, changes — things like cross-laminate beams, higher buildings and those sorts of things — will be able to be built into the code by administered regulation.

D. Eby: I think I understand now. On first reading, section (a) seems to give the minister authority for establishing building codes, and then section (b) reads also authority for regulations around anything not included in a building code. It seemed to be absolutely everything in the world related to building, but now I understand that section (b) is actually for greater clarification of section (a).

There may be matters not in current building codes that you would wish to include later, and this is just to clarify the extent of the power in subsection (a). Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: That’s correct.

D. Eby: Subsection (2)(c)(v) does seem to create absolute authority for the minister with respect to regulations, in the sense that the minister can create a regulation in “any other matter that the minister considers necessary or advisable.” Can the minister clarify any potential restrictions that there may be or whether this is as wide open as it appears to be in terms of creating a regulation-making authority for the minister?

[1845]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to clarify, that’s basically circumscribed within the descriptions of this particular section — things that will need to be added to the code — but not broader powers outside of that. Basically, it’s to capture…. Within this section is not only administrative regulations; it’s circumscribed things that might not be caught in a specific definition, in the first subsections of that. That allows us to do that.

D. Eby: Was there a reason why the drafting wasn’t such that the power was any other reasonable matter rather than an absolute discretion on the part of the minister, or is it the understanding of the minister that case law is such that that reasonableness requirement is imported into this authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: From our drafting through the legislative process, our understanding is that reasonableness is implicit.

D. Eby: Moving on to section 3(2)(d), there is a reference to requiring that building activities be performed by “persons in specified classes of persons.” This is underneath that building code authority regulation-making power. Does this section now refer to builders or contractors, or is that simply not part of this at all?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually already in there, but basically, it has to deal with engineers and architects, not contractors again. There’s nothing in this about the qualifications of builders, because we have the Homeowner Protection Act for the licensed builder piece and that sort of thing. The engineers and architects are really the ones that this is talking about.

The code’s always had that in there, because basically, it allows for classes of persons such as registered architects and professional engineers to carry out building activities or the administration requirements that are prescribed by this section. That’s in the code today, and that really is what that’s talking to.

D. Eby: Moving on to section 3(2)(i), I did not understand this section. Why solar domestic hot water systems? What is this about? I don’t know if the minister can clarify why this specific building code provision might have been pulled out separately and included in this manner.

[1850]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is something that was actually caught in the drafting of the new Building Act. Basically, there was an unauthorized delegation that had been given to local government to do this. Caught during drafting was that we had to put something in here to fix that. This fix is basically allowing local government, who are named in the schedule to the regulation, to require that single-family houses in their jurisdiction be constructed to accommodate the future installation of solar water systems.

That goes back to a number of things a few years ago about the greening of the building code. Local government wanted that. The delegation was given, but evidently in the drafting review it was said: “Well, you actually have to put that delegation in there now, because it wasn’t properly done at some point in time.”

The section of the regulation to authorize delegation to the minister’s authority was made in error. This enables these local governments to decide not to apply the requirements if they are satisfied the specific site is not suitable. Subsection (2) validates this subdelegation so that in this one instance these local governments can continue to exercise that authority.
[ Page 6406 ]

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

D. Eby: In subsection 5(1) there is an exemption for treaty First Nations and the Nisga’a government. I can certainly guess, but perhaps the minister can explain why treaty First Nations and Nisga’a have been exempted from this act?

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ll read you the quick explanation. We may want to get into that a bit more. I don’t know. We might want to rise and report progress and deal with this tomorrow.

Basically, subsection (1) provides that this section does not apply to treaty First Nations and Nisga’a Lisims Government — part of the treaty process. Section 6 continues the existing mechanism for these local authorities to establish varying building code requirements, because of the treaty process and the treaties.

I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. McRae in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $380,457,000.

The Chair: Good afternoon. Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. S. Thomson: I look forward to the opportunity to start the estimates debate. I’m pleased to rise again as Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to debate the estimates for this important ministry.

I’ll introduce the staff that are with me first. Initially I’m joined this afternoon by Deputy Minister Tim Sheldan, by our assistant deputy minister of corporate services, Trish Dohan, by our assistant deputy minister of integrated resource operations, Gary Townsend, and by our director of compliance and enforcement, Kevin Edquist.

Given the size and the scope of the ministry, I know that I’ll be joined by other staff on a regular basis as we move through the various parts of the ministry, so I appreciate the patience and the cooperation of the members opposite in making those adjustments when they happen. I’ll try to make sure I introduce the staff when I do that process.

I also want to thank the members opposite for working with our staff in roughly laying out themes and an agenda for us. It helps us manage our staff complement in the process in support. That was very much appreciated. I know it’s sometimes a bit fluid, but again, I really appreciate that upfront cooperation in how we work through the various parts of our ministry.

The budget and the throne speech both talk about the need to focus on a diversified economy. The forest industry, forest sector, continues to look bright. In 2014 forest products exports totalled $12.4 billion, representing 35 percent of all B.C.’s exports and a staggering increase of 63 percent since the 2009 downturn.

Direct employment has increased in the industry to 60,700 direct jobs, from a low of 50,000 direct jobs in 2009. Over the next three years we’re forecasting direct forest revenues to rise from $757 million today to $907 million in 2017-18. That’s more money to support vital services that British Columbians have come to rely on.

[1440]

However, we know that for forestry to remain a strong economic contributor, we need to continue to have the policies that support that investment. Just as B.C. needs a diversified economy, B.C.’s forest sector also needs diversified markets. We’re world-renowned for leading forest products and high-quality wood products. To keep us globally competitive, as mentioned in the throne speech, my ministry will be working with the industry on a forest sector competitiveness strategy.

In addition to forestry, the ministry also supports other resource development sectors by issuing authorizations necessary for natural resource projects to proceed. We’ve
[ Page 6407 ]
reduced backlogs in mining, notices of work and Land Act and Water Act authorizations. Now we’re committed to maintaining turnaround times for those authorizations.

FrontCounter B.C., with 29 offices around the province, is the main intake and processes over 59,000 applications annually. We’ve gradually been moving more applications on line to speed processing times, and we’re providing a greater transparency on our processes so applicants can attain timely decisions.

We recognize that B.C.’s natural resources provide environmental and social benefits as well as economic benefits. About 37 percent of B.C.’s land base is under some kind of conservation designation, ranging from provincial parks to wildlife management areas and wildlife habitat areas. Nature-based tourism, whether hunting and fishing or on our network of recreation sites and trails, supports our economic growth.

We recognize that resource development needs to be managed sustainably, and to that end, we’re continuing to implement cumulative effects assessment framework. By looking at resource development activity on a given geographic area, decision-makers can make better, more durable, informed decisions.

Budget 2015 also highlights another very significant project that I’m proud that we were able to achieve, part of our mandate, which is to be able to, effective April 1, provide all the revenue from the sale of fishing licences, which will be redirected to the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. to enable them to take on more conservation projects. We project that this will mean an additional $10 million to the society over the next three years.

We’re very proud of that organization, that model. It has demonstrated a real success in helping enhance freshwater fisheries in British Columbia, and we’re pleased to complete the mandate and provide them with all the resources from those revenues.

Budget 2015 also provides $22 million over three years to the ministry to support implementation of the Water Sustainability Act.

With a budget of $608 million for 2015-16, I look forward to continuing to work in having this sector, across forestry and across the natural resource sector, contribute to the positive economic growth in the province — positive resource development, positive resource management for this province.

We’ll be continuing our strong work with all of our stakeholders — all of our partners in the industry and in the sectors — across our ministry to ensure that we can continue to meet those objectives.

H. Bains: It is my privilege, and in fact an honour, to stand here and talk about an industry that fed my family and gave me a very good life in British Columbia.

Before we go into what we are going to talk about, I just want to introduce my colleagues here: the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and the member for Cowichan Valley. Both of them will be helping me through the estimates. They all have a vast amount of experience in the forest industry. In fact, all three of us can say a lot about what forestry has done for our families.

I think, for that matter, most of B.C. families can say that. There are so many family-supporting jobs out there. There used to be a lot more than what we see today. They could say the contribution that forestry has made in their lives.

[1445]

During the course of these estimates — this is my seventh or eighth year now doing this — I just want to, first of say, say thanks to all of the staff that are here. I know it can be very, very painful sitting through many of these questions, where you could be saying that you could be doing a lot of other productive work in your work.

During the estimates, I also want to add, sometimes the discussions gets a little heated. Sometimes we draw some weaknesses in the industry, a weakness in the ministry. I just want to make it clear to all of the staff members that are here: nothing reflects on you and your ability to do what you are doing out there — nothing.

It’s all about the minister and the government. I think he’s got broad shoulders and that he can take much of that on his shoulders. It’s not about staff. Without staff…. You are doing outstanding work out there, I must say and be on record. It’s the policies. You work with what you’re given. I think that’s where we will be directing a lot of questions.

There are so many weaknesses in the minister and this government. I think sometimes the questions may seem directed at you, but it is all about the minister and the government because that’s where all the decisions are made. I think if there are any faults, it’s his fault and his government’s fault, and all the good work is to your credit. I must say that.

I also want to say this. I started in the forest industry in 1973 as a chain puller at Eburne sawmills. That mill stayed there until about 1998, when it was permanently closed — the only Canfor sawmill left on the coast at that time. They did have a pulp mill, a partnership with the Japanese, in Port Mellon, but they did have about 1.5 million cubic metres of AAC. It caused a lot of concerns at that time. But we have moved way far from that point where the appurtenancy clause used to exist, the cut control used to exist. That kept much of the activities in those communities, because of the appurtenancy and the cut controls, even during the down times.

I worked in that mill until about 1989, and then I was elected to my local union office, and I worked full-time as an elected union official until I got elected to this thing. Then I think life went downhill from there, I must say.

During that time when I was at Eburne, when I started in the 1970s, our IWA local was geographically made up of, mainly, Vancouver. Boundary Road used to be the boundary for our local, and it extended all the way to the U.S. border and to the North Shore. In that particu-
[ Page 6408 ]
lar area we had 7,500 members all along the Fraser River, False Creek and North Shore. Guess what. Since that time, lucky if in that particular geography we have over 200 or 300 members left in there in the forest industry. That’s the trend I could see going.

Then our local, we merged with the loggers local and became Local 2171. Between the two locals we used to have about 11,000 members. Today not only did those two locals merge; they merged with Local 80, and they merged with the Courtenay local. Today all of the locals together — I think they represent all of the Island, except Port Alberni local, and all of the coast — we would be lucky to see if 4,000 members are left, including logging and sawmilling. That’s the state of the forest industry that I’ve seen during my time since I started in the forest industry.

[1450]

I think you can blame a lot of that on a lot of different reasons. The technological change was a big part, in the 1970s and ’80s. Then I think we see in the last 14 years a lot of policies of this government that allowed that industry to deteriorate to the point where we are at.

Yes, for part of that you can blame the United States. For part of that you can blame the market and the softwood lumber dispute — a number of things. The Japanese market is not what it used to be. But I think we will be talking, through these debates, about a lot of weaknesses in government policies that actually caused the forest industry to deteriorate to the point it has deteriorated.

I must say that there’s a huge potential out there in this industry. I remember, I believe it was the 1980s, one of the government officials at that time said: “Well, it’s a sunset industry.” Sometimes I wonder whether this government feels that way as well. They make all kinds of announcements. They make all kinds of good statements to say, “No, it is not. It is a sunshine industry of our economy,” but their actions basically seem, to me, that they have given up on this industry.

They allow the industry to do whatever they want to do, hardly any foresight. There is so much staff cuts, resulting, first of all, in a cut in resources. Then that leads to staff cuts and putting so much pressure on all of you that are given the responsibility to keep this industry alive again and keep it maintained.

We heard during the tour — a member here and three of us from the NDP side, and there were four members from the Liberal side…. We toured the Interior, the Special Committee on Timber Supply. We’ve seen it, and we heard it, that some of the inventory….

I mean, it’s not your fault that the inventory isn’t there. You’re doing what you can do with the resources you’re given. But we’ve heard that some of the inventory is completely obsolete in some of the districts, like 30 years old. We heard that through the briefing that was given to us by the ministry staff.

I think that just shows that when you keep on cutting the necessary investment in the industry, then something’s going to give. We’ve seen that decisions, perhaps, are made…. Professional foresters will tell you that some of the decisions are being made in the dark because they don’t know what exists out there. The decisions are made on the AACs based on the information that should be much, much more current.

I think all of those things will be talked about here today, tomorrow and perhaps Monday. So what I’m saying is that there’s a huge potential — the potential of making this industry once again the engine that will drive our economy, not just another industry of this province.

We will talk about the NSR. We heard that during our tour — two million hectares of NSR out there. Perhaps, if you add all of the others, some people figure as much as maybe eight million or nine million hectares NSR. It’s because some numbers are put together on some of the ministry papers, but there are people out there who are saying it could be much more, much worse than what we are told.

Can you imagine how many jobs that will create — having reforestation and tree planters working in that area in good-paying jobs, family-supporting jobs — not only today, but can you imagine that inventory to be calculated for the future AACs? Right now we’re missing the opportunity by not replanting the NSR the way we should be. We’re not investing enough in forest health as much as we should be doing.

I think those are so many things that we will talk about. That’s just one of the examples of how some of the opportunities are squandered at a time when we should be actually nurturing our forest industry that built this province for 150 years. We are neglecting it.

We understand there are two different industries — the coastal industry versus the Interior industry. They are completely different. But at the same time, you sometimes wonder.

[1455]

On the coast we have more fibre supply than milling capacity. Then you go to the Interior. We’re advised there is more mill capacity than we have fibre supply available. But in the meantime, you’ll see some of the charts here. We have an excess of fibre, but the number of mills is supposed to go down. I mean, 6.7 million cubic metres of logs were exported in 2013 and almost the same amount in 2014.

Here we are talking about, in British Columbia, more mills to be going down. In fact, the Nanaimo mill got shut down just recently. We have more fibre available here on the coast. So where is the argument that we don’t have a fibre supply and that’s why mills are shutting down? It does not make sense here.

It’s just because the government has allowed the industry to run this industry on their own, without any oversight, without any accountability. The people of this province, who own those logs, who own our forest industry, are left holding the bag — no more jobs. And there’s no future for many of them in the forest industry.

I remember back at Eburne. We had two or three gen-
[ Page 6409 ]
erations of people working in there. But can you imagine somebody now telling their children to go and work in the forest industry because there’s a bright future? There is, but they don’t see it that way right now.

I think there’s a real wake-up call here. It’s the government who should be showing the leadership and showing the industry what direction this industry is supposed to go. We should be, through government action, making those logs available to our manufacturers first before they are allowed to be shipped out.

We know the minister overruled his own timber export advisory committee over 100 times — over 100 times. You can’t say that there’s a surplus test, that the only logs that are leaving this province are not needed for our local consumption.

I think there are so many weaknesses here. It all comes to this government and the direction that they’re taking.

I will be really interested in exploring a number of these different areas with the minister. I want to thank in advance all of you who are here to help us and find some of those answers. Like I said, it’s the government who makes those decisions, and you are just working with what you have. So don’t take this negatively on you, because you are doing the best that you can under these circumstances.

Unless my colleagues want to make some openings….

B. Routley: No. Ask your first question.

H. Bains: Okay. Let’s go, then.

My first question to the minister is this. Perhaps the minister could explain…. Will the minister confirm that the forest revenue is projected to increase over the coming three years from $757 million in 2014-15 to $835 million and then $866 million and then $907 million in the following years?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I respond to the first question, I’d like to echo the comments made about the work of staff. We have great staff in the ministry, and I really do appreciate everything that they do every day.

[1500]

Just to confirm the numbers, yes, the revised forecast for ’14-15 is $757 million. Budget forecast ’15-16 is at $835 million, ’16-17 is at $866 million — those are target numbers for ’16-17 — and ’17-18 is $907 million.

H. Bains: My next question is…. In the 2014 estimates the minister stated that the land-based investment funding for 2014-15 was $63.8 million, up from $42.3 million in ’13-14. What is the land-based funding for 2015-16?

Hon. S. Thomson: The number for ’15-16 is $62.8 million.

H. Bains: Can the minister explain why there’s a decrease in that budget?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to talk a little bit about how that…. At this point the number is an estimate, for the $62.8 million figure that I referenced. Right around the edges of LBIS, there’s a little bit of fluidity. We’re still planning the program for the LBIS, so fertilizing projections are coming in and those sorts of things.

[1505]

This number, the specific number that’s referenced currently, compared to last year, shows that it was a little bit different. But the intention is that it would be essentially the same budget as last year. As we go through developing the plan for LBIS, it shifts a little bit. The intention is that it would be the same budget as last year.

H. Bains: Thank you for the answer. But you know, one must wonder. You have $63.84 million, which is up from $42.3 million. That was ’13-14, so there’s a significant increase. But going forward, although you’re saying these are rough numbers, you must have arrived at those numbers by using some data, some programs. Now it shows that it is on the decline by $1 million, at least, as I see it. Inflationary pressures alone would require that you would be talking about maybe a bit more, not less. Why is it that it’s less than this year?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, with the land-based investment funding, at this point for ’15-16, $62.84 million. As we refine the program and look at what all gets brought into it as the program elements….

As you know, the LBIS funding is used for reforestation areas impacted by mountain pine beetle; restoring vulnerable grasslands; restoring range and land damaged by wildfire and pest infestations; priority forest health issues; improving inventories; activities to support priority fish stocks; mountain caribou; moose management planning; and recovery planning for species at risk.

All of that is built in as we refine the program over the year. At this point in time, when we’re not into the next fiscal year, the estimate that is for $62.84 million…. The intention is that the budget for the LBIS will be essentially the same level as the previous year.

H. Bains: The budget for regional operation is increased by about $5.5 million this year. Then going forward, there’s an additional budget. Can the minister explain this $5.5 million? What is that additional budget for?

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: The regional operations net increase is, as the member pointed out, $5.581 million. That is made up of a number of elements — $3.66 million for implementation of the Water Sustainability Act. That’s bringing additional capacity and staff resources in for the implementation of the act, our responsibilities there. Approximately $1.38 million for collective agreements. And $900,000 for additional capacity and work related
[ Page 6410 ]
to the transfer of head leases from Port Metro back to the ministry.

H. Bains: Can the minister explain? You talked about $1.38 million for collective agreements. Which collective agreements, which employees, are you talking about?

Hon. S. Thomson: The amount referenced there is, as you know, within the ministry. We have a number of bargaining units within the ministry, complex agreements. This amount is to incorporate all of those units. I don’t have the specific breakdown between the various units. That’s information that we could provide as a follow-up. But it’s to provide the capacity for the ministry to manage all of those agreements across the range of bargaining units that are within our ministry.

H. Bains: Yes, I would appreciate it if the minister could provide us that information. Perhaps tomorrow when we’re here.

The next question is…. So $900,000 — I believe the minister said it was additional capacity. Can the minister explain what that means?

[1515]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member may not be aware, or may be aware, that there’s going to be a transfer of administration of the Fraser River head leases, which were previously managed by Port Metro, back to the ministry. Upon expiry of the head leases at the end of December — December 31, 2014 — our ministry assumed the responsibility for these leases.

So this is a transfer of about 360 tenures to the province. We need to work through the transfer of those leases, issue the new tenures under the Land Act, process any new tenure applications in that area, formally conclude two head lease tenures.

This additional tenure work is funded by increased Crown land rental revenue that was previously retained by Port Metro, which will now be collected by the province and provided to our ministry so that we can manage the transfer of that responsibility back to the ministry.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could tell us: what will be the total FTEs assigned to this particular file? Also, while the minister is at it, if Port Metro Vancouver was managing this, now transferred over to the Ministry of Forests, then did any form of transfer of funding come with it? Or did the ministry simply assume it and release Port Metro of their responsibility?

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to provide some clarification to the member, this was work that was previously done by Port Metro, work they did voluntarily, not an accountability that they needed to do. They advised the province that they wanted the leases, the administration, transferred back to the province as of January 31, 2015.

It’s actually a process that has gone very smoothly — 287 offers of tenure; 194 offers have been accepted by the clients; and 93 offers are still outstanding. But most of the outstanding offers are with local governments. There was a number of files that were amalgamated into other files or cancelled and disallowed.

Those tenures drive revenue for the province. That goes into general revenue as part of the program in order to manage the additional workload required in doing that. Our ministry has been given an additional budget capacity within the ministry regional operations in order to support that additional work.

It is a number of parts of people. It’s not sole responsibility of one individual who is part of the land management branch. There are administrative functions in it. There are oversight functions in it for the management side. It’s part of the regional operations that takes on that responsibility.

This funding is provided to manage that additional capacity. There are some additional FTEs in managing that, to do that. Some of it is through auxiliary work, but it will be in the neighbourhood of eight to nine employees in sort of a full-time-equivalent that would be managing it. Some of those employees were already there in additional responsibility in management in their work, but the overall revenue goes to the Crown.

We have been given a budget lift in that regional operation capacity in order to manage the responsibilities. As I said, it’s going very smoothly. No complaints from the tenure holders in managing that transition. There was a communication plan. We worked with all of the stakeholders to make that as smooth a transition as possible, And as I said, it’s going very well.

H. Bains: I guess the question comes that there must be a reason why Port Metro managed it previously, and now it’s transferred over to the ministry here. Is it another form of off-loading of federal responsibility on to the provincial government? I hope the minister can answer that.

[1525]

The second question. The minister said there would be additional revenue from these leases. Perhaps the minister could tell us how much additional revenue or incremental revenue the B.C. government will be realizing.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just a little bit of history here. My understanding is this was about 35 years ago, when they took on the administration of those leases and tenures in that process.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

There was a revenue-sharing component to it. They got 50 percent of the revenue. The province got 50 per-
[ Page 6411 ]
cent of the revenue for that, and they were performing that function.

As things evolved and given the nature of the tenures along that area…. It’s forestry tenures that have access. It is float homes. That was viewed as more appropriately the responsibility of government. We have the land management branch and the staff and the expertise to manage those, so they advised that it was more appropriate for the province to be undertaking this as part of our management of the overall tenures.

The agreement was that it would come back to the province. The full revenue, rather than the revenue-sharing, would come back to the province. So that’s about $5 million in revenue for the province, an additional $2½ million to the province, getting the full revenue for that.

In order to manage that process within our land management branch, tenures and administration branch, that additional capacity has been provided to us to be able to manage it. But the overall additional revenue to the province is $2½ million.

H. Bains: I notice that there is about a $2 million increase in the executive and support services. Can the minister explain what that $2 million is for?

[1530]

Hon. S. Thomson: In this category, this includes the resources for the natural resource permitting project. There’s an overall project looking at enhanced natural resource permitting initiatives. That’s how we…. It’s the infrastructure and everything to support the integrated approach to permitting.

There is a component — just over half a million dollars for implementation of the Water Sustainability Act as well. That is the additional responsibilities around the Water Sustainability Act, in addition to the amount that we talked about before.

Again, in there…. That includes a component of collective agreement provisions within that because the executive support services is down into the level that includes a component of the collective agreement processes.

Just to point out, again, that the corporate services that are provided through that…. We provide those services on behalf of all the natural resource sectors. That includes environment, it includes energy and mines, and includes those others. It’s the corporate services, the corresponding services for all of those natural resource sectors that are in that.

Again, as we pointed out in terms of the specifics in relation to the collective agreement component, that’s specific information that we can provide as part of the follow-up that we indicated previously.

H. Bains: I’m talking about…. This is an increase in the executive and support services. There’s $65.1 million in 2014-15 and then there’s $67.29 million. So this is an increase. The services that the minister has explained — are they incremental? Are they in addition to what 2014 and ’15 have listed? I can understand the collective agreement because that would be incremental.

[1535]

But the minister talked about natural resource permitting. Are these in addition to what already is being done in this ministry? Or is it just extra costs incurred doing the same work?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, this is additional work, additional services being provided by the ministry. In terms of the Water Sustainability Act, the implementation of the act, this will be within that area, within the executive support services. It’s about five additional staff to provide the support services for the implementation of that on the revenue collection side.

The natural resource permitting project is a new project. It’s new business processes. It’s the IT systems to support those business processes. Of that total, about $1 million is in that component, about half a million in the collective agreement processes. The greatest majority of this is providing those additional services as part of the work of the ministry.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister, then, could explain. I’m looking at the three-year plan here — $65.1 million in 2014-15, $67.2 million in 2015-16. The $2 million is explained by the minister. But then there’s another $2 million in 2016-17. Are they also additional services? Are they additional responsibilities being taken on compared to what we do now?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, this is about continuing to provide for additional services. As we move forward, the greatest amount of that in 2016-17 is the continuing building of the natural resource permitting project — the infrastructure and the systems to support business delivery on an integrated basis across the ministry.

[1540]

This is a phased project that continues to build, so there’s additional capacity and additional work as we build that. There will be additional capacity in the implementation of the Water Sustainability Act as that gets fully implemented. That’s part of that as well.

So it is about providing additional services and support. As I mentioned, on the corporate support that’s provided through that, it’s across the natural resource sector.

H. Bains: The minister explained about the half a million dollars for the collective agreement increases. Does any of this increase include a salary increase as far as the excluded staff? I mean, I hope everyone gets that, but I just have to ask this question. Is there any money allocated for the salary increases for the excluded staff?
[ Page 6412 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is no. That doesn’t include that. As I said, we will provide the specific details around the collective agreement side of that increase across the sectors that are within the group that’s managed within our ministry on behalf of all of the natural resource sectors.

H. Bains: I guess I probably should be the one to ask this question on behalf of all of you. Is there any allocation in this budget for salary increases for the excluded staff?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, in this budget, no. That’s a question that should be directed to the minister responsible for the Public Service Agency. Those will be decisions made by government. Depending on those decisions would be how we would manage the process. But these budget figures account for agreements that are in place.

B. Routley: I just wanted to drill down a bit on the permitting aspect of this. I wanted to be clear what specifically you mean when you talk about permitting. Is this the full range of land-based permitting processes that are included in this additional $2 million increase, or is it limited to water or the Water Sustainability Act? Do you have some kind of list where you can identify what all is included in the term “permitting”?

[1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: The amount identified here in the budget documents and the additional budget that’s been provided to support the NRPP project is related to amortization of capital investment in the systems and the automation of those systems that support our permitting responsibility.

So this is to create the tools, the processes, for the permitting decisions — streamlining them, leveraging automated approaches, integrating the information so that all the information is available, as opposed to having to access information out of different databases and different systems so that we can integrate all of those systems together.

It’s about bringing the integrated approach and the systems to help support overall decisions and permitting processes with government. Over time, those permitting processes will be rolled into those systems. The project board that is managing it — as you can see from the budget documents, it’s staged out over a period of time — will prioritize which permits to bring into the system at the appropriate time, as the systems are developed.

Ultimately, it would include all of our permitting processes, but it’s about creating the tools and the infrastructure that help support that — identifying those priorities as you build the system and bring them in to support that.

H. Bains: Can the minister explain, or tell the House, the number of staff currently employed in the forest services?

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: Within the ministry…. I think it’s important at this point to talk about the structure of our ministry. As you know, with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, this was a decision to integrate the ministry, just as operations on the land base are now very integrated in terms of all the work. We are organized around regions and divisions within the regions.

Overall, our staffing levels fluctuate between 3,500 and 3,800 staff. That changes throughout the year, as you know, particularly as staff are brought in for forest fire activity, for tree improvement activities and other field activities on a seasonal basis. When additional seasonal staff are brought in, that’s somewhere between 1,200 and 1,400 staff on a temporary basis around those seasonal requirements.

It is about making sure that we have that structure that helps us work on the land base with an integrated approach, to operate on the land base just as activities on the land base are becoming very, very integrated. As I said, 3,500 or 3,800 staff on a regular basis and then additional staff on a temporary, seasonal basis for components of the ministry activities.

H. Bains: If you look at some of the historical numbers here…. I understand the amalgamation and bringing different departments into one area. But if you look at…. Going back to 2001, we had, like, 4,000 employees that worked for the ministry at that time. But the 2009 and ’10 numbers showed that the ministry was down to about 3,005 employees.

Also, by the chart that showed how different communities lost different numbers of positions…. In 2009-2010 — I understand that in that year alone there were 245 positions cut. Is the minister telling the House that we have increased the staff now from 2009-2010? If it is, then, perhaps the minister could give us a breakdown of what communities they were increased in — the different regions.

[1555]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. The short answer is yes, we have increased staff capacity within the ministry, as the member opposite noted, from that time period.

As you know, our government has come through a very difficult period, has worked to a fiscal imperative around ensuring that we meet balanced-budget commitments. As we’ve done that and been able to, in a modest way, increase staff, we’ve reorganized the ministry to meet the integrated approach that was embarked upon in the restructuring approach, getting that integrated decision-making process established across the regions.
[ Page 6413 ]

In terms of where those increases have been provided on a regional basis, I don’t have those specifics. But we can provide that to you, on a regional basis, as to where we’ve provided that additional capacity across the regions.

B. Routley: I just want to back up for a second and ask about the number of permitting processes that the ministry is involved in, now that you are the kind of do-all for land-based permitting. I know I’ve made this comment before, about being the minister of permits. I know that there’s a large range of permits, and you talked about the freshwater fishery, for example, and turning that over.

By the way, I’ve toured the freshwater fishery there in the Cowichan Valley. They are doing amazing work, and they do talk about the fact that using licensing money, to put that back into our lakes and streams and rivers, is beneficial for all British Columbians. They have been doing some innovative work.

I am trying to struggle with the number of permitting processes that the ministry is now involved with, because there’s such a broad range. I know that, for example, we’ve had quite a debate about things like hunting permitting and all of the permitting that goes on in various communities under the umbrella of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

It sounds from your answer like you’re talking about trying to get a handle on having a process that manages all of that or somehow streamlines it, but I just would like to know an answer for: how many processes are there in terms of permitting? Are you permitting for 50 different things or 100 different things? Is it only ten? I don’t know. I’d just like to have some idea of the range of it.

If you don’t have that easily available today, I’m happy to hear back from the minister by way of your letter. I know you’ve been good at answering questions in the past. So if that’s more convenient, I’m happy to accept that as the outcome too — that you’ll get back to us with a letter outlining that information.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the member opposite’s comment and also the member’s request or suggestion that we provide, as a follow-up to the question, in writing. I think that’s the best way to do this in terms of being able to provide the most accurate information. It is, in terms of quantum — it’s not ten, and it’s not 50. It’s probably in the quantum of 100 or so different kinds of processes we manage. Each of those processes has obviously a different quantum of numbers of permits.

If you’re talking about the permitting process for providing fishing licences, that’s a significant number of licences. We’re moving to an electronic licensing system for that, so handled very efficiently. What we can do is provide sort of a breakdown of the number of processes, and maybe with each of those, kind of an estimate of the average number of permits that are within those processes on an annual basis.

Some of them will be a process with a limited number of permits, but those are very, very complex permits and take a significant amount of time and effort and resources to be able to approve that — if you’re doing a permit for a mine operation, for example. We can give you an overall quantum breakdown and some estimates around the average of annual number of permits in each of those categories.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Surrey-Whalley.

H. Bains: It’s Surrey-Newton.

The Chair: Oh, Surrey-Newton.

H. Bains: Thank you. Huge difference. By the way, if you come to Surrey, you’ll notice that Surrey-Newton is the heart of Surrey. You’ll figure that out. [Laughter.] You will never be mistaken again once you’re there.

Hopefully, the minister then will provide the entire list of all the permits that the member has asked for — if it’s 100, what are those, right? — and list the names of different areas.

The next question is…. In different communities in 2009-2010 jobs were cut — for example: in Victoria, 58 jobs were cut; Kamloops, 25; Prince George, 17; Castlegar, 12; Prince Rupert, 11; Alexis Creek, 11; Nanaimo, ten; Squamish, seven; Williams Lake, six; Vanderhoof, six; Burns Lake, six; and 27 other B.C. communities saw 76 jobs that were cut, for a total of 245.

The minister is saying we have increased the complement of employees. Perhaps the minister could give us a breakdown. What is the level of jobs in those different communities that were the ones cut, and what level are they at?

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: The information the member opposite requested — we can provide that. I don’t have it specifically here.

I think what the member opposite is looking for is, with the staff complement that we have within the ministry — as we’ve been through some restructuring and reorganization within the ministry to meet the direction of the integrated approach, and as we’ve modestly been able to rebuild capacity within the ministry to meet that mandate — where are those employees? How are they deployed in the communities?

We can provide that by region or by community, but it’s something I don’t have with me currently. We’ll have to provide that as follow-up information.

H. Bains: I appreciate the minister, once you send that list…. There are a number of communities or by the re-
[ Page 6414 ]
gion where the offices are listed, and a number of positions in each of those communities or the regions, if that could be available.

My next question is: how many vacant positions are there within the ministry that need to be filled?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think it’s important to…. The way we manage the ministry currently is to manage to the salary envelope that we have within the ministry.

[1610]

There’s not a specific org chart that, if we have some attrition or somebody retires, automatically creates a vacancy and that position is known that way. We move to address priorities, given the broad mandate that we have in structure. Resources will be moved to address priorities. It’s a fluid process that helps us target those priorities and manage them, and it’s managed to the overall envelope.

Having somebody leave a specific position through attrition or retirement — that position may not necessarily be set up as a vacancy because we’ll determine that we need to put priority. When we’re recruiting additional staff resources, we look to where we need those — into those areas or those operations. So we would not come in and fill a specific vacancy, for example. We don’t manage that way. We manage to an overall envelope.

H. Bains: So it means there is no vacancy to be filled.

Hon. S. Thomson: With the member opposite’s comments, I guess that’s one way to look at it. You could say we don’t, because there’s no specific vacancy identified. I think what is important to note is that we’re in a regular and continual process of staff recruitment, and hiring within the staff, as we have attrition and retirement within the ministry — based on what are normal rates of attrition. We’re continually recruiting, continually looking at where we need to increase the staff complements within the envelope and within the overall priorities.

At any one time we’re probably actively recruiting for 100 to 200 positions based on that. That’s across the range of permanent, seasonal, temporary positions as we adjust to meet those priorities. So from a very theoretical perspective, you might say that there’s no vacancy because there’s no specific position, specific vacancy, identified as managed as an overall envelope. But we’re always working to address those priorities across the integrated approach of the ministry.

H. Bains: What a way to run the ministry. What does that mean? I mean, this is a very complex ministry. There are specialists all over in different departments of the ministry that the minister is responsible for. If one specialist with special skills retires, quits, for the minister to say that it does not create any vacancy just does not make sense. How do you explain that? If there is a professional forester retiring and they have a specific job, and you say that there’s no vacancy because we are moving folks around and it all depends on the envelope of money that is available, how do you explain that?

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the question and the assertion, I guess, or suggestion. Conceptually, the member opposite is right. Where we have specialized positions, a specialized skill set required, a priority position that would be deemed as a position that needs to be filled, we would recruit for that position and everything managed within the overall envelope. But it’s not done without some forethought in terms of: is that position critical? Is it a priority? Is it needed? If all of that is yes, then we would recruit to work to that position.

If it was the chief forester, for example, and we needed that position, you would move into that position, maybe, somebody currently within the ministry that meets that position. Then you would look to the other position and say you need to fill there. It’s very fluid.

We don’t manage it as an identified specific org chart where if somebody leaves that position, you automatically say that position has to be refilled and you go immediately to that process to do that. You look across and say yes. You make that assessment: yes, that does. Then you recruit for it. Or you look and say: no, that can be managed; we will look to where we have other priority needs in terms of the staff complement managing that integrated process.

We don’t manage it with a specific, saying we’ve got X number of vacancies. We look at it position by position and business area by business area and the overall responsibility and how we manage it.

There obviously will be critical positions, when somebody retires from them, that you’re going to say: yes, that position is vacant. That needs to be recruited for and filled. But you also may have within the overall sort of….

Say there’s a priority, and we can manage that. We have the ability within the division or within the region to manage that responsibility in this area. We need somebody with these specific skill sets and these responsibilities in this area, and we’ll recruit for that. Not necessarily a vacant position, because it would be one that would be designed to meet the specific priority need.

H. Bains: With that answer, it confuses me even more. First, the minister said there is no vacancy, technically speaking. But then the minister is saying yes, in specialized skill set areas if someone leaves, then we will make the determination to fill that based on the need. But that’s my question. In those types of scenarios…. I mean, it’s a vast ministry. There are different skill sets located in different areas. You’ve got to have some attrition going on all the time and people leaving.

Is the minister saying that all of that is happening, but
[ Page 6415 ]
it does not create any vacancy and that today we have no vacancies to be filled?

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m not trying to confuse here, I hope. Maybe I am, but I’m not trying to.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, right.

You know, the member opposite’s words are his interpretation of what I meant by “no vacancies.” I think conceptually, the member opposite is right. We always have attrition. We always have a number of positions that are specialist positions that may be part of that attrition, and you would work to fill those positions.

We also, within the overall envelope, have the opportunities to look at those and say that if there’s a retirement, if there’s an attrition, you can recruit for a priority area. Where there may not necessarily be an identified vacant position but you know it’s a critical area that you need in order to help meet government objectives, help meet the ministry’s work, then you would recruit for that position. You’re not recruiting for a position that is vacant, right? For example, right now we’re recruiting for about 28 positions within the ministry, managing that process.

I guess it’s a little bit of semantics that we’re talking about here as to how you define a vacancy or not. What we do is we look at the overall need of the ministry and recruit to fill positions where we need to meet the mandate and the work of the ministry. If it’s a specialist position that’s required, then we will recruit for that — to fill that position if somebody leaves — and you could theoretically say that that is a vacant position.

Also, because we manage it broadly, we don’t keep a specific list to say there is X number of vacant positions. We always look to say: of the capacity we have within the salary envelope, where do we need to fill resources and build capacity to meet our mandate?

H. Bains: Technically speaking, you just mentioned there are 28 positions being recruited for, so there are 28 vacancies existing. That’s why you’re recruiting, to fill those vacancies. As the minister also said, they’re priority areas, so there must be some of those areas that people have left, are leaving — pregnancy leave, whatever the case may be.

My question was: are there some of those vacancies in those priority areas, specialized areas, that are vacant right now? You may be in the process of recruiting to fill those vacancies, but nonetheless, those are the vacancies. So how many of those types of vacancies exist today? Are you in the process of recruiting to fill those vacancies, or do you have no intention of filling some of them?

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I’m not trying to deliberately confuse things here, but just to point out again, as we’ve talked about, the structure of our ministry — a broad ministry, a lot of broad priorities within the ministry and a range of requirements within this ministry, from very specialized requirements in certain areas to more broad skill sets that are needed to manage the integrated approach to things.

At any point in time we are managing somewhere between 100 and 200 turnovers in the ministry through the regular, normal attrition process. As that process unfolds, we will manage it on the basis of looking to see where we need to fill and where we need to recruit to meet the needs and the structure of the ministry. We will look and say: “That’s a specialized position. We need to recruit there.”

We’re looking now, with the additional responsibilities under the Water Sustainability Act, to bring in additional staff. We’ll be going out and recruiting for specific positions for that. Those are not vacancies. Those are new positions.

We will also look…. You might have a number of people leave in one area, for example, and you could look at those and say: “Well, there are four or five vacancies in that area. We need to fill three of those there. We can manage the requirements there by doing that, but we need a position here to manage….” I’ll just use an example. We need somebody in the northeast to manage some cumulative effects work or something like that which requires a specific set. It’s not a currently set position.

We would then look within the overall envelope to be able to recruit, to manage and to put that resource in place for that. We don’t manage to a specific sort of set of vacancies, org charts. We manage the overall fluidity of the attrition process and look to meet our specific needs within the delivery of our programs and the delivery of our mandate. Some of those, as I said, are very specialized positions, where you would make the decision right away that that’s a key position that has to be filled, and we would recruit for that position.

H. Bains: I’m going to move on rather than give the minister more opportunity to confuse us even further, because it’s the same answer that came in the last three questions.

Anyway, perhaps the minister could provide us with a list for the previous three years of the total number of employees in your ministry, going back to 2012, ’13, ’14 and ’15. Then perhaps we could see the trend.

As the minister said, the number of employees has increased, so there shouldn’t be any vacancies. But if those are the numbers — 3,500 to 3,800 — what were the numbers last year and the year before? If we could get those numbers. That would be one thing. The minister is acknowledging, so I guess that’s good. Thank you.

[1630]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]
[ Page 6416 ]

The next question would be: could we get a breakdown of those different numbers? The chart that I have here for 2013-14 shows the FLNR average estimate, including the minister’s office. There were 3,280 total employees in 2013 and ’14.

It has different departments — the number of people working. For example, executive and support services, deputy minister’s office and corporate services for natural resource sector, 480. Corporate initiative division, 40. Integrated resource operations, 535. Resource stewardship, 230. Tenure competitiveness and innovation, 75. Timber operations, pricing and First Nations, 585. Coast area region, 350. South area region, 550. North area region, 430.

There is a breakdown. I’m sure the minister has that chart. If the minister has those number now, if the staff has it, we could write it down, or the list can be provided to us in our next session.

Hon. S. Thomson: I think it would probably be most expeditious here to provide the information, and we can undertake to do that as quickly as we can, rather than go through that. I just want to make sure that we’re providing the correct information to the member opposite, and we’ll undertake to do that.

H. Bains: This was provided, so the minister…. We understand this was provided to us by the minister in the 2013-14 estimates — so if we could get a list. I’m sure you will have it handy. Your staff would have it. If we could get that perhaps tomorrow?

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry. I missed the first part. Is it in reference to the information you were just requesting?

H. Bains: This was provided to us during last year’s estimates.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

H. Bains: Let me go back to the question. Again, we’re still on the number of employees in different areas. Perhaps the minister could tell us how many FTEs are currently employed in the inventory section of the ministry.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised 32 direct staff plus administrative support.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could…. So 32. And how many as the administrative staff?

[1635]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm that again. Thirty-two direct inventory staff, one administrative staff support that directly supports that. It’s important to recognize that, given the structure, that also relies on administrative support through corporate services for accounting and payroll and contract management services and all of that part of it. That number is just part of the overall support that’s provided by corporate services, so it’s hard to break that down: so 32 direct staff, 1 direct administrative support.

H. Bains: How does that compare to the last two years, if you could go back two years — 32 this year, last year and the year before? Perhaps while we’re at it, what is the forecast for next year and the year after?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to refer to the numbers that the member is asking for. To go back: so ’12-13, 30; ’13-14, 31; and ’14-15, 32, as I’ve pointed out. Going forward, not a specific projection, but I expect, as we look to the inventory work, we’d add a couple of positions there, provided that we have the vacancies somewhere else where we can manage that within the salary envelope.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell the House, if the minister knows: what percentage, or the numbers, of staff is slated to retire within the next five years? And if you know the numbers, what strategy does the ministry have to renew and acknowledge the transfer or the filling of those positions?

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: The ministry anticipates about an average attrition rate of between 4 and 5 percent, and that equates to 140 to 180, 190 positions or people on an annual basis. We have a very active program within the management, within the ministry, first of all, to think, to be aware of all this and working towards and understanding it. But also, you’re looking at the succession planning within to make sure that there’s knowledge transfer before somebody leaves.

We also look, as we manage the overall envelope, as I said, to fill skill sets and capability that comes into those positions as we address the priorities — so, roughly, about 140 to 180, 190 per year on a 4 to 5 percent attrition rate. It’s in a continual active process of recruitment and creating the succession plans to help fill those positions that address the priorities.

H. Bains: Just another question along this line here. I understand that the chief forester is currently doing something else. My understanding is that Dave Peterson is on leave. My understanding, also, is that he’s taking on the task to lead the development and implementation of the renewed forest sector competitive strategy. Can the minister confirm if that’s where Mr. Peterson is?

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, firstly, that Dave Peterson, the individual referenced, is not on leave. He’s
[ Page 6417 ]
just currently on vacation for a short period of time. He’s not on leave.

We temporarily set aside the specific responsibilities of the chief forester while he works to support the deputy, Tim Sheldan, in the development of the competitiveness strategy, to support the senior team that is developing that.

Diane Nicholls, who we have a great deal of confidence in, and experience, is the acting chief forester. This is a temporary step to allow Dave to focus, to support the senior team led by the deputy that is developing that strategy, and Diane Nicholls has the responsibilities as the acting chief forester.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell us how long the temporary assignment is? Also, if that work is underway, when will that report be available? Will that report be made public?

Hon. S. Thomson: At this point, the temporary assignment or the temporary role for Diane Nicholls for the acting is, at this point, six months. That’s so that Dave can support the senior team in that. It’s early days in the work of the development of the strategy, as was noted in the throne speech and budget speech.

And just to confirm, we do anticipate and expect that the report and the strategy will be public.

[1650]

H. Bains: I just want to take a little side tour here, if the minister could venture into the area of the LNG pipeline proposals and the forest area that it will be affecting, the pipelines.

My understanding is it’s approximately 5,000 linear kilometres of right-of-way that would be involved, and about 17,000 hectares of land that is covered by forest will be involved. Can the minister explain what strategy there is to recover, salvage that forest from the land that will be affected by LNG right-of-way?

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the question. Again, we are very optimistic that we will see pipeline development to support the LNG opportunity that the province has. We will be working cooperatively with the industry and with First Nations through the Oil and Gas Commission to ensure that where the pipeline corridors are and where there are forestry resources in that area, we would obviously….

We have a fibre supply challenge within the overall sector, and it would be our full intention that any of the resources in that area, on those 17,000 hectares — if that’s the number that it turns out to be — would be made available and would be utilized.

H. Bains: That’s good to hear. If you look at the history here, if you look at the B.C. Hydro northwest transmission line, it was reported in the media in 2012 — actually, in the Vancouver Sun — that 290,000 cubic metres were cut in the first half of building B.C. Hydro’s northwest transmission line. Only 24,000 cubic metres were scaled. If you go by that number, the rest of it was all burnt.

I think there’s a real fear in so many industry folks, so many workers and professionals, that that’s exactly what’s going to take place — that most of that forest that will be cut to make way for LNG will be wasted. It’ll be burnt.

[1655]

The professional foresters have estimated that in that particular area they’re talking about four million cubic metres. That’s a lot of wood, especially at a time when we are talking about fibre shortages, especially in that area.

When we were going through that tour, we were told that up to ten sawmills will shut down because of a shortage of fibre. Here are four million cubic metres of potentially good timber available. Also, they put a value on it — today’s price of logs. The professional foresters have put a $3 billion value on this timber.

I have not heard any strategy, unless the minister could explain. What strategy do you have to salvage that? What correspondence do you have with the LNG proposal of proponents? Has the ministry taken any steps to put them on notice that that timber is timber that we need, that needs to be salvaged? It can’t be just burned because it’s a nuisance for them to do their business.

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated to the member, I agree that that is an important resource that we’re going to need for the industry and as part of the fibre supply. It has value. Again, it has to be managed from an economic perspective in terms of being able to get it out as part of the process.

It’s absolutely our direction and desire to ensure that that gets used. We work with…. In discussions with the Oil and Gas Commission, the Minister of Natural Gas Development is leading the process. But again, it would be directed and designed towards making sure that we can utilize that resource.

[1700]

We don’t have an agreement or a proposal at this point, but as I said, we’re very optimistic that that will be the case, and that will be part of those agreements. I agree with the member opposite that we will work to ensure that resource is made available and is utilized. That’ll be through agreements with the existing tenure holders, through the First Nations agreements that will all be a part of that, to make sure we can make that resource available and for it to be utilized.

H. Bains: Is the minister giving us the assurance — to this House and everyone who’s listening and watching — that that very, very precious resource, that right now is becoming more precious because of a shortage of timber supply in that region…? When negotiations are conducted with the oil and gas companies, which would give
[ Page 6418 ]
them the right-of-way, these provisions will be included in those contracts?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think it’s important to recognize that the EA approval of LNG pipelines has recognized the importance of fibre utilization. Successful proponents have agreed to provide fibre to milling facilities, wherever practical, as part of their EAO certificates and conditions.

H. Bains: See, that’s the concern: wherever practical. That’s what happened when B.C. Hydro’s northwest transmission line was built — 290,000 cubic metres were cut; only 24,400 were scaled. Again, I think they would view the argument that that was only practical, part of doing business — salvaging only 24,000 out of 290,000.

I think we need better than that. I think the responsibility lies on the minister and the ministry — because you are the custodian on behalf of the population who owns those logs and that timber and the forest — that that forest is not wasted. And you’ve got to make sure when those contracts are negotiated that these provisions are in there, that no forest will be wasted because it is inconvenient for them to put the pipeline in, that that forest will be salvaged and will be made available to our manufacturers.

When you look at $3 billion…. The province is talking about not having enough money and how you have to cut programs here, cut programs there to balance the budget, so $3 billion. That’s a lot of money. Can you imagine, when you put them through sawmills, what additional revenue will be generated; how many jobs will be created?

I think it becomes of utmost important to get that assurance, here in this House from the minister, that 17,000 hectares, 5,000 linear kilometres of land, and about four million cubic metres of forest is affected by the LNG pipelines and that we cannot simply make a simple statement that wherever practical, we will try to salvage as much as we can. That’s not good enough, and I don’t think it should be good enough to the minister.

[1705]

I know the minister always means well, and he always is there to look after the interests of forestry and the public. I think, Minister, we agree. You made the statement; I made the statement. But what concrete steps are you proposing to make sure that this timber doesn’t go the way the northwest transmission line went and that only a small portion is salvaged and the rest of it is allowed to be wasted?

Hon. S. Thomson: I don’t think the member opposite and I are having a fundamental disagreement here at all. In terms of a declining fibre supply situation, this is an important resource. The EAO conditions and the EAO process will be part of that to ensure that where oil and gas, in permitting those activities, will require a timber utilization plan…. So in cooperation between licensees, tenure holders and First Nations in working out all of those arrangements, the focus will be to ensure that that resource is made available.

You have to recognize that there may be circumstances in areas where it is not commercially viable. It may be the stand size, all of those kinds of things. It could be commercially available, not necessarily for the sawmilling sector but maybe for biomass use or other opportunities.

[1710]

We will work to make sure that all of that value in that resource that potentially and hopefully will be there will be made available, particularly, as I pointed out, in a time of declining fibre supply.

Our focus in the ministry is to assist and to work to make that happen in the process as successful proponents come forward. That will be the focus of our ministry, working with both the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and the Oil and Gas Commission and licensees — and, most importantly in all of this, particularly, through that, with First Nations.

H. Bains: The EA process must have recognized during the northwest transmission line…. We see the results. I think that’s where we need to come in and say that it didn’t work there somehow. Especially at a time when we have so many mills scheduled to go down in the coming years, I think it requires a strategy. It requires foresight in how we salvage those logs, because it requires preplanning.

You can’t simply allow them to, just because they got EA approval…. Part of that is to salvage those logs as practical as they are or they can be. But I think we need to…. When we are negotiating with the pipeline proponents, there are ways to do that. Professional foresters have a very good idea of how to do that. I’m sure that the ministry — all the brains that we have in the ministry — can figure that out.

I think they need direction from the government. We’ve been obsessed with LNG, as we have seen in the last few years. It seems like they can get away with anything because we want to make sure the LNG file is successful. There are one or two proponents there, so they could show that we were actually successful — although they talked about 15 to 17 applications and 15 to 17 plants, and one of them was to be started this year. It hasn’t happened yet.

There’s no construction. Everyone is on a pause button right now. But I think there is an opportunity. If you work with the Association of Professional Foresters, they have a number of good proposals for how we can salvage this. But it requires planning.

It means a plan and coordinating logs between sectors to temporarily hold volume; permanent hauling when conditions allow and sorting logs to increase value; creating a large-scale log storage site until mills can utilize the wood; completing the timber development process
[ Page 6419 ]
— harvest, handling, transportation; minimal cost to the overall oil and gas project to cost buyers; policies that help distribute timber efficiently.

For part of that, you don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Other jurisdictions have done this. In Norway in 2006 one million cubic metres of spruce sawlogs were stored for up to four years with the sprinklers on an abandoned airstrip near Byholma, on the Sweden border.

There are a number of things that can be done, but it will not be done if you don’t insist that it must be done. You don’t put those provisions in those contracts when those proponents come knocking on your door to start putting the pipelines in.

Then again, they’re proposing to link environmental performance to utilization. I mean, we talked about environmental approval. Examine other tenure options such as non-replaceable licences, receiving the licences or the use of grade credits. Expand the utilization beyond the current definition of merchantable sawlogs. An expanded definition may create more opportunities for other products. Reward and showcase best practices and leadership.

Then they go on to say: evaluate the increased merchantable volume available through improved measuring and reporting standards. Current standards may oversimplify the volume opportunity.

[1715]

Track the volume of fibre at several stages, including what is delivered, burned or left in piles. Evaluate the cost associated with the scenarios. I think they’re talking about….

Now they move on to talk about the construction phases. Plan log site storage or deliver logs to the destination promptly after cleaning work is done. There are some examples. My understanding is that when the transmission line is built, or the pipeline is built, with all good intentions, if it wasn’t planned properly….

The logs were stored on the wrong side of the pipeline, and no one could get to them, so that was all wasted. I think that the plan has to be before the construction starts, before they even start to plan how and where the construction is going to be.

Then they talk about delivering logs to sort yards. Haul it to immediate locations where project volume can be aggregated. Coordinate contractors across worksites and sectors in a similar geographic area — multiple infrastructure use between sectors, where possible. Develop regional planning forums for multiple users of the land base.

I think that’s what it is. And the association of professional foresters, I’m advised, have spoken to the government, and stakeholders, and worked on a best-practices document for professionals and industry. That’s what our professionals are telling us. These are the people who actually know about our forest and what we need to do with the forest. I think it’s high time now, especially when we are talking about shortage of fibre and especially after the mountain pine beetle.

Now many mills are scheduled to go down, so we need to somehow find a way to utilize these four billion cubic metres of logs available. That’s like one good-sized sawmill working for ten years or ten sawmills working for a year. I mean, that’s a lot of jobs — good, family-supporting jobs — but it won’t get done if the obsession continues on with LNG and lets them get away with whatever they want to do.

I think you as a minister need to put the provisions in and be the champion on behalf of the forest industry — that we cannot allow them to burn these logs, waste these logs. These logs are needed, and our communities are asking. First Nations are there to make sure that these logs are salvaged and utilized. I think all the stakeholders are there.

The professional foresters are there to help, and there is a proposal from them. My suggestion to the minister is that they have the ministry work with the association of professional foresters and design a plan before the construction starts, before you start to sign those agreements. How and what methods are we going to use to salvage as much of that forest as possible, close to four million cubic metres? I am asking the minister if you can make that commitment today.

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to let the member opposite know, firstly, with the recommendations and ideas that have been proposed by the professional association…. Many of the members of the ministry, as you know, are part of that association, so we’re well aware of the number of ideas and suggestions, all valuable suggestions for consideration. In fact, our staff have met with both the Oil and Gas Commission and the environmental assessment office along with the professional foresters. There’s an agreement to continue that dialogue and continue that work around their suggestions in the report.

There have been discussions with proponents, discussions with the EAO, discussions with the Oil and Gas Commission. As I pointed out, it’s recognized that this is a very, very important part of the approval process, the fibre utilization. The EAO has recognized that. Proponents have recognized that and have agreed to provide fibre to the milling facilities. With the kinds of ideas and suggestions that are built into all of that discussion…. Again, we need to look at the total package of how we would make all of that work, and we’re committed to do that.

Ultimately, in the very end, we have to recognize that it has to work — with all of those suggestions — from an economic perspective and environmental perspective. It’s our objective to continue to work to ensure that that’s the case. As you’ve pointed out, in a time of declining fibre supply, we want to make sure to the best that we can — and we’ll be a proponent and an advocate for all of that — to have that fibre made available. We will work with professional foresters, proponents, the EAO to achieve
[ Page 6420 ]
that objective to the greatest degree that we can in the process. EAO understands that. Proponents understand that, and First Nations licensees understand all of that.

We need to work and look at all of those elements and ideas that can help make this happen, recognizing that we also have to be careful that we do it in a way and in a process that doesn’t put us at a trade risk or something like that, where we do something that may raise that kind of flag. We have tools. We have fibre supply licences to cut. We have tools that will help us do all of that in the process in order to make…. In combination of those ideas, existing tools that we have, an already stated willingness of the EAO, the proponents, the Oil and Gas Commission to recognize the importance of this, I think we can achieve that objective.

H. Bains: The concern that I have is that the association of professional foresters, which many of the staff are members…. I appreciate that. They said that they had met with the government, spoken to the government and stakeholders. They said they’ve also worked on the best practices document for professionals and industry, but they’re still concerned. Obviously, the assurances or commitment that is needed to a point where they can be satisfied and the general public can be satisfied — the owners of that forest — still isn’t there.

[1725]

I think that’s why I’m spending some time on this issue. It’s so important. It’s fundamental to our approach, how we care, nurture and harvest our forests. We cannot just do business as usual, as we’ve done for decades and decades. It’s a shrinking commodity, as we know, at least for the foreseeable future. We cannot allow any more waste in our forests. I think we need to seriously look at it here.

And the minister…. I think it’s only appropriate if he could stand up and make that commitment for the four million cubic metres of the forest. He says that four million will be salvaged, or close to it — whatever is appropriate to be salvaged. I mean, the professionals know exactly how much will come out of this.

I think you need to set some plan in place. Do a proper inventory for that area. Know exactly what exists there and what some of the methods are that they’re proposing to salvage all of it or most of it.

Hon. S. Thomson: I think, fundamentally, the member opposite and I are not disagreeing at all here in terms of the importance of this resource, particularly in the context of declining fibre supply.

I think the comment around the great…. I think he and I are saying essentially the same thing: the greatest amount, where appropriate. I think that’s a recognition on the part of the member opposite that with a plan, and having a requirement around a fibre utilization plan, a timber utilization plan for all of that….

There may be limited circumstances where…. I don’t know exactly what reasons, but there might be a very legitimate reason why, in a very specific part or something like that, that it might not make sense or it might not be directly available.

I think the direction around…. To the greatest extent possible, we’re committed to continue, and I’m committed to continue, to work with the various agencies, including the professional foresters, with the suggestions that they have.

[1730]

They have been working and meeting with our staff on those suggestions, the discussions with the proponents. Again, it will come down to which projects proceed, when they proceed, where. And that work will be done.

[M. Morris in the chair.]

But as minister responsible for that resource that is in there, it will be my advocacy, my work, to ensure that when we have those projects, that is part of the conditions and the permitting to the greatest extent possible and that we take those ideas and suggestions, and maybe others that would come through the processes, that would make that resource available.

We recognize the importance of it. Whether it’s to the sawmilling sector or whether it’s to a biomass or an energy or to the pulp sector or to the pellet sector or anything like that — we need to look at all of those options that would make whatever amount of that resource, in terms of the quantity you’re talking about, available to the industry.

H. Bains: I think my position would be that every usable stick that can be used and made some good out of should be salvaged and utilized and made available for those who could use it and create more jobs with it.

My next question is: have any of the LNG proponents or the pipeline proponents negotiated any right-of-way so far with this ministry?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Just to confirm to the member opposite, the permitting agency for the pipelines is the Oil and Gas Commission. In terms of specifics, that would be appropriately canvassed with the Ministry of Natural Gas Development.

Our role is the stewardship of the resource that would be in that pipeline corridor, the forest resource — the permitting for that, the timber utilization plans. That’s the discussion we’ve just been through, extensively, around the objectives that we would want to achieve in our role with respect to those projects when they proceed.

[1735]

Those discussions are, as I said, working with professional foresters, the Oil and Gas Commission, our ministry,
[ Page 6421 ]
with the EAO to make sure that as the projects come forward and proceed and go into those permitting processes, we’re there with the objectives of ensuring that the timber resource in those projects is made available and utilized.

H. Bains: I gather there’s no right-of-way negotiated so far by any of the proponents where the ministry would have been involved.

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, the negotiations and work with respect to the pipeline corridors, as they move into EA processes and things are undertaken in negotiation with the Oil and Gas Commission, would be appropriately canvassed with the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, in terms of the specifics of any of those negotiations.

H. Bains: If the negotiations are going on, that’s one thing. I get that. But if the ministry is involved as far as the forestry and the salvage of our resources, which means if it’s going on, has your ministry not been involved in any of those negotiations? If they have been, which proponent is negotiating, and has some agreement been finalized?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I pointed out, those negotiations are undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, the Oil and Gas Commission in terms of the permitting processes.

[1740]

Our interests are to ensure that those projects proceed and move through the processes and conditions that may get attached and, ultimately, may have approvals. As I said, I’m optimistic and hopeful that that will be the case on projects.

Our interest will be to ensure that as those permitting conditions and things are developed, our interest in the timber utilization plan and the resources there are part of those permitting conditions and part of those agreements to the extent, as we’ve just talked about, to meet that objective; and, to the greatest extent possible, to ensure that all of that resource that may be involved in any one project or a number of projects is made available — that we have that fibre available — to the industry as part of the conditions and the approvals and the agreements for any specific project that may proceed.

H. Bains: If those negotiations are going on with the Oil and Gas Commission and they are going through a process of permitting, when will your ministry come to the table to put your interest so that those interests are incorporated in the final document?

[1745]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, to point out to the member opposite, the proponents have to work through a number of regulatory processes, environmental assessment processes — and then with the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission, under the oil and gas act. They have the responsibility for the permitting.

We’re at the table in terms of ensuring, as projects move forward and will proceed — when that happens — the conditions around the fibre utilization plan. Then we’ll be there to provide the advice, the suggestions, around whether that fibre utilization plan works, to make sure that we can get the maximum amount of fibre out as part of that permitting process.

Again, in terms of the specific projects, the specific timing, the specific locations, that’s more appropriately canvassed with the Ministry of Natural Gas Development.

B. Routley: Along the same lines. I was up in Fort St. John and talked to a contractor in the last couple of years. He said that he had work for something like 350 loads that he was going to get.

One of the things about getting older is that I can’t remember whether he said that it was a transmission line or a gas or oil line. But at the time, his point was that he had this work all lined up, and then the ministry allowed the proponent — I think it was a transmission line — to just burn it, just shove it up in a pile and burn it rather than truck it, because the trucking costs were so high.

I don’t know whether the issue was that trucking would have been the responsibility of the transmission line folks, or the oil or gas line, or would the transportation of the timber be up to the sawmill or the buyer. I’m not sure what the problem was or how that came about, but I remember that whole issue got kind of superseded by front-page headlines about the waste of timber in transmission lines, oil lines, gas lines and that kind of thing.

We’re happy to hear that there seems to be a change of attitude, but I’m also concerned. Does the minister actually have the power to supersede or in any way force the oil and gas sector to fully utilize that timber? Or are you, essentially, going into those negotiations kind of cap in hand, saying: “Gee, we’d really like this to happen”? If you get brushed aside by the minister involved in the oil and gas negotiations for this LNG proposal, could it be the outcome that, at the end of the day, the wood just gets pushed into a pile and burned or wasted?

[1750]

Hon. S. Thomson: I can’t respond directly to the specifics of the individual contractor that the member opposite was referencing. But again, just to reiterate: in the projects going forward, it will be our intention to work as diligently as we can to ensure that the options and the proposals — and the kinds of ideas that are incorporated in some of the advice, and in other advice or other options that may be available — make the maximum amount of the fibre available to the sector.

There’ll be a timber utilization plan. There’ll be a re-
[ Page 6422 ]
quirement to make the wood available. In the end there still needs to be a commercial transaction, because there has to be somebody, from a commercial aspect, to be able to utilize that.

But with declining fibre supply, with increased markets, with increased demands for it, with new opportunities that are being developed and that have developed around pellet and other utilization, we expect and hope that the greatest majority of wood that is available as a result of any successful proponent, and pipeline development related to that, would be made available to the industry.

It’s an important resource, and we think we need to…. As I said, our role is to be at the table as an advocate to ensure that, to the greatest degree possible, we can make that happen.

B. Routley: Thank you for that answer. I think what I’m hearing is that you’re going to try really, really hard. But we don’t have a legislative tool or any exclusive rights in any way to ensure that this happens.

I’ve just got to camp here for a minute and remind the minister…. I don’t know whether I have gone through this before. Just quickly, back in 1989 I had a trip to Sweden. I was there as part of the B.C. future forest study group. I still remember that experience very well, particularly the fact that they were at the time utilizing timber down to two-inch tops. I was amazed at that.

[1755]

I was amazed at the fact that they did a pre-commercial thinning and got the stand density down to the right number — roughly 2,600 to 3,500 stems per hectare. I drive past stands that have 10,000 stems per hectare. A Swedish forester would tell us we’re growing a pulp crop when you have that kind of stand density issue.

In Sweden, seeing that and then seeing the first commercial thinning at about 25 or 26 years of age…. They would go through, thin it down to 1,500 or whatever stems per hectare, maybe more. In any case, the first commercial thinning was at 25 or 26 years of age. They would use the stump portion. It would go to a sawmill. The top would either go to a pellet plant, because they had pellet plants even back then, or could end up in a pulp mill, that kind of thing. There was huge utilization, smaller cutblocks, all of the things. It was really amazing forestry to see.

I know that their economics allow for some of that. They’re close to one of the largest markets, with the European market. I was amazed at the time at the difference between what they got for timber. That kind of explained to me in a bit of a way some of the activity that was going on that we couldn’t, for whatever reason, afford to do here in British Columbia.

But now, having been on the Timber Supply Committee and seeing the fact that…. Well, I’ve gone through all the mill closures, bankruptcies on the coast of British Columbia. I’ve seen mill closures starting to occur in the north, know that there’s…. We were talking about ten more mills at a minimum. Some people say it’s a bigger number than that.

Fibre supply. I really think that, as government, you’ve got an obligation to act in the public interest. Part of that could be to push as hard as you can as minister to enforce or ensure that the timber does get utilized, even if it costs. If that’s the reason, that it costs more to truck it to the closest sawmill, and we’re bringing in the oil and gas sector and bragging about millions and billions and trillions, and then we’re not going to take the time to ensure there’s maximum utilization…. There’s something very wrong in the province of British Columbia if we were to allow that to happen. That would be scandalous, to say the least.

Back to my question now. Where are we at? It was back in 2009. I was involved in the debate on net-zero deforestation. There was this big fanfare, big plan. There’s legislation somewhere sitting on a shelf, maybe in your office. What’s happened to net-zero deforestation? With all the cumulative impacts that we’ve had in the province of British Columbia and more to come — a lot more to come — surely it’s time to start actually some kind of an action plan on things like net-zero deforestation. Could you tell us if you have any interest in net-zero deforestation, or is that just shelved?

[1800]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, the act was passed in May of 2010. It set a goal of achieving net-zero deforestation annually. The act, though, as the member opposite referenced, I think has not been brought into force. I think the reason for that is…. There are a couple of reasons. One is, it was initially predicated on a price for carbon — carbon credits that would be sufficiently large to attract private investment. That hasn’t materialized. The land base that qualifies is generally marginal and too poor for investment due to the lower productivity, economies of scale, location, the high treatment costs — those kinds of things.

In our view, the resources are better focused on Forests for Tomorrow, focused on ensuring that that investment is put into the higher productivity, potential sites, treatable land in areas that have been particularly impacted by the mountain pine beetle, and wildfire. That’s the status.

The other key work, as the member opposite will know, is the mandate to look at policies and approaches that will get us to a much greater utilization of the resource that is there — the full fibre utilization that is one of the key recommendations coming out of the Mid-Term Timber Supply Committee Report in order to increase full utilization of the resource that is there.

B. Routley: Okay, thank you for that answer.

The other issue that comes to mind when we’re talking about oil and gas pipelines, as well as transmission lines, is the issue of forest companies that have replanted areas. I’ve been told that this was the case in some areas.
[ Page 6423 ]
The company had only ten years ago paid to replant an area, and then it was decided that they were going to run one of these lines through, whether it be transmission or pipe or whatever.

[1805]

Is there any decision by the Ministry of Forest as to how to compensate the landowners involved in that case? Do they get compensated for their land in some way? I gather it’s either a timber supply area or some other kind of Crown land that the government does this. But do you pay for the reforestation costs of a company as well as the loss of the land, or is there any mitigation plan to deal with that kind of loss?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think I understand the member opposite’s question. It’s true that there will be situations on public land, Crown land, where an activity could impact an immature stand that has been reforested, and things like that. It’s important to recognize that when the licensee is required to reforest that as part of the stumpage and the appraisal, they’re given a silviculture allowance for that.

[1810]

It would not be appropriate to compensate the licensee again, because they’ve had the silviculture allowance for that. It would be like paying for that twice. In this case, no compensation, but the trade-off is the project and the economic activity from the project versus a loss of timber for the province in the area that may be impacted.

There isn’t a requirement for compensation of the licensee. They’ve had the silviculture adjustment that is part of their responsibility for reforestation.

H. Bains: If I may, Minister, I would like to just talk about…. Since we’re still talking about the revenue side, if the minister could answer what assets were sold that were under the ministry in the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 fiscal years.

Hon. S. Thomson: As has been commented upon publicly and the Minister of Finance has communicated, the government sells Crown land to meet a variety of government and community objectives. The ministry is responsible for parts of Crown land. It has properties that help to meet those objectives and to meet industry demand. We will need to consult with First Nations before any final sales decisions are made, sold at market value.

[1815]

In terms of the specific properties or specific program on the release of assets for economic generation, those would be directed to the Minister of Finance.

H. Bains: The minister must know — the ministry will know — what assets were sold. I’m asking: what assets were sold, and what was the price?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just in terms of land sales, what I can provide for the member opposite is that we’ll undertake to provide that specific information for you tomorrow in terms of the specific land sales for ’13-14 and for ’14-15 to date.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister can also provide us the value of each of those properties and how much they were sold for.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. I think what I indicated I would provide is the specific list.

Chair, I wonder if we could just have a two- or three-minute quick break or recess here. It’s been a long afternoon, so just a quick break.

The Chair: We’ll recess for seven minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:18 p.m. to 6:26 p.m.

[M. Morris in the chair.]

H. Bains: I have some questions about compliance and enforcement we could move into, Minister. Perhaps the minister could give us some numbers, to begin with. How many compliance and enforcement staff did the ministry have in 2014-15? Then, just going backwards, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2011-12 and 2010-11?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite asked for specific numbers for five fiscal years. We’ll have to undertake to provide that for you tomorrow because I don’t have the specific numbers for all those specific fiscal years.

[1830]

What I can advise, because I do have some numbers available here, is: 2011, 188; 2012, 170; and 2015, 182 currently. To fill in the gaps between the specific fiscal years that you’ve listed here, we’ll undertake to provide that for you tomorrow morning.

H. Bains: I guess the question I’m asking….I think this is the bread and butter of our industry, the compliance and enforcement. I know that this government has gone on to a philosophy of self-reliance. We’ve seen the consequences of that, and we could delve into that later.

When you look at some of the numbers: 2001 and 2004, 22 C-and-E staff positions were eliminated, meaning one in every ten. About 10 percent of the staff in C and E was eliminated. Obviously, when that happens, some things will give, and the inspections will not be as many as would be otherwise. I appreciate if we could get those numbers, Minister, tomorrow.

I’ll move on to the next question. According to the ministry website, from 1999 to 2012 the ministry published a compliance and enforcement annual report. Since 2012, I haven’t seen any. Can the minister tell the
[ Page 6424 ]
House if there was any C-and-E report, as was the practice prior to 2012? Did a report come out and we missed it, or did they stop publishing those reports?

[1835]

[P. Pimm in the chair]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Just to confirm my understanding, as the member opposite indicated, the ’12-13 report is out. The ’13-14 report is in final stages. My understanding is that it should be available very, very shortly. And the ’14-15 annual report, obviously, is the year we’re still in. So there is a report for ’13-14 due, and it should be out very shortly.

H. Bains: I just want to confirm. The minister has said that 2012-13 is out already?

Hon. S. Thomson: That’s my understanding.

H. Bains: Thank you. And ’13-14 is in process and should be out around what time? Any idea?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ve just been advised that that report should be out before the end of March.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister will tell us again…. This is the area of C and E. In 2012-13, ’13-14 and ’14-15 — so a three-year period — how many inspections, enforcement actions, stop-work orders, seizure orders and compliance actions occurred? I’ll follow up in the next question after that.

[1840]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I respond to the first question, I just want to correct, for the record…. In terms of the requests around the annual reports that the member opposite asked for, I think I provided not completely accurate information.

I’ve just been advised that the report for 2012-13 is not out yet as well. It’s coming out, as well, before the end of March, along with the report for ’13-14. There was a lag in reporting with one of the annual reports. So those two reports, coming out before the end of March, will catch that up.

To the member opposite, because I know he looked a little puzzled when I said that that one’s out, he probably was wondering: “Well, if it’s out, why haven’t I seen it?” That’s the reason, just to correct there.

In terms of the number of inspections — in 2011, 8,661; in 2012, 6,689; in 2013, 6,000. And to note: the 2014 numbers haven’t been fully finalized yet, so this is a preliminary number of 5,300 for 2014. In terms of compliance actions — in 2011, 1,769; in 2012, 1,493; in 2013, 1,339; and in 2014, 1,588.

H. Bains: I was given a little message that our time is coming up. I thought how during my sawmill days, if you started at three o’clock, you’d finish at 3:30, not 15 minutes early. So I thought we’d go till seven o’clock here, and they want to go 15 minutes early. Well, those are the rules.

Anyway, I just want to bring this to the minister’s attention here. If you look at 2000-2001, there were 31,000 field inspections. My information is that in 2012…. The 2011 annual report suggests 8,117 inspections. There are like 20 or 25 percent fewer inspections. You see the reduction in staffing and a reduction in inspections. So who’s looking after our interests there? It’s a serious problem.

Then my next question, if the minister has time to answer this. The question that I asked was on inspections, enforcement reactions, stop-work orders, seizure orders, compliance actions. For each one of those, if the minister could tell us whether the fines were levied — and, if so, how many and how much for each year, for each infraction?

[1845]

Hon. S. Thomson: To the specific question, we’ll need to provide that information. That’s a significant level of detail that we’ll need to provide as follow-up information for the member opposite.

When I went through the list before, I know that one of the ones on the list was enforcement actions, and I gave compliance actions. But enforcement actions, just for the record: 2011, 414; 2012, 248; 2013, 222; and 2014, 650 — again, with the asterisk on the 2014 numbers, that those are not final numbers.

I think what’s important on the inspection side of it…. I recognize the numbers, but it’s also important to point out that they’re not a clear indicator of the way that our compliance reports from staff work.

What we’re working towards now…. Because we’ve got generally high levels of compliance in the forest sector, it’s about education and awareness, and presence is a big factor in what they do to be more visible — to be out working with people on the land base in a much more visible approach. That’s why we’ve taken the steps to establish, through that division, the natural resource officers, which broadens the scope and capacity.

I look forward to continuing the discussions tomorrow.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:47 p.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada