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)

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: It’s always a great treat for members of this House to stand up and introduce members of their families when they come to visit. I’m really pleased and proud to introduce members of my family that are here today — my wife, Lisa, my daughter Gemma and my other daughter Shannon. We’re missing Stephanie, and of course, we’re missing Pal, but they wouldn’t let Pal in the building today, Madame Speaker.

This is Lisa’s first time to see question period, so I know that all the members will be very gentle on her very hard-working husband today. I would ask the House to please make all the members of my family welcome today.

L. Krog: On behalf of myself and the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, I’m delighted to welcome today to the House the youth advisory committee. It’s only three months old. It gives a youth perspective to Nanaimo city council, and they support the voice of council and youth in the city.

Escorted by John Horn, our city’s able social planner, and Jackson Wylie, I’d like the House to welcome Claudia Thompson, Coleman Kaps, Kent MacDonald, Mackenzie Cumberland, Kennedy Barbosa, Samantha Bishop, Aakash Pawar, Bri Odgers, Cassidy Sanford, Madeline Shred, Malcolm Beaton, Sarah Lumley and Tali Campbell. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning are the ambassador of Belgium to Canada, His Excellency Raoul Delcorde, and the honorary consul of Belgium in Vancouver, Mrs. Monique Poncelet-Gheleyns.

I’ll be meeting with them this afternoon to discuss the bilateral relations between Belgium and British Columbia. Would the House extend a warm welcome to the ambassador of Belgium and the honorary consul.

[1005]

S. Fraser: Her Worship Mayor Josie Osborne is joining us in the gallery today to view question period. It’s her first time here in the precinct. I’d also like to say that she was elected the chair of the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district just a month ago. In this last municipal election….

I should take a step back. I think it’s a good idea. Elections are great, and the runoffs…. You learn a lot. But there’s nothing better than being acclaimed in a return. So please help me make her feel very welcome here today.

D. Barnett: Today in the House I have two young ladies who look after me, and that’s a big job. My CAs, Bonnie Gavin and Bev Harris. Also, I’d like to ask everybody here to welcome them and to wish the member for North Vancouver–Seymour a happy birthday.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — TOBACCO CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. T. Lake presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the Tobacco Control Amendment Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: Health officials at the regional, provincial and national levels have successfully decreased tobacco use over the past several decades. In fact, British Columbia has the lowest smoking rate in Canada. But we are now faced with a new product in the market that is largely unknown.

Since becoming available, e-cigarettes have become popular with many British Columbians, particularly young people. The evidence as to their benefits and harms has yet to be established. That’s why we’re introducing the Tobacco Control Amendment Act, which will expand the scope of the Tobacco Control Act to permit regulation of e-cigarettes and associated products.

Our first goal is to protect B.C. young people from these products. This legislation amends the Tobacco Control Act to prohibit retailers from selling e-cigarettes to youth under 19 and to regulate the promotion and display of e-cigarettes as well as advertising.

Tobacco products are currently banned on all school grounds K to 12, and this amendment expands this ban on school grounds to e-cigarettes as well.

We also want to protect non-users from exposure to vapour products. Therefore we will ban their use in indoor public spaces and workplaces and prohibit them from being sold in public buildings.

Finally, health authorities are leaders in reducing tobacco use and want to limit smoking as much as possible on their properties. Therefore we are prohibiting the use of tobacco and e-cigarettes on health authority property, although health authorities will be able to designate certain smoking areas, should they decide to do that.
[ Page 6426 ]

This legislation will cover all electronically generated vapour products — including e-cigarettes, cartridges and components — and substances to be inhaled.

The name of the act will also be changed from the Tobacco Control Act to the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act to better reflect the new scope of the legislation.

I move that the introduction of the Tobacco Control Amendment Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SPIRIT BEARS AND ECOTOURISM
IN KLEMTU

J. Rice: Raven made one in every ten black bears white to remind the people of a time when glaciers covered the world and to be thankful for the lush and bountiful land of today. This is a Kitasoo/Xai’xais legend from the central coast community of Klemtu in the heart of the Great Bear rainforest.

The Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation people have lived for thousands of years with the spirit bear in the remote coastal forest. The elusive spirit bear is rarely seen. When and if you do see a spirit bear, otherwise known as a kermode bear, it is a magical experience — a ghost-looking figure, contrasting in the dark green forest or perched on the rocks of a tannin-rich salmon river.

[1010]

Klemtu, like many coastal communities, has been hit hard with declining forestry and fishing opportunities. So local community leaders looked to create a new economy and considered developing ecotourism opportunities.

This new concept was not just a business risk but a risk to losing the way of life the Kitasoo/Xai’xais people know and have lived for thousands of years. This is a life tied so closely to viable wilderness areas and a healthy marine environment. Doug Neasloss, a community leader and the resource stewardship director for the Kitasoo/Xai’xais, recalls a message that the elders in his community retell and that is: “What we have here is not ours. We just hold it here for the next generation.” This is the thinking that forms the direction of whatever projects the Kitasoo/Xai’xais undertake in their territory.

Recently while Doug and I were both stranded at an airport trying to get to Klemtu — but were forbidden because of strong winds and waves — Doug recalled stories about getting started in the ecotourism industry. There certainly were some growing pains. Many of the stories he told me are not repeatable in the House, but they are excellent stories, nonetheless, of growth and learning — so much growth and learning that the Kitasoo/Xai’xais are now prospering with ecotourism, sharing the magic and wonder of the coastal temperate rainforest and all that it sustains with the world.

WOMEN IN TRADES

J. Thornthwaite: This Sunday is International Women’s Day, an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the political, social and economic achievements women have made. This year’s theme is “Make it happen,” and its focus is to encourage action for advancing women.

One area requiring further action is the workplace, where despite the great strides we have made in labour force participation, women continue to be underrepresented in the trades. The skilled trades are vital to our economic growth and provide lucrative employment. Yet just 5 percent of our skilled tradespeople are women. There is still a stigma surrounding women in the trades, but we now have an opportunity to balance labour shortages and unlock our economic potential.

This means helping women get the skills they need to access well-paying jobs in the trades. This is a priority for government. Over the next decade there will be more than a million job openings in British Columbia, two-thirds of which will be from retirement, and meeting demand means tapping into the full potential of our workforce and encouraging women to pursue a career in the trades.

That’s why we partnered with the Industry Training Authority, to ensure programs like women-in-trades training are there to help those who are interested in the trades. The program provides training, financial assistance and support to eligible women. Since 2008 it has helped more than 2,500 women become apprentices. We are now seeing the dividends of this investment. There are now 3,900 registered women apprentices in the province, and this represents a 2 percent increase since 2009.

Trades workers are integral to our growing economy and furthering the development of communities across this province. Our government is working hard to make the trades more attractive for women who are trying to build a better life for themselves and their families. I encourage any woman interested in a rewarding career to find out how they can take advantage of the many opportunities in this growing sector.

VANCOUVER BIENNALE AND PUBLIC ART

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once you grow up. So said Pablo Picasso. Indeed, I believe we are all artists. But day-to-day demands, the siren call of the status quo, can sometimes smother the ability to truly wonder, to dream,
[ Page 6427 ]
to question, to make art a verb and not just a noun that you hang on the wall.

Every city needs art, and art has to be in the middle of the people — Os Gêmeos. Art on the streets. Sculptures in the parks. Giants on concrete silos. Art by bike, phone, air, earth, water. Beginning in Vancouver — and now in Richmond, New West, Squamish, North Van, Surrey — the Vancouver sculpture biennale, the Vancouver Biennale.

Thanks to the founder Barry Mowatt and his team at the Biennale, art is indeed all around us — large, small, on street corners, SkyTrain stations, where we live. It brings performances, dialogues, residencies and, of course, the sculptures that we know so well. It reminds us to open our minds, open our hearts, ask questions and not accept the bland status quo. Are we to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results? The Biennale says no.

Some in our communities, and indeed this House, may look at some art and say privately, “What the ‘f’”? and dismiss art, as it’s not immediately understandable. Well, What the F is an art piece at this year’s Biennale. Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, who has faced persecution for his art and his stand for free speech in China, has challenged us all to be artists with this piece.

[1015]

With that spirit, I will add to his piece and make the letter “f” with my tie — or a noose, as it sometimes feels. “F” for freedom. “F” for fear, fight, fantasy, and, well, “f” for…. You get the idea. What the “f” indeed.

Thank you to the Biennale and Barry Mowatt for their leadership, for their vision and for giving us the opportunity to be artists once again.

TRADES TRAINING AT UNIVERSITY
OF THE FRASER VALLEY
AND SEABIRD COLLEGE

L. Throness: Institutions in my constituency are playing an integral role in supplying tomorrow’s workforce through the provision of trades and technical training. Last year we announced nearly $900,000 to add 194 training spaces to the Trades and Technology Centre at the University of the Fraser Valley in Chilliwack.

Building on this, two weeks ago the Minister of Advanced Education visited the centre and announced $325,000 more for UFV to purchase new trades training equipment. He saw for himself the impressive, state-of-the-art facilities equipped to teach 14 different disciplines. The program director told us that one company recently asked to hire the entire welding class. That’s a measure of the value and quality of our programs.

There’s another technical training institute in my riding on Seabird Island First Nation near Agassiz. I toured the facilities of Seabird College, including a mobile training unit on loan from Thompson Rivers University that teaches welding. Seabird works with many such educational partners to accomplish its teaching objectives.

I also attended a happy graduation there last spring when 115 students celebrated the completion of a variety of courses, from hairstyling to heavy equipment operation. Seabird tracks the success of its students and found that, by last fall, 76 percent had already found employment. B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint says that a million job openings are expected by 2022, and 44 percent of them will be in skilled trades and technical occupations.

Our government has a plan to provide those trade workers, and UFV and Seabird College are going to be a big part of it.

BYRNE CREEK COMMUNITY
SECONDARY SCHOOL

R. Chouhan: Yesterday the Byrne Creek Secondary School in Burnaby-Edmonds officially became a community school. Community schools are regular schools with a special belief in and emphasis on the value of community involvement. The community school is open to everyone in the neighbourhood. It’s a neighbourhood hub where people can go to make new friends, develop and grow. It’s a place where children, students, staff, families, residents, agencies and local businesses come together to build a strong and caring community.

Byrne Creek is a vibrant, dynamic learning community. Byrne Creek has approximately 1,100 students. Over 67 languages are spoken inside the school building. In addition to vibrant arts programs, varied and competitive athletic programs and leadership programming, this school also provides a variety of services for Byrne Creek students and families.

These families are rich in culture and resilience. However, financial barriers are very often obstacles for many of them. The overall success of the school and the families depends on the multitude of programs that support food programs, warm clothes, after-school programs and parent programs.

Burnaby community schools are an integral part of the public education system. They’re operated by the Burnaby board of education in partnership with the city of Burnaby and the Ministry of Education and local community residents. Congratulations to the staff, students, families and the entire community for this achievement.

PRINCETON AND DISTRICT
COMMUNITY SKILLS CENTRE

J. Tegart: Nestled in the heart of downtown Princeton, not far from where the Similkameen and Tulameen rivers meet, is a building that is the centre of skills training for the southern part of my riding of Fraser-Nicola. The Princeton and District Community Skills Centre celebrates its 20th anniversary this year — 20 years of train-
[ Page 6428 ]
ing residents of Princeton, Coalmont, Hedley and the area in preparation for meaningful careers.

Founded in 1995 as a non-profit society, the Princeton skills centre’s mandate is to broker and offer job skills training and career counselling to the community.

[1020]

The centre serves the region with a computer lab and classrooms at its physical location at Vermillion Avenue but also serves an extensive list of on-line course offerings to its students. About 300 students take courses at the skills centre every year, and 3,000 to 4,000 people receive some kind of career counselling.

The Princeton skills centre remains a non-profit society. It has a volunteer board of directors and a staff of three. Its shoestring budget comes in part from the fees paid by students. They are committed to keeping access to education and skills programs cost-effective for the community of Princeton and the surrounding area.

The 300 course offerings are as varied as your imagination and include computer programming, sign language, veterinary assistant and fundamentals of accounting. The Princeton and District Community Skills Centre is dedicated to the noble mission of bringing lifelong learning opportunities to the community of Princeton and its large rural area.

I ask the House to join me today in congratulating and thanking the Princeton and District Community Skills Centre for 20 years of outstanding service.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF WHOLESALE LIQUOR PRICING
CHANGES ON WINE INDUSTRY

D. Eby: After promising there would be no changes, the Attorney General and the Premier have suddenly decided to change wholesale pricing for alcohol in this province. It sounds dry, but these changes are threatening small businesses across the province in every sector of the industry while they wait for the Attorney to push the button. Everybody knows there are serious problems with this reform. In fact, the Vancouver Sun’s wine columnist just called this initiative “a wholesale mess.”

Can the Attorney General explain why she seems intent on creating instability in a very important industry in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: As members of this House will know, the liquor policy review undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor — who we wish well and hope that we see back in the House soon — was one of the most successful public engagements that government has ever embarked upon. It received wide-scale response and enormous consumer interest.

The question of wholesale price, of course, relates to the issue of a level playing field. There’s been extensive consultation with industry, webinars put on by our staff. People understand the concept now for the first of April, and it’s a good system that levels the playing field for everyone.

It is too bad that the members opposite can’t get on board with the liquor policy review. Perhaps they don’t like that there’s liquor sales now at farmers markets. Perhaps they’re not happy that pubs and their local Legions can have kids in there joining their parents for dinner. They may not be happy with those changes, but British Columbians are.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: You can see why industry is frustrated. The minister has no idea what she’s talking about. We’re talking about wholesale price changes, which has nothing to do with farmers markets.

The minister’s rushed changes have been a disaster for small wineries in this province. It’s gone so far that a small winery, Okanagan Crush Pad, actually apologized to their customers for the minister’s actions. They said the Attorney General had created great uncertainty that could mean “life or death” for their small business. Does that sound like good consultation?

Why is the Attorney General intent on undermining small family-owned businesses in this province?

Hon. S. Anton: We have been in constant communication with the wine industry, which does a terrific job in British Columbia in building an industry and building a wonderful product which is appreciated through British Columbia, through Canada and, indeed, around the world, and we thank them for that.

The regime for local British Columbia wine is only improved by the constant interest in government in supporting the B.C. wine industry in terms of…. We have a wonderful industry, and we want to tell people that.

[1025]

I know that the members opposite are unhappy. I think they’re probably unhappy with the fact that there’s a happy hour now — that you can change your liquor prices during the day. You couldn’t do that before. They’re probably unhappy that they go to big events where you don’t have to be confined in a little beer garden to drink your beer.

They may not like those changes, but members of the public do. This liquor policy review and the changes to liquor policy in British Columbia are positive for consumers, positive for producers and positive for British Columbia.

WHOLESALE LIQUOR PRICING
CHANGES AND RELEASE OF REPORT

C. James: Many in the industry suspect that the government’s rushed reforms are being driven by a secret Ernst
[ Page 6429 ]
and Young report on liquor pricing. Now, I say “secret” because we’ve FOI’d that report, and so have many others in the industry, and the government has flatly refused to release it. It looks to everyone in the industry like this government is actually taking advice from an accounting firm, a secret report they won’t release, instead of relying on advice from B.C.’s wine, spirits and beer industry.

My question is very straightforward. To the Attorney General, why is this report being kept secret?

Hon. S. Anton: On the first of April we do indeed begin the new wholesale pricing regime. That means that instead of having a series of discounts, price, price off and so on — a very complicated system — what we have now is a single system that applies to all purchasers. Every purchaser, whether you be an LRS, a rural agency store or a government store, you will all pay the same wholesale price for your liquor — your wine, your beer, your spirits.

Everyone will pay the same on April 1. That’s the change that’s coming. That level playing field has been sought by industry for some time now. That’s what we are delivering.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: A very straightforward question to the minister. Will the minister release the report?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned, we have been in very close contact working with the industry both on the retail, on hospitality and on different forms of retail. We are working closely with the industry.

People understand. Our stakeholders understand the changes that are coming on April 1. They understand that the overall price of the product will be roughly the same on April 1 as it is on March 31 — minor adjustments but roughly the same price. They understand that.

They’ve asked for a level playing field. This is the level playing field, along with all the other changes that we are making in the liquor industry in British Columbia to support consumers, to support producers in British Columbia. People are very supportive of these changes. As I said, the largest public engagement government has ever entered into.

IMPACT OF WHOLESALE LIQUOR PRICING
CHANGES ON WINE INDUSTRY

S. Chandra Herbert: Only the Liberals would think a happy hour that actually led to increasing the price of beer would make people happy. B.C.’s public liquor stores don’t regularly stock Okanagan Crush Pad’s wine, but private wine stores in B.C. do. They carry their wines year-round, and those sales help the winery stay in business.

But under this government’s reforms, John Clerides, a local wine seller in my constituency, on Davie Street, for over 20 years is now being told his licence is worthless. If he wants to upgrade to a new cold beer and wine store, he’ll have to close his store and leave the community, because there’s already a cold beer and wine store across the street.

Why is the Attorney General telling a strong local businessman that he has to close down his business?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

[1030]

Hon. S. Anton: Of course, I totally reject the proposition in the question. We do like to support all of our retail people in British Columbia. As I said, the wholesale price will apply to everyone, whether you be a wine store, a private liquor store, a rural store or a government store. Everybody is paying the same price. This is the piece of work that’s changing on the first of April.

This is at the same time with allowing some liquor outlets to open in grocery stores. Imagine. We’re going to allow wine on shelves of grocery stores. [Applause.]

Thank you. That was the clap I was looking for the first time. You forgot.

These are the changes that consumers in British Columbia have asked for. These are the changes that government is making. It is very positive in British Columbia and very well received.

K. Conroy: Well, B.C. wineries across the province certainly aren’t feeling the love and support that the Attorney General is talking about. Al and Marleen Hoag, who own and operate Skimmerhorn Winery and vineyard in Creston, say the Attorney General’s changes have been very poorly rolled out and impossible to understand. They say: “An apology for this blunderous situation is owed to all stakeholders.”

Will the Attorney General take their advice and the advice of the people across the industry, slow down, actually really consult transparently with the wineries and get this done right?

Hon. S. Anton: The House should know that government has consulted extensively with the wine industry. It’s an extremely important industry in British Columbia, and I bet pretty much everybody in this House appreciates the products made by the B.C. wine industry. They are fantastic products. They are enjoyed in British Columbia, as I said, and they are enjoyed around the world, because they’re terrific, prize-winning products produced by wineries in British Columbia.

We in government support those wineries. We have consulted them regularly throughout the changes that
[ Page 6430 ]
are being made. They continue to be supported in British Columbia because they do such a great job for us. These, along with all the other changes that we’re making — to improve service, to improve quality, to improve customer satisfaction with liquor in British Columbia — are very good changes.

JUSTICE MINISTER COMMENTS ON
WHOLESALE LIQUOR PRICING CHANGES

S. Simpson: On July 23, 2013, I asked the Attorney General in estimates whether it was the government’s intention to go to one wholesale price for liquor. The minister’s response was: “The question of one wholesale price did get assessed at the time, and the assessment concluded that there would be significant impacts. There would be winners and losers. It would have been extremely disruptive to the industry and very complicated, so the decision was made not to go there.” That’s what the minister said in July.

Unfortunately, the minister has chosen to ignore that advice from her staff, and consequently, we have the mess that we have today. When the minister clearly knew in July 2013 that this was a bad idea, why does she persist in trying to go there today?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said earlier, we started on…. In fact, I think government started on thinking that this might be rather minor changes to liquor, and it turned out that we have changed many things in the liquor industry in British Columbia — in consumption, in sale, in hospitality. All of these things are to improve the consumer experience.

I haven’t mentioned health and safety, and I’ll mention it right now. That has always been at the forefront of the work that we do. Everything that we do has health and safety in mind.

These come out of a very extensive policy review. They come out of very extensive consultations — the desire for a level playing field in British Columbia. These are very good changes indeed.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

[1035]

S. Simpson: In July, when the minister said this would be extremely disruptive to the industry and very complicated and they weren’t going there, she said at that time that there was an assessment done that drew her to that conclusion.

Will the minister release that assessment? If she won’t release Ernst and Young, release the assessment that said: “This is a bad idea. We know it’s a bad idea, but somewhere someone is getting paid off.”

Hon. S. Anton: I have no idea what the member is alluding to. He might stand up and say so. He might go outside and say so, but that is a preposterous remark, and it deserves no response.

NORTHEAST OIL AND GAS HEALTH
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FUNDING

V. Huntington: It’s bad enough that the northeast human health risk assessment is not yet public. It’s worse still that the scientific data isn’t available, as it should be. And it beggars belief that data on human health is withheld because it might harm the financial interests of this government.

But it’s inexcusable that the Northeast Oil and Gas Health Advisory Committee has suddenly lost its government support. The committee has been meeting since 2008 and was the driving force that pushed the government to undertake the human health risk assessment.

The volunteers who sit on that committee drive long distances to attend monthly meetings. They receive no remuneration of any kind. All the committee received was a place to meet and a few hours of health authority staff time — the assistance that is the glue that keeps the committee together. Now that support is being withdrawn. The very committee pushing for answers is effectively being forced to fold.

Can the Minister of Health please tell us why Northern Health has pulled its administrative support for the Northeast Oil and Gas Health Advisory Committee?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, Northern Health is still very engaged in this process. We met with them recently to discuss the process that is involved.

As the members know, this is a three-stage process. The first was to go out to the public to identify concerns that should be included in the report. Phase 2 applied scientific principles to analyze the possible health, operational and regulatory issues with oil and gas development in the northeast.

That study has been concluded. We are working on an engagement plan, because it’s important that we release this with respect to the First Nations and community leaders that are affected by this study. We will do that. We are creating an engagement plan, and that information will be released to the public once we’ve had an opportunity to first brief the First Nations and the community leaders in that region.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: With respect to the minister, Madame Speaker, his answer completely avoided the question. The health advisory committee’s work, not Northern Health Authority, was instrumental in getting phases 1 and 2 of
[ Page 6431 ]
the human health risk assessment underway. And while it may be an illusion, it appears pretty darned coincidental that the health advisory committee is about to be forced out of the picture.

Even though the Northeast Oil and Gas Health Advisory Committee is likely a small burr under his saddle, would the minister please tell this House that he will ensure that Northern Health Authority support is fully restored to this committee so that it can continue its job as one of northeastern B.C.’s respected watchdogs for public health?

[1040]

Hon. T. Lake: I can assure the member: I have no burr under my saddle. We really appreciate volunteers that participate in this process.

Northern Health is certainly still engaged in this process. If the advisory committee has issues with the process, I would be happy to reach out to the advisory committee. We value their participation. We will ensure that they are well connected to the process of releasing this report, first at the local level and then provincially.

FUNERAL SERVICES ON HAIDA GWAII

J. Rice: Yesterday the Minister of Health suggested we didn’t understand the unique problems facing residents of rural and small communities. So let’s consider a challenge his government seems indifferent to. There are no licensed funeral services on Haida Gwaii, but for many years a volunteer filled the void, helping families with their deceased loved ones. Recently Consumer Protection B.C. ordered him to stop helping grieving families.

With the people of Haida Gwaii now at a loss, Northern Health issued a pamphlet for bereaved families. It suggests that they should obtain a casket, though it would need to be shipped to the island, or they could find a local carpenter. They should find a gravedigger, though none are listed in the Yellow Pages. Then they should collect the body from the hospital themselves. How many grieving families could possibly do these sorts of things?

My question is to the Minister of Justice. Does she think these are the sorts of challenges that should face a community of 5,000 northern residents?

Hon. S. Anton: I do appreciate that this is a difficult situation, but it is the law in British Columbia that funeral directors must be licensed by Consumer Protection B.C. in order to operate. This is an order to, obviously, protect consumers and communities. Consumer Protection B.C. is enforcing its own requirements here, so it’s not appropriate for us to interfere or comment on those decisions. I do wish the residents well and hope that they can come to a resolution.

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

J. Rice: I’m just a bit gobsmacked, pardon me.

The only suggestions offered by Consumer Protection B.C. were for families to send the remains off island or, the most outrageous suggestion, perform funeral preparations themselves. But even if families could afford the $10,000 to ship their loved ones off the island, the ferry service is sporadic, particularly in winter.

To the Minister of Justice, will she ask Consumer Protection B.C. and Northern Health to work with the community and help find some way of providing these basic services to the residents of Haida Gwaii?

Hon. S. Anton: It is, indeed, the case that Consumer Protection B.C. has reviewed the practices and does require people to be properly licensed in order to perform funeral services. There’s a gap now in the service available to people on Haida Gwaii, and I know that people are aware of that gap. As I say, there are different authorities having a look at this. I do hope that they can come to a solution, because it is very tough on people to be without that kind of service.

M. Farnworth: Well, instead of wishing people well at a time of grief when there’s a complete and total lack of services in a part of British Columbia that needs those services, in a part of rural British Columbia that this government purports to want to represent, perhaps some leadership could be shown, and the Attorney General could say to Consumer Protection British Columbia and to her own ministry, “There’s a problem here; how about we bring people together and try and fix it” instead of platitudes?

[1045]

My question to the Attorney General is simple. Will she commit to working with Consumer Protection British Columbia and her own ministry and get this issue resolved so that the people of Haida Gwaii are not inconvenienced and can expect more than just: “We wish you well”?

Hon. S. Anton: Funeral providers are private providers, and the person who was purporting to be that private provider on Haida Gwaii was not suitable. Their ability to do that has not been permitted by Consumer Protection British Columbia. They make these decisions independently within their administrative requirements.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: The community funeral providers in Prince Rupert, and, I hope, Consumer Protection B.C. — I won’t say I hope; I will ask Consumer Protection B.C. — will work together. It is something that is needed on the islands. It is a rather low market, so that’s the challenge. There aren’t that many funerals required every year.
[ Page 6432 ]

But there’s no question that it is a gap in service on Haida Gwaii, and it’s something that I think all of the people concerned will be attending to.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh. The minister says: “Get off the high horse.” Really, Minister?

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: You’d think that when….

Madame Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The minister thinks that in a remote part of British Columbia when a loved one dies…. It costs $10,000 to ship the body to the mainland for preparation and burial. But there are no funeral services. The instructions are: “Dig your own grave. Dig the grave yourself.”

Then we get a response from the Attorney General: “We wish you well” or “There’s a low market.” Can you get any more example of how callous a government can be than this?

The question is really simple. Will the minister and this government show some compassion and some leadership, work with Consumer Protection B.C., work with the people of Haida Gwaii to solve this very real problem for families who live in that part of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: This is clearly a concern. It’s a concern to government, it’s a concern to families, it’s a concern to all of Haida Gwaii that they do not have funeral services.

I am very prepared to talk to Consumer Protection B.C. about this and to work perhaps with the Minister of Community, because there is obviously a gap on Haida Gwaii. The answer to that gap is not clear at the moment, because a number of parties need to come together to find a solution. But certainly, I am very prepared to help out with finding that solution — working together to find a solution for the people of Haida Gwaii.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR FERRY SYSTEM

C. Trevena: The federal government provides $1.41 per passenger, per year to B.C. Ferries to assist operational costs. In contrast, they subsidize Marine Atlantic over in the Atlantic provinces $493 per person — 350 times the amount provided to B.C. The Premier has lobbied Ottawa to allow more temporary foreign workers but has failed to get a better deal for our ferry infrastructure.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. What does he intend to do to ensure that British Columbia receives a fair and equitable investment from the federal government for our coastal marine transportation infrastructure?

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you to the member opposite for her question. Every opportunity that I get to talk about the vision that this government has for B.C. Ferries — that we’re executing on with B.C. Ferries, the Ferry Commissioner and coastal communities — is a welcome opportunity, indeed.

[1050]

As the member knows well, our vision spans a wide spectrum of different initiatives that are being pursued — the conversion to LNG propulsion, cable ferries, alternative technologies, passenger ferries in complement to vehicle ferries. There were some service adjustments, as well, as part of that.

With respect to the federal government, on every occasion when the opportunity presents itself in interactions with federal ministers, I certainly raised this issue of a level of federal subsidy. This government has certainly pointed out that there is, in our opinion, an inequity there. We will continue to point that out and work collaboratively with our federal partners.

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

C. Trevena: I don’t really think that’s much comfort — that the minister talks about his vision for ferries and then he occasionally might talk to the minister about various ferry things, without having concerted effort, a concerted lobby, to the Minister of Transportation, to the federal government, to get a fair deal for British Columbia. What we want is a fair deal.

We’re not asking for any reduction in services to other provinces, but we want to have our fair share. We’ve seen fares go up. We’ve seen services cut. We’ve seen ridership and revenue plummet. The response is more fare increases and more service cuts. We know we’re getting shortchanged both in our operating dollars and in our infrastructure dollars from the federal government.

To the Minister of Transportation, will he — I’m willing to work with him on this — make a concerted lobby to the federal minister to ensure that we get our fair deal here in B.C.?

Hon. T. Stone: Whether it’s in respect to infrastructure funding, whether it’s changes that we need to see on the labour side of things and, indeed, whether it’s pursuing additional support from the federal government for our coastal ferry service, this government, at every opportunity, aggressively pursues the interests of British Columbia.

Interjections.
[ Page 6433 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: Indeed, I have had numerous face-to-face meetings with federal ministers over the last year and a half. I have very clearly articulated British Columbia’s desire to see a heightened level of federal support for our coastal ferry service. We are also working with Transport Canada on other issues that we think could assist us in our efforts to drive down fares, including looking at crewing levels, for example.

We’re going to continue to pursue every opportunity that we can, including working collaboratively with the federal government, to drive down fares and ensure that the ferry service is sustainable for the long term.

[End of question period.]

RULING BY
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMISSION
ON MORTGAGE INSURANCE SALES

Hon. M. de Jong: Last week I received a series of questions and undertook to provide the House with some information, which I’m going to try to do, although my ability may be a little compromised.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I can manage.

There were three questions, and what I can advise is as follows. I am advised that the superintendent of financial institutions of FICOM investigated the distribution of Manulife mortgage protection insurance through a company called Benesure and found that Benesure was not licensed to sell the product in B.C.

Manulife signed a consent order to correct the situation and paid penalties and the cost of FICOM’s investigation. Those amounts, I’m advised, were a $50,000 administrative penalty — a total of $150,000 — and cost of the investigation of just over $31,000.

[1055]

The order confirms, I’m advised, that the policies were valid, and Manulife never took the position that the policies sold through Benesure were invalid. Manulife also provided an undertaking setting out remediation plans which contained confidential commercial information.

I am advised that the investigation proceeded on a confidential basis — which is, I’m told, normal practice in these circumstances — with the full cooperation of the companies. FICOM found no evidence of criminal activity, and in answer to one of the questions, the RCMP was therefore not informed of the investigation.

Secondly, FICOM found no evidence of harm to policyholders, so no press release was issued, but the consent order concluding the investigation was publicly posted on the FICOM website.

Then I think the third question related to other regulators, and I’m advised that FICOM informed other regulators in Canada of the consent order, in keeping with existing protocols.

That’s the information I have.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, the continuation of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, and in this House, committee stage of Bill 3, the Building Act.

[1100]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — BUILDING ACT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On section 5 (continued).

D. Eby: It’s a very important section, and I’ll be spending a little bit of time here trying to understand the implications of it. I’m focusing on subsection 5(3), which says: “Subject to subsection (4), a local building requirement has no effect….” Then there’s a couple subsections that relate to that.

I wonder if the minister could give me a quick overview of what’s happening in this section. It seems to say that local building requirements within municipalities in B.C. will no longer have effect as a result of this legislation. And I don’t want to guess further than that. I’ll leave it to him to explain what he’s doing here.

[1105]

Hon. R. Coleman: This provides that a local building requirement has no effect if the building requirement is dealt with already in the provincial building regulations. This means that if a provincial building regulation regulates the matter, local authorities cannot. If a provincial building regulation does not regulate the matter — i.e., building requirements related to fencing or erecting a freestanding sign, etc. — local authorities may determine if their existing authorities allows them to establish those requirements.

D. Eby: There are two matters that are described here: restricted matters and unrestricted matters. Are these going to be set out in regulation exhaustively so that if it’s not an unrestricted matter, local municipalities are not
[ Page 6434 ]
allowed to put in any requirements? Will these lists be…? I guess the question — to summarize it, because it sounds a little confusing even to me — is: will municipalities be able to rely on these lists? If it’s unrestricted, we can do it. If it’s restricted, it’s absolutely out and that’s that.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it recognizes that there may be some matters that are addressed in the provincial building code for which local authorities should have authority to establish — or need some authority — additional building requirements. These could be something along the lines of an area of a community where it identifies in the code the number of parking stalls for disability access and they wish to add more. So we make that unrestricted, and they can make their local choice for that.

Safety measures at construction and demolition sites that are addressed within the code. Local authorities may wish additional requirements with respect to site safety. If these minimum requirements are not fully addressed — a particular local concern. That’s what we mean by unrestricted. It doesn’t mean that they can take the actual building code — the construction and building code — and go play with that, because that will be restricted.

The whole idea here is to get to some standardization in the code so that we have some better outcomes. There’s going to be a transition period as we work through this with local government, and some consultation will be done with regards to that. As well, if there is something that local government would like to do that’s beyond the existing code, we would work with them to be able to do that if it was worthwhile.

D. Eby: The minister knows that there have been some concerns raised around fire protection requirements, particularly sprinkler systems, in some municipalities, and that a municipality has required sprinkler systems. They have had a great result from that in terms of fire protection for buildings, as well as for people. Would this be an example of an unrestricted matter, where going above the fire requirements to require additional protection like sprinklers would be unrestricted? Or would this be a restricted matter where the fire requirements are set out and that’s that?

[1110]

Hon. R. Coleman: Fire, accessibility and energy efficiency would probably be three examples of where additional work will be done with municipalities, because obviously, within the code we want some very specific standards about accessibility for people with disabilities and to make sure that we’re not having municipalities lower that bar with regards to accessibility for disabled people.

And how we do that? Energy efficiency is, obviously, important. That was the discussion in and around the solar roofs yesterday that we had a short conversation about.

On fire, I’ve met with the fire officials — a number of them — as recently as just on Friday. With regards to the fire, the issue is some communities do, today, require a sprinkler system in residential single-family homes and others don’t. We think that we can work through that issue with them. I’ve sat down with them, so a local government would be able to make that change, but that consultation is going to take place, to a place of: “Well, what is the practical and best way to do this?”

Fire officials have come to me and said, for instance: “Don’t let a local government go too far.” They say the sprinkler, the closets and, you know, and all the rest of it in a house…. Because this is really about protection and life and safety for residents. We believe that there should be a balance to make sure that the sprinkler systems make sense.

I’ve sat down with a sprinkler technologist, technology people — the people that install these, as well — and have gone through this, and we’ve made a commitment to local governments that have those bylaws to work through those with them to figure out how we can bring that into an ability for them, at the local level, to do that within the code.

G. Heyman: I’d like to pursue one aspect of what you were just discussing. Obviously, there’s great desirability to have consistency between municipalities. It’s in everyone’s interest. But we also know that, in the areas of taking action to address greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency and related matters, often municipalities have driven the agenda. Small municipalities have often been at the forefront of that through the foresight of their leaders.

I’m curious as to how you envision the regulations addressing the matter of particular municipalities really wishing to push the envelope on energy efficiency matters or, perhaps, issues like ensuring that buildings are able to accommodate solar panels, feed into the grid, etc., without creating requirements for municipalities that are not yet ready to move there, or if the intention, perhaps, is to set the bar very high and invite everybody to reach it.

Hon. R. Coleman: A couple of aspects I’ll give you on this, so we can sort of have an understanding. Basically, we’re raising the bar on energy efficiency as we come through this with regards to the building code. We’ve been doing that for some time. What we’ve done in the past and will do in the future is what we call enabling regs.

[1115]

Basically, let’s take low-flush toilets for an example. Initially, we put an enabling reg in the building code so municipalities could put low-flush toilets in their communities. Some didn’t want to do it. Some did. The example in this one is we worked through the regs, and we did it. It eventually came in where it has now become a provincewide code for low-flush toilets. That’s the type of
[ Page 6435 ]
initiative somebody brought us that made sense.

You can get the reverse initiative if somebody comes and says: “We really like a particular window, and we’ve decided to make that as the window standard for our community.” Then you find out that there’s actually nothing wrong with the windows manufactured in B.C., and all of a sudden the B.C. manufacturers are cut out because they tried to pick a window that they had seen at a conference or something like that. It’s about a bit of discipline on both sides.

What we are doing on energy efficiency, just so the member knows, is we have an energy efficiency working group that’s being put together now to develop recommendations about bringing more consistency to energy efficiency requirements across the province. We’re providing local government flexibility to achieve their greenhouse gas reduction goals.

That working group will include local government, construction sector experts, government agencies, other people that have an interest or expertise in energy efficiency. That group will have its first meeting in spring of 2015, which will then guide the reg toward further energy efficiency but also to put a standard in place.

It’s not to preclude local government from coming with another idea for energy efficiency, but it is about not letting them go below what we think should be a standard. If we are going to really truly green our building code as we go forward, we need to have the discipline in the marketplace across, where we don’t have a lower standard below the code somewhere in B.C.

G. Heyman: Thank you for the explanation. Just to be absolutely sure that I’m clear about this, the intention is not to set one bar but to set the minimum standard, and if municipalities choose to exceed that over time and set standards that may eventually raise the bar for everyone higher, that would be permissible.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member’s understanding, the first thing is to try and get to a high standard on energy efficiency as we build the code. The second thing is to make sure we have discipline around that.

If a community decides they want to do something different — right? — to add something to their process with regards to energy efficiency, they will come to a provincial process. We will review the technology behind it to make sure it doesn’t affect other structural aspects around building code, whether it has an effect on the other energy efficiency of a building — if it’s actually being a negative impact. That’s why we would have the experts that would work on that versus just having somebody make a local decision that isn’t particularly well-founded on research or technology.

Basically, this allows us to make sure we have the expertise to be able to do that. Because over the years, over time, we’re going to get new products in the marketplace, and when a new product comes into the marketplace, you actually need to know that it works with other pieces in the marketplace. That could be anything from a furnace relative to CO₂ gases and those sort of things, as well as other things.

This is the discipline around that. Local government will be able to, if they have something like that, bring it to us. We would take a look at it in the envelope of the building code to make sure that it’s safe, that it’s doable, that it works within the code.

Then at that point in time, the technical assessment would be: “Okay, you can have that in your restricted items you want to add to the building code.”

G. Heyman: My final question. The committee, in a sense, is ongoing and will be encompassed by the regulation. The process of municipalities seeking approval for something that varies following that process will all be encompassed within the regulation and be part of the process?

[1120]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is an ongoing process that exists within government today and through the building standards branch in looking at new technology. This allows, if somebody brings us something, for us to go out for the expertise, to take that information, combine it with the code, cross-reference it to make sure that it’s going to work within the code and that it has the benefit that people think it has.

In the past the reverse was true. A local government could go and find a product. They’d decide to put it into the marketplace with none of this to back it up and found out in some cases we had a negative impact with regards to that.

This allows for a standard place to do this. We have a continuing liaison with the industry and people that have expertise in energy efficiency and those sorts of things. They come in and work with the building standards branch, who actually manage this package on behalf of government.

D. Eby: The minister has discussed the consultations that he’s going to engage in around this. There are a number of provisions in the bill that talk about fees for if a municipality brings forward something that they want amended. Is this going to be before the code, the regulations, are implemented or afterwards? Are municipalities going to get a code and then have to pay to come to ask for those amendments? What’s the order of things here?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nowhere in this is there a fee to local government for any of this process. It’s handled within the ministry and that process. For the local government to come and do this with us on something they would like to add, there’s no fee, no charge.
[ Page 6436 ]

D. Eby: Maybe this would be better covered under section 7. I may have conflated local authority with local government on this front. But the core of the question is: is the building code coming out as soon as this thing passes? Or will there be a consultation before that happens? I guess that is what I’m getting at here.

Hon. R. Coleman: Probably a good idea for a bit of clarification at this point because there is confusion for some people when they see Building Act that they think it’s the building code. The building code exists. It’s on a natural five-year cycle. The natural five-year cycle is ongoing now, so the next revision to the building code would be 2017.

This allows for the authorities to modernize the system, to do the standardization, to do the things we’re talking about. The actual building code is a living document.

[1125]

Even today, new products and standards that come through are looked at and added to the code by minister’s regulation in order to keep it fluid enough to adjust to what is in the marketplace or new technologies coming into the marketplace and those sorts of things.

The Building Act that we have today is what allows us to take some more discipline in that process when there are things being added that really shouldn’t fit with the building code at local government levels and having some standard understanding of the code and the ability to improve it and modernize it.

That’s just the authority. The actual code itself is always an ongoing thing, and 2017 will be the next revision for it.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

D. Eby: This relates to an earlier question that I’d asked about, what I understood to be a fee for municipalities to come forward. Can the minister explain who the local authorities are that would be paying the prescribed fee to request building regulations under section 7?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess this would be called a “just in case.” There’s no intention whatsoever to charge a fee for the minor requests that are going to come from municipalities with regards to….

Let’s say, for instance, we want to have a sprinkler addition to our building code for single-family residential. Some already have it. We do the work with the expertise. That is just an ongoing process. This does allow that if somebody came with something, let’s say, way out there that was something nobody had dealt with technically before and you’d then have to go and do a lot more technical work — architects, engineers and maybe do international research….

The intention has always been that we wouldn’t put that onto the local government. Obviously, the developer who has an interest in doing that would be the one that we would be pushing this back to, to make sure they could justify it.

There’s an example of that now: trying to find a place to put a fence around a substantially high wood-frame construction, a cross-laminated beam building, that some people want to propose at UBC. It goes above the height of even European experiences. At this stage we’re saying…. Because we don’t have a code that has the flexibility to do it, we actually have to sort of do some additional work outside that. It would appear that that would be picked up by the developer, though. That’s where we put the push to.

But sometimes a municipality may come with something that’s more complex, and then we would sit down and talk to them about how we would handle that. So that just gives us the ability to do that.

Clearly, there’s no plan to charge any fee for any of these things as we come through this or to help people bring new things to the marketplace from the municipal level with regard to additions to their local code.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

D. Eby: It was unusual to me reading this, maybe not being familiar with the existing building code, that a person may make written requests to the minister to make a regulation in respect to a single building.

Can the minister explain the history of this and whether that is, in fact, unusual or whether that’s standard practice? It seems like a lot of work for the ministry when cities would be a better place to deal with this.

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s really not typical at all. As building science evolves, the construction industry is developing more and more proposals for innovative buildings — for example, tall wood buildings such as a proposed 18-storey building I mentioned at UBC.

[1130]

These buildings may not comply with some requirements of provincial building regulations. They can be designed and built to provide an acceptable level of safety and performance under alternate requirements. That’s where we get into this ability to do this. However, most local governments can’t even provide the necessary level of review at their level, because they just don’t have the oversight or experience. That’s why it comes to us to look at the oversight and manage the additional safety risk presented by these proposals.

Oftentimes when you start to go higher with different products — you will run up against somebody saying we need a different ladder truck, for instance, for the fire department, and these other things — these issues have to
[ Page 6437 ]
be canvassed by the building standards branch on behalf and with directions. But this section enables a person to approach government with a request for a variation — for instance, reinforcement for the construction, alteration, repair and demolition of buildings.

What it referred to as building requirements that differed from provincial building regulations — that would apply to an innovative proposal for a specific building. You’ll get this sometimes, even the day we do work.

We probably run into some of this work more in the city of Vancouver, where we’ve taken the facade of a building and actually managed to save it but build a building that ties back into it. It takes a lot of technical expertise and work to do that. I’m familiar with that because the people that do most of that in Vancouver is actually B.C. Housing, through their renovations of old SROs.

So if that proposal is approved, then a site-specific building regulation applies. Then at that point in time for the local government, the clarity of inspection and the specific requirements for that building to meet the building code standards with additions is clearer for them. It helps them work with their architects and engineers for more clarity.

Subsection (1). “Request by person for variation” — it has to be heard by the minister. When we say “minister,” it’s basically the building standards branch, with a recommendation through to the minister. If approved, it’s enacted through a provincial regulation which then allows for that site-specific building adaptation.

That can then lead to, obviously…. If it’s successful and it works out, and the review on the research comes along, that could very easily then, over time, go in as another standard for a different type of structure within the building code.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

D. Eby: The section describes the possibility of retaining experts, that the minister can determine their remuneration and that the Public Service Act does not apply. I’m curious about why it would be that the Public Service Act does not apply — what does that mean? — and also about the process around maximum remuneration, or the reporting or disclosure standards for that.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is an enabling piece. It clarifies that we can hire or retain non-employee experts — basically, the people who might not necessarily be working in the public service on contract.

The reason you do that…. For instance, when I was travelling overseas, at one point in time I deliberately went and saw some higher construction — buildings that were made of cross-laminated beams, nine and ten storeys, in England. We don’t actually have that expertise within the building standards branch. This just enables us to go out and hire somebody that has that expertise. Ironically, the person that did those buildings was actually an architect originally from UBC, who has given some feedback on some of the higher-storey stuff to us, but outside.

This just makes sure that we’re able to do that, because you can’t have every expertise and every piece, on something as complex as buildings, always within the standards branch. That allows us to go out and get that expertise.

D. Eby: Is there some requirement around disclosing remuneration paid to experts under this act that isn’t in the legislation? Is there something that would apply here to disclose those contracts or amounts paid?

[1135]

Hon. R. Coleman: There’s nothing in the act that deals with that, because we would use the normal, standard, government contracting process, with the thresholds that say how you’d go out and bid it and price it and all that stuff.

Particularly on something complex, you’d do a request for proposals — or a request for qualifications, more so, I guess. It would be the description. You’d want to know somebody that had the educational and the expertise and the practical experience with regards to something as significant as this. We would go out, get the qualifications, get a proposal on price, and that would be public under the normal government contract process.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

D. Eby: This is a complicated section related to exempt building professionals that may be members of professional associations or in a prescribed class by the minister. Can the minister explain the intention behind this section? Well, I’ll leave it at that.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m pleased to do that. What it does is it requires the local governments to ensure that individuals who make compliance decisions on their behalf are qualified to do so, first of all. It requires individual building officials to limit compliance decision matters within their scope of practice or expertise.

But basically, there’s no existing provision for it actually to have qualifications for building officials, inspectors in British Columbia. The industry, both the building inspectors and officials themselves, and local government have asked for this for some time. Local government employs these folks to monitor the compliance of building design and construction with the building code and other provincial building regulations.
[ Page 6438 ]

Despite that key role they play in the construction process, there’s no mandatory qualification or continuing professional development requirements for building officials who work in British Columbia, unlike in most provinces of Canada.

The Building Act contains provisions that establishes qualification of requirements for building officials in section 11. After a transition period of four years after the section is brought into force, a local authority will be required to ensure that only qualified officials make compliance decisions on their behalf. And a building official must be qualified and may only work within his or her scope of practice as per subsection (3).

An exemption is provided in recognition of that by otherwise qualified…. Some individuals may need to meet qualifications in section 11

People like architects and engineers would be exempted by virtue of their own professional qualifications with regards to having the expertise and the qualifications under existing obligations to assure that building design construction complies with the building code. And the contraventions of this section are obviously subject to administrative penalties.

Really what this is, over the next few years, is to get to a level of qualification and ongoing training for building officials to understand their role within their qualifications and to upgrade their skills as the building code changes, because there’s no requirement today to do that. Someone could have been a building inspector for 30 years and not…. Well, obviously then we’re seeing…. Let’s say it’s a six-storey wood-framed constructed building or some things that are in the code today, and there’s been no ongoing training.

So this is actually something both industry and local governments, when I’ve talked to them, have said this is something they’d like to see us raise the bar on, and that’s what this section allows us to do.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

D. Eby: This section relates to qualifications as a building official and sets out specific requirements for that. The qualifications or the expectations are left quite vague in the law here. You’ve got to “pass one or more qualifying exams specified by the minister.” There may be requirements specified by the minister around professional development. There may be prescribed associations which aren’t named. There may be additional requirements prescribed by regulation.

Can the minister share with the House where he’s going with this? What are the requirements that they’re going to be looking for from building officials in terms of exams? Is it going to be an annual exam or a one-time exam?

The professional development. Is this going to be a course put on by the ministry? It’s difficult to know what will be expected of inspectors under this section.

[1140]

Hon. R. Coleman: To cover me, I’ll make this answer a little bit longer than normal. Then maybe we can cover all of the issues for the member.

Local authorities employ building officials to monitor the compliance of building design and construction in B.C. — building code and other provincial building regulations. Despite their key role in building construction, there are no mandatory minimum qualifications, as I mentioned.

Mandatory provincial qualifications requirements for building officials will increase uniformity in British Columbia in the building code application and enforcement and ultimately building safety by ensuring that the individuals who review plans and inspect buildings under construction are competent to do so.

This section establishes a provincial qualification for building officials. It is planned that these requirements will be administered by agreement — because they have already said they would do that — by the Building Officials Association of British Columbia via an administrative agreement under section 14 of the Building Act, not dissimilar to the architects that would monitor qualifications for architects and engineers for engineers and professional organizations.

What this establishes is that to be a building official, a person must meet the qualification requirements consisting of…. First of all, let’s remember it’s a four-year transition for the folks with experience, so they can get there.

They have to pass one or more qualifying exams; satisfy continuing professional development requirements, which isn’t unusual for any of those other professions; be a member in good standing in a prescribed professional association, which is planned to be the Building Officials Association of British Columbia.

This piece is kind of important. It allows, then, as they go forward, for errors and omission insurance to be able to be gotten by people with these qualifications because they will be recognized as being part of an appropriate body.

Other requirements are prescribed through regulations as we go through and we find other qualifications are needed in consultation with the industry that we also do with other professional bodies. And being entered on the register of qualified officials and not being suspended. That’s the starting point.

Subsection (2) gives us the authority to establish different scopes of practice for building officials — for instance, corresponding to types of buildings a building official can inspect. These scopes of practice are planned to be identical to the existing scopes of practice outlined for members of today’s Building Officials Association members in British Columbia.
[ Page 6439 ]

Level 1’s building official is one- and two-family dwellings. Level 2 is up to small, multi-unit residential, simple commercial and industrial buildings. Level 3’s building official would be all buildings.

Level 1 plumbing official, up to small unit residential and simple commercial construction, and level 2 plumbing is all buildings.

This is to make sure the qualifications for more complex buildings are within the people’s expertise. So basically what this gives us authority to do is recognize a building official’s credentials obtained in other provinces — in section 2.

So if somebody has the qualifications, and they meet the qualification standard for the Building Officials of British Columbia, those are transportable qualifications and recognized by professional organizations. That allows them to do that.

Then as we go forward, we would be getting into work with this association for the continuing professional development piece, for people to make sure they’re continuing professional development to maintain their professional competence and expertise as they go forward.

Basically, it sets out the requirements for taking qualifying exams; to pay their fees for membership as a professional person, as you would in any other professional body; and then it requires a person who receives materials for training for continuing professional to pay any applicable fees to the minister or to the body, which is basically done. If you’re an architect and you’re going to a course, you pay the fee for the course through, probably, the architectural association, or whatever the case may be. It’s the same thing for most professional bodies.

This is moving this. There are jurisdictions in Canada that do this now, and this is us putting it in place in British Columbia and laying out what qualifications would be required. Then the examination and the training piece would be worked out with the Building Officials Association.

I would think, eventually, with the national harmonization of where those qualifications are, we would be recognizing qualifications from other jurisdictions that have this in place.

D. Eby: Thank you to the minister for that comprehensive answer. Section 2(b), as the minister said, provides for the recognition of extraprovincial credentials. Would it be the case that somebody registered in another province would be permitted, then, to operate in B.C., or would they have to register in British Columbia as an inspector here?

[1145]

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, they would have to be registered in B.C. to practise in British Columbia, with the basic qualification of building officials. If they’re coming from a jurisdiction where the qualifications aren’t recognized, it could be required from the building officials qualifications in British Columbia to take additional courses in order to achieve their qualification in B.C.

D. Eby: Under section (3)(c), as the minister mentioned, there are exams that will be required under this. Does the minister anticipate that, essentially, this industry authority or this professional association would be administering these exams, or would they be delivered in B.C. colleges, for example? Who’s going to be providing these exams?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Building Officials Association will be providing the exams for folks to get their qualifications and to do remedial ongoing training with regards to that. They will be the professional body, similar to the architects and the engineers, who would be the provincial body that would administer the qualifications and the ongoing training like they do for them.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

D. Eby: This section relates to the establishment of a register in which qualified building officials will be listed once they qualify. There’ll be a registrar maintaining this. There’s a list in subsection (3) of the various components that’ll be in this registry — the name of the person, scope of practice and so on.

One section that’s not there is a list of substantiated complaints. So if there’s a complaint made about an inspector, it’s investigated and found to have taken place, it’s not listed in the database. Where will the information for the public be around the operating history of an inspector who may have had non-compliance in the past?

Hon. R. Coleman: That will be prescribed through regulation. I think it’s a really key point for the member and I. The introduction of mandatory qualifications is great. It requires local governments and public utilities and people that are hiring these people to hire people that have, obviously, qualifications in order to do their job. They need to be able to have accurate information regarding people who are qualified at that level.

If you are doing a hiring in four or five years at a local government level and you want to hire a building official that would have certain qualifications to do jobs, if they’re not registered officially, basically, for a lack of a better description, with the building officials of British Columbia as being qualified, they wouldn’t meet the hiring process. They wouldn’t be able to hire them, quite frankly, because they’ve got to move to that standard with people.
[ Page 6440 ]

As we go through this and other regulatory stuff…. I’ve dealt with other professional bodies. You always the establish the ability for a registrar to be there, who is basically the person that’s the keeper of the information, keeps the public up-to-date but also is the person that maintains the qualifying information for people that would be building officials.

The registrar is usually not an employee of the province but is usually with the provincial body in almost like an arm’s-length statutory role. Same thing with the…. The auto dealers have it in their piece, where there’s a registrar that investigates complaints and issues in and around auto dealers. It’s done with others. This basically allows us to do that.

Then they can collect and retain that information and make it available to the public, because people need to know that the people they are dealing with are qualified.

D. Eby: In this section, certainly, the qualifications are well canvassed. If there’s an issue, though, with the conduct beyond qualifications of an inspector, does the minister anticipate the regulations are going to capture that as well?

For example, if there’s a criminal conviction of a building inspector, fully qualified, will the registrar be able to deal with that and, potentially, deregister them or otherwise list some issue on their entry in the registry?

[1150]

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ll go through a couple of points here. Maybe it’ll help with the answer to the member.

Section (6) requires a person to report to the registrar if they’re no longer in good standing with a professional association prescribed in section 11, which is planned to be the Building Officials Association. In the subsection it’s provided that in the event the registrar is not associated with the building association, the information would still be provided.

The subsection requires a professional association — which is planned to be the association, like I mentioned — to advise the registrar, upon request, whether a person is in good standing. In fact, it designates that the registrar be a member of the Building Officials of British Columbia.

It also requires the registrar to keep for a prescribed time the information if a person has been removed from the register. This is planned to be 15 years. The record retention period is appropriate, probably longer than most, due to the long lifespan of buildings, the fact that problems with buildings may not emerge for several years after construction and the length of the ultimate limitation period.

It also requires that the registrar make publicly available the information maintained on the register. This can be, because of the way the act is written, via a website so that somebody could go on and check on somebody.

The organization itself has a code of conduct like other organizations. The code of conduct applies for discipline acts with regards to members and other aspects outside qualifications. The registrar has to be advised when anybody is to be struck from the record.

D. Eby: Section (9)(b) contemplates the registrar having an office. Does the minister anticipate the office of the registrar would essentially be part of the building officials association office, or is this going to be freestanding and separate from that professional association?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think so. My experience with this is that it’s usually an independent person, not influenced by the board, that’s the registrar. Then the registrar, obviously, operates independently. Now, I know, in some organizations, sometimes that could be housed in an office on a similar floor within the building, because it does brings some synergies with the provision of information and that sort of thing.

I know we will continue this, this afternoon. Thanks to the member for this morning’s debate. Noting the time, I move that committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.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. N. Letnick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Ashton in the chair.
[ Page 6441 ]

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

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

The Chair: Good morning, everybody. Just before I go to the minister, I want to welcome everybody here this morning — those around the tables and those in the gallery, specifically.

Minister, I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order and recognize yourself as the minister.

H. Bains: Good morning to all of you again. I think we were onto land sale questions before we ended last night. The minister promised to bring some information about C and E, so if the minister could provide us those numbers.

I think the question — I will put it again — related to how many inspections, enforcement actions, stop-work orders, seizure orders and compliance actions occurred. I think the subsequent question from that was: for each of those years, have fines been levied? If so, how many and how much for each year? The years we were talking about: 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15.

[1105]

Hon. S. Thomson: Good morning to everybody here.

The member asked for that…. It’s a very, very detailed set of data that needs to be provided in terms of response to the question. We have undertaken to provide it. We will provide it in writing to the member opposite. But for the level of detail across all of those years, it was not information that could be provided this morning.

As we mentioned yesterday, the annual reports are coming out for those years. That provides the higher-level information, but the specific details down through that data set require a significant amount of work to pull all of that data together. We have committed that we would provide it in writing to the member opposite.

H. Bains: It’s very concerning. I think I alluded to it last night. When it comes to the compliance and enforcement, there was a study conducted. What they came up with was this:

“In the past years C and E staff worked closely with other Forest Service departments to coordinate efforts. For example, scalers were called on to assist in investigating companies that may have illegally logged trees or misrepresented the volume and value of the timber they logged.

“According to a recent C and E report, 58 percent of all enforcement actions against major licensees” — it says the companies holding long-term logging rights — “necessitated some scaling work. With both the number of provincial scaling officials and provincial C and E officials down, there is less likelihood that such cooperative work will occur in the months ahead.

“As a senior C and E official contacted during research for this report noted: ‘Some of our C and E staff do have scaling licences. However, when and where possible, we rely on the expertise and knowledge of scalers when we are actually having to prove that an offence has occurred.’”

It’s pretty serious stuff:

“‘Scaling staff are able to quickly determine log grade, quality and species. They are considered officials under the legislation and also have the authority to issue violation tickets.’”

I think the issue here is that there’s a cutback in C and E staff — we’ve seen that, and the minister said that last night — and in the scaling side as well. So what has been compromised? The enforcement part. I think that’s where the issue is. How much are we losing as a result of this cutback so that the government can boast about balancing the budget?

No one will argue about balancing the budget, but the issue is: at what cost? How much are we losing as a result of that one accomplishment? Here is one of our key industries — an industry that built this province, as I said yesterday in my opening, for 150 years. It’s still one major part of the well-being of our economy.

In the meantime, just because ideologically, or whatever reason, the government feels that they can scale back, cut back, not provide the resources, allow the industry to enforce their own rules and say: “Well, we believe you.”

How much are we losing on a daily basis, on a yearly basis, as a result of that? That’s why the concern is shown by staff in C and E, the scalers and others who actually care about our industry, care about the loss to the government revenue and care that they believe the rules should be followed. But they are not given the tools. Their hands are handcuffed. I think that’s the issue here.

[1110]

I thought that the minister would have, at his fingertips, all of that information — that the inspections are cut by, I would say, three-quarters, from 31,000 down to about 8,000, just because the staffing isn’t there.

I mean, how much are we losing? Have you done any analysis? How much are we actually losing, based on the enforcement orders? You could see if that’s where the loss was. You can multiply and see what the total loss is. Has anyone done anything to recover those losses so that, on a move-forward basis, we can correct that — so that the revenue to the government is coming, the rules are followed, and we are managing our forest the way we should be, professionally and efficiently?

[1115]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to let the member opposite know, the revenue risk to the province is taken very, very seriously. It’s important to note that there is a very, very significant level of activity around scaling enforcement.

This is over and above the numbers we talked about yesterday, C-and-E numbers. In terms of scaling, there were 616 active scalers. There were 16,000 check scales that were performed. An average of 2 percent of the loads were check-scaled; 9 percent of the loads were replaced by the check scale. There were 786 active scale
[ Page 6442 ]
sites and 21,500 scale-site inspections performed. An average of 2.7 site inspections per scale site were completed each year.

There’s a total of 37 dedicated ministry check scalers in the province, plus other supervisory scaling staff that can also check scale, and the scaling standards require the ministry to audit scalers on a risk-based assessment.

Those numbers are over and above the inspection numbers that we talked about yesterday.

H. Bains: The minister says that we take those monetary losses seriously. I’m looking at the report here by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations compliance and enforcement program. This is the annual report of 2012. There’s a figure here.

You talk about taking it seriously. There are 15 cases where the monetary penalties were levied, and 15 are under $999 — 15. That’s the highest number. Then you look at $50,000 to $99,000 — zero; $20,000 to $49,999 — zero; $10,000 to $19,999 — zero. I mean, where’s the incentive for anybody to follow the rules here?

Who’s looking after the till on behalf of the public? They put their trust in the minister and this government’s hand to look after their very precious resource. Here we’re giving it away by not enforcing our own rules, just because we want to cut back and cut back and cut back so that we can show, for political reasons, that there is a balanced budget. Here we’re probably losing millions on a daily basis. I don’t see any incentive or, you know, sustainability.

I know that the minister always means well, and I don’t blame everything on the minister, but this is the policy of the government that he represents — the self-reliance, the professional reliance, that they can monitor their own rules and then report back to the minister. I mean, look at the results here. It’s not even a slap on the wrist. So how do you say that we are taking this issue seriously?

[1120]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I pointed out, we do take the revenue protection very, very seriously.

What’s important to point out is that the numbers that the member opposite is referring to are just strictly in the C-and-E side of it. Where the recoveries come is through the revenue protection branch, through the audit program with the Ministry of Finance. Where those are identified, they are pursued through that avenue. They don’t show up in those numbers that you have listed in the reports.

There are a number of ways that’s recovered. It’s recovered through that process. It may be recovered through…. A number of these result in legal cases and activity and are recovered through that process, ultimately, through the courts and court settlements.

Where those are identified and where there are actions that need to be taken, our ministry works in cooperation with the revenue protection audit program within the Ministry of Finance to recover the revenue to the province.

B. Routley: I thank the minister for his answer, but it does lead to more questions.

I know you’ve committed to give us several things in writing, but we would like a follow-up on the amount of compliance and enforcement effort in terms of the revenue. You talked about how it’s now in other areas of responsibility. Maybe that explains why some of the reporting has changed.

If you could give us the numbers that don’t show up in the report…. I gather you’re suggesting that we have to go see another ministry to find that out. Anyway, you can think about that question.

[1125]

The scope of compliance and inventory work has changed. When the minister arrived on the scene, you were there during the transition from the Ministry of Forests to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. As you said earlier in this discussion, it’s now over 100 permits that people are overseeing. I know that we had the discussion before about compliance and enforcement people going and taking extra training, because now they were going to do more than just forestry.

Maybe this is somewhat complex — what I’m asking for. But I’m sure that the minister has this information squirreled away somewhere, and that is: could we have an idea of the change in scope of the ministry, from the Ministry of Forests? For example, how many compliance enforcement officers are still working exclusively on forestry issues, or are there any? Maybe they’ve all been assigned other duties outside of just forestry. So if there has been a transition, and if there are different types of compliance and enforcement officers that have different focuses within those 100 or more licence areas….

Maybe you could kind of develop a schematic or something for us, so we could…. You know, pictures often tell a thousand words — if we could actually see what’s happened from forestry to now additional training. I know we asked you….

I wasn’t really being flippant when I said: “Are the forestry compliance officers now running around with guns?” How do they go and deal with somebody that’s out in the woods that’s got an illegal elk over the hood of his truck, or whatever? There has obviously been a huge change in the scope and the amount of work being done by the compliance enforcement folks.

I remember that when the Liberal government first made dramatic changes to Forests, in 2002, there was a commitment that we were going to go to professional reliance, do away with all of this regulation and red tape. We were going to have million-dollar fines — million-dollar fines. And people were going to go to jail — jail, so really serious.
[ Page 6443 ]

But we’re seeing the train go just the opposite way. It’s not going to more serious compliance and enforcement. We fear that we’ve got a classic situation of the fox in charge of the chicken coop. That’s what we’ve got going on. So we’re essentially emptying out our pockets and giving it to those people who really don’t need that kind of a break right now.

We have a responsibility, particularly the minister, as the minister responsible, for protecting the public interests.

If I could summarize, the questions I’m asking are: can you give us a schematic or a listing of how people went from the Ministry of Forests? And what other responsibilities do they have? Do you have some people with one focus, some people with multiple tasks? I know the other day we were struggling with finding out whether there was a vacancy ever in the Ministry of Forests. We’ve now got that nailed down to there are a few every year.

This transition — I hope you can appreciate the reason why this is important, particularly to the people who spent almost 100 years representing the forests of British Columbia. They want to know what’s happened and how this has been watered down. And how serious is the problem?

[1130]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Firstly, the first point, I think, was: can we provide the comparison and the numbers? Certainly, we can provide that and will undertake to provide that to you for Monday — with where the areas of focus are as part of the C-and-E strategic planning process.

I think what’s important to point out is that even with that…. We can provide that focus. But with that focus…. Where you have that primary focus, with the changes we’ve made to have those under natural resource officers and the integrated approach to it…. Even though they have that focus, they will also do other things as part of their work. So if they’re out….

It doesn’t matter where a road is — for example, a forest road is up to the forest activity, or it’s going into a mine — if they see things because they’re out there looking out on the forestry side of things but they see something else, then they have the ability to do it. That’s why we have that integrated approach on the natural resource officer.

You’ll see the schematic, but you want to recognize that all of those in that schematic, where they have their primary areas of focus, carry that broader range of responsibility. I think that’s part of the success in integrating the ministry — to be able to do that — and then they work very closely with the conservation officer service in the Ministry of Environment as well.

[1135]

On the revenue side, there is a whole other series of processes in place around the Financial Administration Act, the revenue protection branch in the Ministry of Finance — all the reporting systems and everything that look at that revenue side of it — that, as I mentioned, are not in those numbers that we talked about, in terms of inspections and numbers of inspections and things by the C and E staff.

We’ll provide that schematic information for you, with the understanding or sort of the caveat that while we do that, you need to recognize that those people perform a broader range of responsibilities, even though they may have their primary focus in one area.

H. Bains: I think, while you’re at it, Minister, the question and the request was also to provide us the revenue collected as part of the enforcement, so if we could get those numbers as well. Is that the minister saying yes?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

H. Bains: Okay.

I’m going to move on to the land sale that we started yesterday. The minister said we’ll get the list today, I believe. That was my understanding. If the minister could provide us the list of assets that were sold off by the ministry in fiscal 2014-15 and 2013-14.

Hon. S. Thomson: I know yesterday we committed to provide that information today, and we will still follow through with that commitment and provide it to you early this afternoon. We were just making sure that…. We were trying to compile a significant amount of information and trying to address some of the other information, which we realized, in the end, was a lot more data.

We just want to make sure that we’ve got fully accurate information. We will provide it early this afternoon for you.

B. Routley: I want to turn to the issues of inventory. Just as a bit of an overview, the B.C. Auditor General, back in February 2012, released a bombshell report that sharply criticized the government’s forest policies, the lack of direction and inability to adequately manage the forests.

The report concluded that the ministry had not clearly defined its timber objectives, management practices were insufficient to offset a reduction in timber supply and species diversity, and the ministry was not appropriately monitoring and reporting results in relation to its objectives.

I know there were six recommendations. I’ll spare you from me going through them once again, but I do want to point out that perhaps the greatest problem that was identified by the Auditor General is that the ministry lacks the information it needs to properly manage the forests.

The inventory is woefully inadequate, and what research does exist shows a high rate of damage in plan-
[ Page 6444 ]
tations. There’s a growing disparity between the forest covering information and the actual forest conditions, growth rate and density.

[1140]

With that overview, I wanted to start by asking….The last date of the B.C. forest report was published in 2010. Previous editions were in 2004 and then two years later in 2006. Why has the ministry not updated this report? Is work underway to update the report? If so, when can we expect an updated version?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite referenced the report and the Auditor General report. It was obviously a report that we took very seriously in terms of responding to it. The six recommendations that were in the report — the member opposite didn’t list those, and I won’t either.

I think what is important to recognize and to confirm with the member opposite is that the Auditor General asked us to provide a subsequent assessment in February 2014 that the Auditor General reviewed, with the findings reported in their June 2014 follow-up report. The report says: “We are pleased to report that the ministry has made significant progress towards implementing the recommendations.” More specifically, they concluded as follows…. Then there is a specific response around each of the recommendations.

It is an area that we have taken very seriously in terms of responding to that, and the Auditor General has confirmed that the ministry has made significant progress towards implementing those recommendations.

With respect to the report and the specific report, the process has changed. We’re not currently now providing a report that gives one snapshot in time. Working with the Ministry of Environment now, there’s a regular process of updating indicators that’s provided on the Ministry of Environment website.

[1145]

We think it’s more efficient and actually more useful to the public for the indicators and state of the resources to be updated on a regular basis and posted on the website on an ongoing basis as opposed to a report that provides one snapshot in time.

B. Routley: We asked the minister in the last estimates, approximately a year ago now, question 112: “Will the minister, in light of the Auditor General’s first recommendation in his audit, provide the House with some indication as to whether his government will commit to developing a strategic vision or plan for all B.C.’s natural resources in the 21st century?”

The minister has just stated that there was a comprehensive report to the Auditor General of some kind, but in the response to the question last estimates we got back an answer that says:

“With regard to the Auditor General’s report on timber management, the ministry has acted on all of the Auditor’s recommendations. For example, the ministry’s service plan performance measure for timber volume gain from silviculture investment includes discussion that more clearly defined provincially desired outcomes for timber. The performance is now linked to provincial timber harvest target levels of 57 million cubic meters.”

Do I have this right, Minister? Is the strategic vision and the plan for the province’s forest come down to a volume? Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, the quick response to the member opposite is no. The vision of our ministry and the vision towards sustainable resource development and economic activity in the province is not solely related to just a volume objective. The Auditor General’s report was timber-focused in terms of a response, so that was part of the response to the Auditor General in terms of the volume objectives.

Our ministry has a much broader vision around resource development in the province — a vision that’s based, as I said, on sustainable resource development, on objectives of economic development and working with the forest sector to ensure that they have a long-term future in the province and a positive future in the province.

[1150]

That’s why we’ve seen increased economic activity. That’s why we’ve seen job growth. That’s why we’ve seen export value growth within the sector, and all of that balanced with ensuring that we continue to work with them to harvest at a sustainable level into the future.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: Before the committee adjourns, I just want to thank everybody, the members, for the cordial approach that takes place in these chambers and to recognize all those that are so helpful with answering the questions or helping out with the questions.

See everybody shortly.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.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