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)

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 6

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of the government side of the House and all colleagues in this House, we want to welcome members of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association who are either in the gallery or in the precinct today. They are here for their annual lobby day. Certainly, over the last number of years we’ve all come to appreciate the very constructive and respectful way that the firefighters come to Victoria to talk about the issues that are most important to them.

Yesterday many of us had the privilege of attending the bell ceremony, which is a memorial to firefighters who have passed away recently. Obviously, that was made even more poignant by the fact of the recent loss of two firefighters, one a volunteer firefighter in the line of duty. Today we extend our heartfelt sympathies and care to their families and our profound gratitude to the men and women who choose to run toward danger and harm while the rest of us are running away.

On behalf of all of us here, we want to say thank you and issue a very warm welcome to the House and to the precinct.

[1005]

M. Farnworth: I, too, want to join with the minister in welcoming the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association, their members here, to the chamber to witness today’s proceedings and also to acknowledge the work that they do. As the minister said, many of us yesterday were outside watching that very moving ceremony out behind the library. It was a reminder to all of us of the sacrifice that firefighters make right across this province in communities large and small.

Yesterday and today members are meeting with individual firefighters from their local detachments, outlining issues of concern to them and issues that they would like to see all of us in this Legislature work together on. We had an opportunity to socialize last evening, which I think all of us thoroughly enjoyed.

This side of the House is joining with government to welcome the firefighters inside and outside the gallery. Would you please make them most welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Today I want to rise to pay brief tribute to someone who should be very important to all of us in this House because he’s such a regular viewer of question period and Hansard throughout the day. He’s also a distinguished veteran of the Korean War. He is my dad, Peter Inkman, and today is his 86th birthday. So happy birthday, Dad.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce to the House today representatives of the Galiano Island Health Care Society: Mike Hoebel, Art Moses, Carol and Scott Wilson and David Morgan. They are here today to present a petition requesting government to reinstate the on-call nursing service on Galiano Island. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Today I’d like to recognize two very special individuals from my riding of Parksville-Qualicum who are joining us today. Qualicum Beach is lucky to be home to Bill Luchtmeijer and Mary Brouilette. As current and former councillors for the town of Qualicum Beach and dedicated volunteers, they have given countless hours of their time and energy to the community. I’m honoured to know and work with them, and I would hope that the House will please make them feel welcome.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to introduce to the House and welcome back one of the most important constituents from Powell River–Sunshine Coast: my partner, country musician Slim Milkie.

S. Sullivan: I would like to introduce someone who has had a remarkable impact on my quality of life. Michael Harding represents the Independent Wine Retailers Association, and he’s here to talk about the changing government policies. I’d like the House to welcome him. Thank you, Michael.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a couple of guests from the Mayne Island Health Care Association who are here today. Lindsay Allan and Lorne Yeudall from Mayne Island are here to present a petition on behalf of Mayne Islanders about cuts to the on-call nurse. Would the House please join me in making them very welcome today.

Tributes

IVAN MESSMER

D. Ashton: Madame Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity today. I rise today for a bit of a sad day in Penticton. A former member of this House, a long-time mayor of the city of Penticton, Ivan Messmer, passed away on the weekend. So if at all possible, through yourself, if we can send condolences to the family.

Ivan was the mayor of Penticton from 1980 to 1986,
[ Page 6568 ]
a member of the Socred government here and a former Solicitor General and Minister of Parks, if I remember correctly. He is survived by his two lovely daughters and some grandkids and was predeceased by his lovely wife, Marge.

They were absolute stalwarts in Penticton, always doing their best to ensure that Penticton garnered the recognition that it deserved. He was a gentleman that really firmly believed that infrastructure was incredibly important to communities. So if at all possible, from all of us, condolences would be greatly appreciated.

Madame Speaker: It shall be done.

JENNY CRAIGAN

N. Simons: I would ask the House to offer its condolences to Chief Calvin Craigan of the Shishalh Nation on the passing of his wife this past weekend — Jenny Craigan, a well-loved member of the community. Our condolences to the family and to the entire community of Sechelt.

[1010]

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: Yesterday we had the BCIT student representatives here. Today they’re also attending this session — all five from the BCIT Student Association. They have some issues around infrastructure and programs. We had a long talk. I think this is a great way for them to come to see the House again today.

M. Mungall: I’d like to introduce the House to Marc Thibault. He is a member of the Nelson fire department. If anybody here has ever watched the movie Roxanne, they’ve had the honour to actually see the historic fire hall where he gets to work every day.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce four of my friends from Burnaby: Rob Lamoureux, Paul Rushton, Jeff Clark, Miles Ritchie. They are the best firefighters in Burnaby. They not only do what firefighters are supposed to do, but they go beyond, often, the call of duty. They help care for children in the school, providing snacks to them, and also help the community every day. Please join me to welcome them.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m pleased to introduce the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act. The current Civil Resolution Tribunal Act was passed on May 30, 2012, and established a new dispute resolution body: the civil resolution tribunal. This tribunal will have the authority to hear small claims matters on strata property disputes, and it will help people to resolve their disputes as early and cost-effectively as possible.

The current act provides for a voluntary tribunal, meaning that all parties must consent to the jurisdiction of the tribunal over a dispute. The voluntary model will enable the civil resolution tribunal to begin operations gradually, as voluntary dispute resolution processes in the justice system typically involve low uptake.

The amendments today, though, will enable the tribunal to provide a mandatory dispute resolution service for small claims and strata matters. Once the tribunal is fully operational, uptake will increase significantly, providing up to 40,000 British Columbians annually with access to speedier and less costly access to justice.

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

Bill 19, Civil Resolution Tribunal 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)

NON-PROFIT HEALTH SOCIETIES ON
GALIANO AND MAYNE ISLANDS

G. Holman: I rise today to speak about two non-profit health societies in the Gulf Islands: the Mayne Island Health Centre Association and the Galiano Health Care Society.

These societies manage locally funded and operated health care centres from which a range of services are provided. These community-funded health centres represent the kind of integrated primary health care that many experts and politicians hold up as a model. However, unlike most health care facilities in urban areas, both of these health centres were constructed by donations and operated with local taxpayer funding.

The Galiano and Mayne Island societies are managed by a volunteer board of directors, and the chairs of both societies have come here today to present petitions opposing cuts to weekend on-call nursing coverage.
[ Page 6569 ]

Gulf Islanders are feeling a bit under siege. Over the past decade ferry fares have doubled while the schedule has shrunk. Their roads are deteriorating, and a new funding model for recycling threatens the viability of Gulf Island depots. At the same time, old stereotypes persist about wealthy islanders with an unrealistic sense of entitlement. In fact, average incomes for Gulf Islanders are significantly less than for B.C. and the CRD.

I can also tell you, Madame Speaker, that while Gulf Islanders do get a bit grumpy about tolls that have doubled on their highway, they don’t expect services at the standards enjoyed by urban areas. They even accept that their highway shuts down for much of the day every day.

[1015]

There’s a saying about necessity being a mother of invention. The Galiano and Mayne Island health societies represent the best of this spirit. They don’t expect the same level of health services that other British Columbians take for granted, but they do expect that inexpensive but essential health services are not unreasonably withdrawn.

WALTER DAVYDUKE

S. Hamilton: I rise today to speak about the loss of one of Delta’s dedicated volunteers. Walter Davyduke passed away on February 20, leaving behind both a loving family and a grateful community. Walter was married to Eliza Olson, a founding member of the Burns Bog Conservation Society, and while Eliza advocated tirelessly for the bog, Walter went about quietly but substantially contributing by providing access to this magnificent place.

You see, Madame Speaker, a bog is a beautiful thing, but it can also be a very hostile environment, hosting dangerous and difficult terrains. Quiet, unassuming, proud and stoic, Walter’s efforts may have been somewhat less apparent but in no way were they less significant. Walter designed and constructed a series of boardwalks within the Delta Nature Reserve portion of the bog. After scrounging supplies — donated wood, nails, etc. — Wally mustered volunteers to help with the cause. His hard work and tenacity resulted in the ability for everyone to enjoy this beautiful, peaceful place.

Let me close by saying that we often eulogize people in this House. We speak of their deeds, their contributions to our communities and the collective loss that we’ve suffered. Then, when we sit in quiet repose, this time — and maybe I’ll start a tradition here — might I suggest that, in Wally’s case, a life that well lived deserves a round of applause. [Applause.]

GITANMAAX CAREER FAIR

D. Donaldson: Goliit’ lax ts’ap, heegal, lip gyat — goliit’ lax ts’ap, locally based; heegal, hard-working; lip gyat, self-sufficient.

Those are the words Gitxsan organizers and elders used in advertising the Gitanmaax career fair held February 27. Close to 500 people attended — a phenomenal number, considering the population of the Hazeltons and surrounding villages is about 2,000. The bulk of those 500 students were from the local high schools, bused in shifts throughout the day to the career fair. Even grade 7 students from elementary schools were brought by their teachers, a move that was encouraged so students could begin to think about course selection in their senior grades, said one of the event’s organizers, Bridie O’Brien, a First Nations access coordinator with Northwest Community College.

Other sponsoring organizations included the Gitksan Government Commission, Gitxsan Health Society, Gitxsan Unlocking Aboriginal Justice, the office of the Wet’suwet’en and CFNR, Canada’s First Nations Radio.

The messages of locally based, hard-working and self-sufficient reflect the themes of the community plan developed by the Gitksan Government Commission. The commission represents four villages, and the plan focuses on sustainable jobs and businesses, said Sandra Martin Harris, the organization’s social development adviser.

The Upper Skeena region has a large proportion of young people. More than 70 percent are under the age of 30, twice the provincial number. Most want to make their livelihood close to their traditional territories and extended family. Combine that stable, emerging workforce with demonstrated need for local training and now proven existence of aboriginal title in the Supreme Court of Canada, which government should take as a given, and you’ve got the conditions to help create an incredibly bright future for those attending the career fair.

Congratulations to the organizers. [Gitxsanimax was spoken]. The very best. Well done.

BARBECUE COMPETITION IN YARROW

J. Martin: Hog Shack, Barking Boys, Smoke and Bones, the Serial Grillers. These are just some of the two dozen teams that will be gathering in my riding next week to kick off the province’s first sanctioned contest of this year’s competition barbecue season.

Teams from Washington, Oregon, Saskatchewan, Alberta and throughout beautiful B.C. will be smoking low and slow at the Barn Burner BBQ cook-off in beautiful Yarrow. This event is sanctioned by the Kansas City BBQ Society, and the grand champion will earn points toward a shot at the biggest cook-off of them all, the Jack Daniel’s World Championship Invitational.

It’s all happening March 21and 22, when the region’s top pit masters put it all on the line. It’s a great day for the entire family — lots of barbecue samples, live demonstrations, vendors, entertainment. Competitors will be turning in their best beef brisket, pork shoulder, ribs, chicken and the always popular black box iron chef entry.
[ Page 6570 ]

This is the 1st Annual Barn Burner BBQ contest, and I am thrilled that organizers selected Yarrow for the event. A big shout-out is going to the sponsors: Johnston’s pork and Fraser Valley Speciality Poultry.

[1020]

It wasn’t actually that long ago barbecue contests were considered somewhat of a southern U.S. novelty, but that’s all changed with celebrity pitmasters and a host of barbecue-themed reality shows. Today there are numerous events in the province, including the Canadian championships held every Canada Day in Whistler.

I would ask the House to join me in wishing the organizers and competitors every success in what will be destined to become one of the premiere contests in the Pacific Northwest. If I could just impart a few words of barbecue wisdom for the record: a hog has one responsibility in its lifetime, and that is to be delicious.

Megaphone MAGAZINE VENDOR
DANNY MALONEY

D. Eby: The corner of 4th and Yew in Kitsilano will never be the same for me. For years Danny Maloney stood at that corner in all weather and sold Megaphone magazine to Kitsilano residents, myself included.

Danny passed away just last week. I found out about Danny’s passing through a memorial display that had been built for him on the street corner out of flowers, printed messages, cards and other tributes. Clearly, I was not the only person who felt a special connection with Danny. I asked the people who worked with Danny every day, the staff of Megaphone — Sean Condon, Jessica Hannon, Jackie Wong and Misha Golston — about Danny. Here’s what they had to say.

Originally from Toronto, after many hard years early in his life, Danny really flourished as a Megaphone vendor in Vancouver. The paper and his customers gave him something he never had before, a community and a sense of purpose. This gave him a huge boost to his self-esteem and allowed him to finally see himself as something he always was — valuable. The community helped him overcome his addictions, and he quickly became an institution in Kits, loved by so many people that stopped by on West 4th to say hello and get a paper. He sold the street paper for more than 20 years.

Danny was incredibly generous. He gave away anything extra he had to those in greater need. Despite his barriers, he was always there for others when they needed him. Danny, like the Megaphone magazines that he sold, changed many lives through his work. He will be dearly missed, but his legacy lives on in the vendors he helped train and support and in the success of the Megaphone project in changing lives across the city.

Thank you, Danny, for your work, and thank you, Megaphone magazine, for introducing me to Danny.

COWBOY HERITAGE WEEK

D. Barnett: I’m honoured to rise today to speak about Cowboy Heritage Week, which will take place this year from March 8 to 15.

Cowboy Heritage Week celebrates the importance that cowboys have played in the province for over two centuries. Cowboy culture is central to the history of many communities in the Fraser-Nicola, Boundary-Similkameen and Cariboo-Chilcotin regions, and ranching continues to be an important part of the economy in many parts of British Columbia.

As our province’s communities modernize and move away from their cowboy roots, it is important to remember the significant impact of cowboy heritage in British Columbia and to recognize the continued contribution of cowboys to ranching in our province. Therefore, I am pleased to stand in the House today to honour B.C. cowboy heritage and the valuable role cowboys play today in their care for animals and stewardship of ranching lands.

I extend my thanks to the many individuals, organizations and volunteers who promote cowboy culture and heritage, including those who contribute to the B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society, such as Mark and Kathy McMillan, who work tirelessly to organize the annual 100 Mile House Cowboy Concert and the Kamloops Cowboy Festival. The Cowboy Heritage Society draws attention to important historical legacies through events such as the annual 100 Mile House Cowboy Concert and the Kamloops Cowboy Festival, which is coming up. Please get your tickets soon.

Please join me in thanking all of the province’s cowboys and ranchers, past and present, for their significant contribution to British Columbia and in celebrating British Columbia’s Cowboy Heritage Week.

Oral Questions

AUDITOR GENERAL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
AND ROLE OF AUDIT COUNCIL

S. Robinson: Last month the minister responsible for local government spoke to the media and said that she had recently met with both the audit council and the Auditor General for Local Government.

[1025]

According to media reports, the minister was asked if there were human resources problems at the AGLG, and she said that there were none. In fact, she told the media: “I can tell you that we are working closely with the board in making sure we are successfully moving forward.” Hardly sounds like she’s taking a hands-off approach to the AGLG. She made those comments after she was in possession of the damning workplace environment review conducted by her staff.
[ Page 6571 ]

To the minister, was she telling the media the truth about the situation at the AGLG’s office?

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite: you’re incorrect. We met in February. A report was provided to us on the audit council with an update of a revised plan of the audit council’s review of moving forward with the audits.

Let me be clear. The workplace survey that was presented yesterday in the House was a result of us working with the audit council to ensure that we had a revised plan to ensure that the audits would be completed. At that time the Auditor General for Local Government asked the Public Service Agency to do a workplace service review. That was what the members opposite alluded to yesterday.

Madame Speaker: Direct all members to put their comments through the Chair.

S. Robinson: Yesterday we heard a lot about how this independent office was completely independent and separate from the minister, and today we’re hearing that she actually was doing the work, right up to her elbows. It’s really a sort of mixed message that we’re getting.

Perhaps the minister would prefer to go back to this idea that the audit council is responsible for these problems. Surely, government didn’t just hand the AGLG a five-year budget and tell her to check in again in 2018. In February, just four weeks ago, the minister reappointed every single member of the audit council. She must have thought that they were doing a very good job.

To the minister: is the audit council responsible for the mess at the AGLG?

Hon. C. Oakes: As I alluded to, we’ve been meeting with the audit council to look at a revised plan to ensure that the outcome of the audits…. There would be steps in place. But I remember in estimates the member opposite asking similar questions that I myself have asked, and that is: when are the audits going to be completed? We stated in this House that we’re disappointed by the outcome of these audits, and that is why we have a revised plan to ensure, moving forward, that the audits are completed.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a further supplemental.

S. Robinson: I think the people who should be disappointed are the taxpayers of British Columbia.

We understand now that the audit council is equally frustrated by the growing problems at the AGLG. In February the minister said she was working closely with the audit council, and she did so here as well, so she must be very familiar with their concerns.

Can the minister confirm that in December of last year the audit council attempted to conduct an operational review of the AGLG? Can she also confirm that when faced with this threat, the AGLG hired counsel and threatened legal action against the audit council?

Hon. C. Oakes: I’m aware that staff in the office have raised concerns, as the members opposite alluded to, but I want to remind the members opposite that the Public Service Agency is the appropriate arm of government to deal with human resource issues.

[1030]

AUDITOR GENERAL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
AND RESPONSE BY COMMUNITY MINISTER

M. Farnworth: This is more than a human resource issue. The minister has a responsibility to be accountable to this House and tell this House and the public of British Columbia how she’s going to clean up a mess that so far has cost $5.2 million and resulted in one audit for the people of British Columbia. That’s what the minister has to do.

We have heard nothing but contradictory stories from this minister. First, she says that the AGLG is at arm’s length and independent. Then she says that she’s working closely with them. Which is it, Minister? Who is responsible for cleaning up the mess at the AGLG’s office? Is it your ministry, or is it somebody else? Please tell the House.

Hon. C. Oakes: As we canvassed yesterday in the House, the purpose of the office is to ensure that local governments have the tools they need to deliver services at the best value to taxpayers. We remain committed to that. But if it was up to members on that side of the House, there would never be a single audit completed.

We remain committed to working with the audit council as per the terms of the Auditor General for Local Government legislation…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: …and I have the act, if you would like me to present it at the end of this session.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Not only is the AGLG’s office not functioning the way that it was supposed to, but clearly, by this minister’s performance, she’s not functioning in terms of accountability. The minister states that she has a plan to ensure that 17 audits are completed, and as we said yesterday, given the current record, it will be almost 2050 before those 17 records are completed.
[ Page 6572 ]

If the minister has such confidence that the AGLG’s office is going to be able to do these audits and, as she said yesterday, that there is a plan to see that they’re done, will she at least table that plan in this House?

Hon. C. Oakes: I would have hoped that the member opposite…. It’s an independent office. The report by the audit council was put on file in February.

Hon. Speaker, if I may, the Auditor General, in February, posted the updated revised plan of the completion of the audit reports.

The city of Rossland, the capital procurement and asset management plan — the expected report release date is March 2015. The district of Sechelt capital procurement and asset management plan, as posted on their website, is expected to be released in April 2015. The corporation of Delta’s operational procurement plan has an expected release date of April 2015.

We work with the audit council to have a revised plan of when these reports will be completed.

INFORMATION ON WHOLESALE
LIQUOR PRICING CHANGES

D. Eby: Several times now we’ve asked the Attorney General about her changes to B.C.’s beer and wine taxes and the wholesale price system. The Attorney General promised that her wholesale price taxes for beer, wine and spirits “isn’t about changing prices for consumers.” But this week the Liquor Distribution Branch released a report that said the Attorney General’s changes have led to price increases for over 5,300 different products. That’s almost one in five of the products sold in B.C. These price increases will certainly be passed on to consumers.

To the Attorney General, will she stand up and take responsibility for increasing beer, wine and spirit prices in this province?

Hon. S. Anton: As the members know, we embarked upon an extremely successful liquor policy review whereby the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor made 73 recommendations, which government is pursuing.

[1035]

One of the strong pieces that came out of that was the desire of industry, of retailers, for a level playing field. That is what we are doing with the new wholesale pricing, which will come into effect on the first of April.

The suppliers have now given their prices to the Liquor Distribution Branch. It is the case that for the large majority of products the prices will be the same, within a few cents, or lower. That’s 83 percent of the products.

It is the case that a few products will be going up, but some of that is a result of suppliers taking advantage of the government’s changes on April 1 and raising their prices unnecessarily. Our Liquor Distribution Branch is working with those suppliers, because this is not the occasion just to take advantage of the moment and put your prices up. We are committed to a level playing field. That’s where we’re going on April 1.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: We’re hearing about a conspiracy of these suppliers — of 5,300 different products to undermine this Attorney General. That’s quite an accomplishment.

B.C. stores and restaurants deserve to know how much they’ll be paying for products on April 1, when this minister’s changes come in, but instead of certainty, this Attorney General has created only confusion.

Restaurants and stores that visit the LDB website to find prices are told: “Please close and refresh your browser to ensure you are viewing the most current documents.” Well, why would they do this? Because wholesale prices will be “updated on line in real time.”

We’d like the Attorney General’s best advice. For people running businesses in British Columbia, how often should they have to hit the refresh button each day to find out how much they’re paying for beer, wine and spirits in this province?

Hon. S. Anton: There is a price list for the first of April. The branch is still in conversation with some of the suppliers, but the price list is available right now for the first of April.

I have a piece of information for the member opposite. Prices don’t stay fixed in time forever and ever. They do change, and they will change over time. There’s a decreased value of the dollar. There are regular price increases that suppliers have over time.

There’s a price list for the first of April, yes indeed. That price applies to every purchaser — the LRSs, the private stores, the government stores, the rural agency stores and the independent wine stores. Everybody is purchasing at the same price as of April 1.

IMPACT OF WHOLESALE LIQUOR
PRICING CHANGES ON PRODUCERS

S. Simpson: We know when we look at the companies who are facing some of the biggest hits, price increases in the 20 percent range, what we’re looking at is many of the craft brewers in British Columbia — people like Central City, Cannery Brewing, Prohibition Brewing and Driftwood. Now the minister is trying to blame a whole lot of other people, including those brewers, for the 5,300 products that the prices are going up in.

Will the minister tell us why she’s trying to blame higher prices on the B.C. brewing industry and others when she knows it’s her responsibility because of this price point that she’s put in on the new single price?
[ Page 6573 ]

Hon. S. Anton: I believe that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has a number of craft brewers in his riding. They are doing their business in a very favourable environment to craft brewing in all of British Columbia. That’s why we have so many craft brewers springing up all around there.

They are producing a product that people like. By the way, on Central City, the one that the member opposite referenced, I would like to congratulate them because, in fact, the price of the Central City Red Racer IPA is going down 12.6 percent.

[1040]

This is a level playing field. It comes into force with all the other changes that government is making, some starting on April 1 and many of which are implemented already. These are driven by very significant consumer demand, working constantly with industry so that we have a very good new regime starting on the first of April in British Columbia.

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

S. Simpson: There are a lot of craft brewers in my constituency doing well, and they’re very concerned that they’re going to hit the wall on April 1 because of the irresponsible conduct of this minister.

This minister….

Interjections.

S. Simpson: The bellowing will stop at some point.

At this point, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member. Member.

Please continue.

S. Simpson: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As one of the craft brewers who wrote us said: “We’ve been forced to choose to lower our margins to stop our prices from shooting up suddenly.”

We know that there are brewers like Moon Under Water and Deep Cove that are facing 10 percent hikes. This the Justice Minister, the Attorney General, has been told time and time again since the report on liquor came out — that the single wholesale price would be a problem. She was told that by her staff. She acknowledged that in estimates last year. Today she sings a different tune.

This is not the producers’ fault. It’s not the brewers’ fault. It’s the minister’s fault and the B.C. Liberals’ fault that these prices are going up. Will the minister at least apologize for jacking the prices of beer and wine up across this province for British Columbians? That’s what she’s done.

Hon. S. Anton: Indeed, that is not the case, as the success and growth of the craft brewery industry in British Columbia demonstrates.

It is too bad that the members opposite do not support the liquor policy review. Look at all of the things that we have changed. Local wines can be sold at the farmers market. Imagine that. Legions around British Columbia, which have often struggled for business, can now have children come in and have dinner with their parents. Imagine that. Businesses can alter their prices during the day. They can alter the price of a glass of beer during the day. Imagine that. We never had…. No one could do it.

There are positive changes for consumers. There are positive changes for producers, and British Columbia is moving into the modern age with its liquor policy.

K. Conroy: Well, breweries still have to deal with the increase in prices as well. This Attorney General, she isn’t taking these price increases lying down. She’s got staff at the LDB calling every supplier of every one of over 5,000 products with higher prices. The staff are asking them to drop their prices so that the Attorney General doesn’t have to take responsibility for the impact of her new tax system.

These are impacts, by the way, that were predicted months ago by industry experts. Can the Attorney General tell B.C.’s brewers, distilleries and wineries why they should lay off staff and cut marketing costs so that she isn’t embarrassed by the failure of her own policies?

Hon. S. Anton: I believe that there is also a very vibrant craft brewery industry in the Kootenays. They, too, produce wonderful products for British Columbia, so I congratulate them.

We are changing our regime on the first of April. It is a single wholesale price that people will be purchasing the alcohol at. The price, as I have said on a number of occasions…. The goal is that the price be more or less the same, within a few cents, on the first of April as it is on the 31st of March.

[1045]

That’s the goal of the branch. That’s the goal of government. But these are all part of a large package of changes requested by consumers and industry in British Columbia, making our whole liquor industry — wine, beer and spirits — better for everyone in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: I think breweries and producers in this province are starting to think this is a bad April Fools’ joke — really bad. When we raised this issue in the House last week, we told the minister that her changes were creating confusion in the industry. The minister stood and up and she told us that, well, we were wrong. She said: “People understand the concept now for the first of April.”

Well, she may have to change her mind again. One of the three reasons the LDB cites for the price increase is “simply confusion with how to calculate their sales prices
[ Page 6574 ]
under the new wholesale model.” Will the minister now acknowledge that she has created confusion across the industry with her increasingly bizarre policy changes and reversals?

Hon. S. Anton: I would like to give a compliment to the staff at the Liquor Distribution Branch, who have done a really outstanding job over the last number of weeks and months reaching out to industry to make sure that people do understand the new system and how it will work on the first of April.

As I said, these are all part of the bigger liquor policy review. Let me mention a couple of other things that we’re doing: site licensing for events. Imagine. You can walk around an event now rather than being fenced up in a little beer garden. This is a novel thing in British Columbia, apparently. You see it around the rest of the world. But festivals around British Columbia…. And I bet there are some in the Kootenays and the member’s own riding that will be benefiting from this.

There’s a large package of changes to modernize B.C.’s liquor laws. British Columbians, I am confident, are happy with the changes.

WHOLESALE LIQUOR PRICING
CHANGES AND RELEASE OF REPORT

B. Ralston: Many in the industry suspect that the government’s changes to the beer and wine tax system are being driven by an Ernst and Young report on liquor pricing. This is a report that the Attorney General has steadfastly refused to release to the public. We’ve asked about this report before.

Will the Attorney General release this report in order to assure the public that this report didn’t warn her about higher prices caused by her new tax system?

Hon. S. Anton: The pricing of alcohol is changing. It’s gone to a wholesale price. There’s a percentage formula which is being used. Those prices are now on the website of the Liquor Distribution Branch. That’s the information that people need, of course, to set their own prices, that retailers need to set their prices on the first of April. But, as I said, these are part of a package to make the industry and consumers have a better regime for liquor in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

INFORMATION ON WHOLESALE
LIQUOR PRICING CHANGES

B. Ralston: This Attorney General has other surprises up her sleeves when it comes to pricing. She’s refusing to release the final prices that government stores will charge for B.C. wine, beer and distilled products. She’s also refusing to disclose how much tax the government will charge B.C. wineries that sell directly to restaurants.

When will the businesses get this information? It’s just seven business days before the new tax system is implemented. How can the Attorney General justify providing small business with just seven business days’ notice of the impacts of her new tax system?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a system that retailers have been asking for, for over a decade now. I’ll just confirm another aspect of it, which is that the overall revenue to government is expected to be about the same. That’s the goal of the new system.

There are adjustments. There’s no question about that. It’s a new system. But it’s a system that has been asked for by retail. It’s a system that will work for consumers. With all of the other package of things that have changed and will be continuing to change in liquor policy in British Columbia, they are good changes.

[1050]

WHOLESALE LIQUOR PRICING
CHANGES AND RELEASE OF REPORT

L. Krog: Let’s get this straight. The rich get a 2 percent tax break. Working people get an increase in the price of beer, and they paid for the very report that’s led to this fiasco in the first place. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask, from this side of the House: will the minister do the right thing? The taxpayers have paid for the report. Release the Ernst and Young report so that British Columbians know how much of a shafting they’re getting as a result of this minister’s policies.

Hon. S. Anton: Let me mention a couple of other changes that people are extremely happy about.

You can now get your special occasion licence on line. You used to have to drive across town two or three times to go between different agencies. Now you can sit down at home at night and get your special occasion licence. What a change that is.

I will mention that we have, of course, throughout this had an eye to health and safety. We’ve worked very closely with health and safety advocates to make sure that the new regime that we are putting in place around alcohol in British Columbia continues to make sure that people are safe and that alcohol is managed safely.

The other big change, which is happening on the first of April, of course, is that liquor may go into grocery. All of those things are accompanied by a new price list, which is available. These are good changes for British Columbia.

PORT MANN BRIDGE TOLLING REVENUES

C. Trevena: In 2012 this government claimed total revenue projections for the Port Mann Bridge would be
[ Page 6575 ]
$208 million last year. In 2013 they lowered that projection, and then lowered it again in 2014. It turns out the government still can’t make those targets and ended up collecting only half the original amount projected. So a simple question to the Minister of Transportation: will he explain who’s going to pay for this mess?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, I always enjoy getting up and talking about one of the greatest achievements in infrastructure in this province over the last ten years, and that’s the Port Mann Bridge. This bridge was delivered on time and on budget. The traffic….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Certainly, as the members opposite know well, the original traffic projections were scaled back. We do, however, expect…. For the month of December 2014, traffic volumes were up over the December of the previous year. For January of 2015, traffic volumes were up from January of last year. For February of this year, the traffic volumes were up again.

As British Columbians try the Port Mann Bridge and realize those travel savings, they’re opting to use this bridge increasingly through the week.

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

C. Trevena: I’ve got to say: only the B.C. Liberals would say that a $1.8 billion overspend is on budget and is a great achievement.

They’ve continued to lower their projections. They’re still failing to meet their targets. There is no plan B. It’s just: “Let’s hope that people maybe start using it rather than the Pattullo Bridge.”

We’ve seen, in the latest budget, $90 million missing in projected tolling revenue. They’ve said the tolls are going to stay in place. They are admitting they’re failing to hit targets. So to the Minister of Transportation: just how is he going to encourage people to use the bridge and pay the tolls to pay off this massive debt?

[1055]

Hon. T. Stone: Indeed, the updated traffic forecasts for the Port Mann Bridge demonstrate that the TI Corporation will meet all of its financial obligations, and the debt will be paid off by 2050 on schedule, if not a few years before that.

But again, let’s remind the members opposite that this bridge is saving commuters about an hour a day on their commute, which is more time with their loved ones. For the first time in 25 years there is a rapid bus service, moving 50,000 passengers a month, and the project created 8,000 construction jobs.

It’s time for the members opposite to get on board and support the Port Mann Bridge.

[End of question period.]

J. Darcy: I seek leave to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

J. Darcy: I’m very pleased to present a petition today signed by 643 Mayne Islanders and their families, which speaks to the elimination of the First Call nurse position on Mayne Island, leaving islanders with no access to an on-site health professional at weekends and saying that the decision will result in B.C. Ambulance staff having to transfer patients to Victoria, who might otherwise be treated locally, and saying that they believe this decision will jeopardize the health of islanders and visitors and will result in increased costs to the health system.

I would note 643 names. The population of Mayne Island is barely a few hundred more than that.

G. Holman: I would also like to present a petition.

This is a petition from the island of Galiano, 670 signatures, respectfully requesting that the honourable House take immediate steps to ensure that a First Call nurse is available on Galiano on at least two weekends per month. This number of signatures and those on Mayne Island represent almost half of the resident population of these two Gulf Islands.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, the Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; and in this chamber, committee stage of Bill 8.

[1100]

Committee of the Whole House

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

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

On section 1.
[ Page 6576 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, contains many parks and many descriptions.

I would encourage those following along at home. If you want, I understand that the maps of a number of the places we’re going to be discussing are now available on line, not just at the Clerk’s office. I do want to thank the minister for following that up.

Certainly, our province is vast. If you want to understand parks, there are a lot of people who wouldn’t come down here to the Clerk’s office to take a look at those maps and see exactly what is happening, because it’s unaffordable or it’s just such a great distance. So I appreciate the minister’s moving this part of it into the 21st century — it’s appreciated — to give us that ability.

On the schedule…. We are discussing amending the schedule to add the description of Megin River Ecological Reserve. I wonder if the minister might explain why this was a necessary change. What led to it?

Hon. M. Polak: Before I answer, I’ll just introduce the staff that are in attendance with me — to my right, Ken Morrison, manager of planning and land administration, and to my left, Jim Standen, our assistant deputy minister, B.C. Parks and the conservation officer service.

In this case, the movement is the result of better and more accurate mapping. Now that there’s an official plan available, it better describes the reserve. It is corrected, then, from 50 hectares to 54 hectares, and it’s, therefore, being moved from schedule B to schedule A.

S. Chandra Herbert: What led to the revision of the plan for this ecological reserve? How did the parks service discover it now had four extra hectares of park compared to before? Was it just, maybe, by satellite? Did you have people out surveying the lines? What led to that, given the demands on the parks system, to do this work?

[1105]

Hon. M. Polak: It’s part of an overall plan that will see us eventually move all of the ecological reserves from schedule B to schedule A. In this case, we were already reviewing the boundaries of Strathcona Park, and since this was next door, it was the logical next step.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is it an annual process, then, that government goes through and reviews park boundaries to try and understand if they’ve got them exactly right on the map? What would have led to this research around Strathcona Park at this time?

Hon. M. Polak: It depends on the location, the size and all those different kinds of things. There’s been an ongoing process to move from metes and bounds to official plans using GIS since, believe it or not, 1997.

I wouldn’t risk saying it’s an annual thing. I think it will be, though, a regular feature of legislation in this House for quite some time, given just the large number involved.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, there are many parks and many areas that need to be checked for accuracy, for sure.

I wonder: is there an official plan, a management plan, for this ecological reserve? Is that the standard that we would look for, for such a location as this?

Hon. M. Polak: There is no management plan that we’re aware of for this ecological reserve at this time. However, again, it’s the intent to eventually get there with all of them.

S. Chandra Herbert: It’s of course an interest — and the minister will know — of mine that we make sure to have accurate management plans for all of our parks. It’s something the Auditor General spoke of us, as well, with real concern. If you don’t know what’s there, it’s sometimes hard to manage. Given climate change and all the rest, sometimes with the way that the areas are heating up or cooling down, we could risk losing certain species. Certainly, I’ll continue to make the push for official management plans, and the minister knows that.

Just one more question on this. What’s being protected here? Right now, why is this an ecological reserve? Why is it of such importance that the province of B.C. has decided that it first be a schedule B ecological reserve but is now adding to schedule A?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m afraid I can’t provide too many details, other than to say it’s on the coast, Clayoquot district, significant forest values. It was established in 1981. We don’t have with us the original purpose of the designation. Certainly, we could provide that at some later date if the member wishes.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, I think that’s always helpful, if we’re considering parks and ecological reserves, to really have that in hand. Given that this has been a long-established ecological reserve, then I’m comfortable in supporting it, but in future it’d be great if we had very clear reasoning for why it is a protected resource and why it’s important.

I know there are many species along that coast which of course could use the protection, with old-growth forests and so on. I had the benefit of visiting some of those sites. I do support that at this time.

I’m done on section 1.

[1110]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.
[ Page 6577 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wondered if the minister might be able to explain to the House the difference between schedule A versus schedule B. I understand this section is…. As Megin River Ecological Reserve is being moved into schedule A, schedule B, then, can have that name struck out. What would she say are the main differences between schedule A and schedule B?

Hon. M. Polak: This is, again, for improved accuracy. Schedule B is comprised of ecological reserves which have been continued by simply adopting reference to the original order-in-council. As mapping techniques and accuracy improve, we move them to schedule A, which allows for the use of either metes and bounds descriptions or, in fact, mapped boundaries.

S. Chandra Herbert: Why is the government deciding that it needs the official plan versus a metes and bounds description? What’s the difference? Why, for the layperson, would they prefer one over the other?

Hon. M. Polak: Both are acceptable, but an official plan with a map and with GIS descriptors is much easier to understand.

S. Chandra Herbert: That is helpful. Is there any funding difference, in terms of protecting parks or ecological reserves, between schedule A and schedule B?

Hon. M. Polak: There’s no difference.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does the ministry keep records of how often parks, ecological reserves, conservancies get visited by ministry park staff? Would this Megin River Ecological Reserve have had a visit in the last year to assess whether poaching or any other such activities might have occurred?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to an ecological reserve, less activity with respect to park staff than a park that is visited frequently by outsiders. Nevertheless, staff advise that given the proximity to Strathcona Park, there would likely be regular visits once a year — that type of thing.

It really depends, in the case of parks, not only on the type of activity that is allowed but also, of course, on the location if it’s a remote location or one nearby areas that are populated.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the public was interested, is there a way that they could find out what kind of assessments might have been done by parks staff? Just ask the minister, get an assessment of if the ecological values of the park are the same, no disturbance? How do we assess these things to make sure that they are not disturbed by human activity or other such things when that’s an issue?

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

Leave granted.

[1115]

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: In the gallery today above us we have grade 4 students from Arden Elementary in the Comox Valley. They are joined….

[Interruption.]

Just like in class, I’m sure students aren’t allowed to use their cell phones, and neither are we in the legislative chamber.

That being said, 28 students from Arden Elementary are here joining us today. They’re joined by their teachers. Phebe May is here from the Comox Valley as well as Kathy Segriff. There they are above us. They’re also joined by parents. Two of the parents — Chloe Leopkey and David Stacy — I went to school with back in the Comox Valley. I graduated and went to junior high with those individuals.

Would the House please make the students and the parents welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: In the course of their regular duties, parks staff conduct regular informal visits. It depends, again, on the location, type of activity, type of protected area. If there was any kind of an incident or concern that they investigated, that certainly would be reported back to us. But the regional staff make decisions as to how frequently they may visit an area and whether or not there’s a need for some kind of a formal assessment.

S. Chandra Herbert: Then I assume there’s nothing to report in terms of this particular ecological reserve, in terms of challenges of public access, etc. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Polak: Yeah. There’s nothing that we’re aware of. This is purely administrative.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just for the record, I realized that in my notes I had recorded what kind of ecological reserve it was and why it was established in back in ’81. It’s an alluvial Sitka spruce and western red cedar forest. So yes, the minister is right — definitely old growth and important to protect.

I don’t have any more questions on section 2.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.
[ Page 6578 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Section 3 is quite a bit more detailed, with many different parks and areas that it comprises and with quite a lot of changes. I did want to just pass over to my colleague from North Island because of a particular park in her area that she’s been very involved in, as have her constituents.

C. Trevena: Thanks to the minister. I was not able to speak at second reading on this but am obviously very pleased — now that it’s here in the bill and will be legislated — about the extension to the parks. I have a couple of questions about this before continuing with some of the comments I have.

In the explanatory notes it describes increasing the size of Octopus Islands Marine Park, and then it continues to replace the metes and bounds description of Small Inlet Marine Park. We’re only talking in the actual body of the bill: Small Inlet Marine Park. While we know it is connecting the two, I’m just interested for an explanation from the minister about which piece of park is attached to the heart of the parks.

[1120]

Hon. M. Polak: I know the previous member spoke about the advances in having the maps on line for people to be able to see. Now I’m wishing I had a PowerPoint deck that I could point out. But I’ll do my best to describe in words.

First, let me say that I want to thank the member for the work that she did on this file. I know she would have liked to be here at second reading to be able to comment about it. I can say, certainly, that her colleagues paid tribute to the work that she did, and it’s well deserved.

The land that’s being added touches Small Inlet and Octopus Islands Marine Park. We’re giving part of it to each. Then the part that’s to the north will be added as a protected area separately. If I had a map, it would be easier to show you, but hopefully, that explains it.

C. Trevena: I know the geography well, so I can picture it. I thank the minister for her explanation.

The piece to the north, the protected area — that is, then, not part of the park proper? It’s going to be separate from the park?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s temporary. There’s a temporary tenure for road access, and I’m advised that that will end in 2018, at which point we would move to have that land moved from a protected area into a park.

C. Trevena: If the minister could clarify, was this part of the lands that were in the exchange and in the negotiations as protected area?

Hon. M. Polak: That’s correct.

C. Trevena: I wondered what the road access is now for. There was an understanding that, basically, all the land was now going to be moving into the park. Is the road access for active logging for one of the woodlots? I just wondered what was happening up there.

Hon. M. Polak: It’s part of the land acquisition agreement that we negotiated with the forestry company. There’s an existing forestry road, and there are four existing small quarries that are currently under a road use permit. Under the Park Act, that would not allow us to put that land into a park at this time. Putting it into a protected area preserves it until the tenure expires in 2018, at which time we’ll put it into a park.

C. Trevena: I’m assuming it will either be Small Inlet or Octopus Islands, that stage — that the name will be decided at that point.

Again, I’d like to recognize and thank the minister for her work on this. It took a long while to get here. It’s great that we actually have this, and as I say, it’s great that it is in legislation now. Obviously, I would also like to thank the park staff who really worked very hard to push this through in the final days. But I think, like everyone else — I know my colleague spoke it — I also have to thank the community, who worked extraordinarily hard to raise the money. I hope that this is a unique instance — that we have to raise money for making a provincial park happen.

[1125]

I know that it has been said before in this House, but I have to acknowledge once again the very hard work of Judy Leicester, who pushed this through from the 1990s — leveraged it, navigated it, steered it, did all those things. She did great negotiations and worked closely with your staff. She had, I think it’s safe to say, huge respect and sadly died just before completion. I think that there is a real sense of her about that stretch of land.

Once again, I thank the minister for making it happen.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m going to go through a number of these parks and ask a number of individual questions. I really appreciate the collegiality that I just saw shared there. Certainly, we can do more for our parks, in many cases, when we work together and get the community involved from the grassroots and really listen to their voices.

I wanted to ask about Bodega Ridge Park addition. I understand that it’s around 147 hectares on Galiano Island. My understanding is it was resulting from two private land acquisitions totalling 109 hectares and a foreshore addition of 38 hectares. How did this come about, and what was the cost?

Hon. M. Polak: There were 62.24 hectares acquired from Winmark Capital, and the value of that property was $365,746, and 43.8 hectares were acquired from J12 Freecorp Holdings Ltd. The value of that property was $109,000.
[ Page 6579 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Where did the money come from? Was it the park capital budget? Was it a contingency fund? How were these particular parcels purchased? Where did the money come from?

Hon. M. Polak: The parks capital budget.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is it a goal of parks to try and find these additions each and every year? Was this on the list of priorities?

Hon. M. Polak: In the case of Bodega Ridge, these subject properties had been under discussion and negotiation for quite some time. When there is a private land acquisition, it’s not necessarily an annual event because of the nature of the negotiations, which can be complex.

We have many, many offers of land for purchase to B.C. parks all the time, and we make evaluations based on the values that are represented. We have, we maintain, a list of priority items or priority areas that have an interest for us in acquisition.

S. Chandra Herbert: I believe I was provided a list of priority parks last year, or priority areas. I’ve kept that, of course, to a certain confidence, given you don’t want to jack the prices up for places that we’re looking at. But I just wondered if that’s possible to receive again post–budget debate?

Hon. M. Polak: We’d be happy to provide the member with an updated list.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you.

Were there any First Nations’ interests in this particular section that the minister addressed?

[1130]

Sorry, if I could clarify, just speaking specifically around Bodega Ridge.

Hon. M. Polak: The private land sales themselves aren’t subject to discussions with First Nations. However, we did undertake the appropriate consultations in terms of the decision to enter these into park status, and there were no concerns raised to us.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is there a management plan for this particular park?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m advised that staff aren’t certain, but they don’t believe there is. There’s quite a long list of parks that do have management plans, but there’s also an equally long list of those that do not. As the member knows, we have quite an extensive number of parks. We don’t have the exhaustive list with us. I apologize.

S. Chandra Herbert: If it’s possible to get that list after bill debate, that would be great — which ones do and which ones don’t. I would appreciate it. Thank you to the minister for that.

I wonder. It’s on an island. It’s a popular park, it sounds like, for hiking and other opportunities. How many times, typically, in a year would parks staff or ranger staff get over to the island, or is there a staff member actually assigned to that island?

Hon. M. Polak: The southern Gulf Islands supervisor, recognizing that it’s a fairly well-trafficked area, would be over there fairly frequently. They’re stationed out of Goldstream. Given the proximity…. We don’t have firm numbers, but it would be likely there would be a high volume of visits that they would make to Galiano each year, obviously a little higher in the season than in out of season.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is the capital budget broken down by region, or is it a general capital budget for looking after these parks? I ask because sometimes trails need repairs. Every time we add a section of park…. While people who love B.C. parks have told me they love those additions, they would love to see greater capital funding to support those additions.

I’m just curious. Was there a budget analysis done in terms of what the addition of this park space or other park space, of what impact it is going to have if you are maintaining more trails, if you are maintaining more signage, and so on? I would think such an analysis was done. Was it?

[1135]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, every year will be different. The way that it operates is that we have one capital fund. Decisions are made as to how to allocate those regionally, but they don’t stay fixed. It may depend on…. One year, one region may be undergoing a specific project, for example. We can shift those around to items like maintenance or enhancements, and then from time to time we can apply to move some of those moneys toward acquisition of new parklands.

S. Chandra Herbert: Are there new costs that the ministry believes will come with these additions? I notice we’ve got Bodega Ridge, Denman Island, changes in Manning Park. We’ll get to some of these more specifically, but let’s just start with Bodega Ridge.

Whether or not it’s taking down fence posts that might have divided the land — I’m not sure; I haven’t hiked that area, so I don’t know — or maybe new signage, because it talks about enhanced recreational opportunities, is there a budget or a plan for really connecting this new section of land to the existing park?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, each park, each area that we’re discussing is somewhat different in character. With respect to Bodega Ridge, of course, there’s a small area of
[ Page 6580 ]
land, and then there’s also foreshore. This will stretch now from coast to coast on the island. There’s a small number of trails. Staff would complete the designation and acquisition then go about to review what, if any, enhancements or improvements are required.

This particular park is not one that has a significant number of facilities — really, just a few trails. They would then make a plan as to any additional enhancements they believe would need to be made and then make a plan within our budget.

S. Chandra Herbert: Denman Island park — I seem to remember we discussed the park a while ago in this House. They created a park out of it. It’s an area that I believe I used to visit as a kid, so it’s got a personal interest. I understand that this is about adding two hectares, and it may be an administrative transfer around a B.C. Forest Service lookout tower or something.

Can the minister explain where this land came from? Was there a cost, or is it merely administrative?

[1140]

Hon. M. Polak: There was no cost associated with it. They were Crown lands, and they were simply moved from the responsibility under FLNRO to B.C. Parks. I’m advised there are also no tenure compensation issues.

S. Chandra Herbert: Will I get a similar answer — in terms of plans to improve trails, signage and so on in the park — as I got to the previous question? “That will be done later.” Is that the answer?

Hon. M. Polak: It would be the same for all. The process would unfold similarly in that, once the designation is made, then there is some assessment undertaken to determine what, if any, improvements, enhancements, need to be made or any additional maintenance costs. They would design the budget around that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Moving on now to the questions around Carmanah Walbran and Strathcona Park. I understand that they’re replacing the metes and bounds descriptions with official plan descriptions. I wondered. Was this GIS? Was it local authorities? Was it ministry staff? Who did this work to come to the new numbers for these parks?

Hon. M. Polak: The types of changes that we are looking at here can be initiated in any number of ways. Sometimes it’s a forestry company that’s conducting some surveying on the land, and something is picked up. When we get to the place where we are making a determination about a change, that work is undertaken in partnership between B.C. Parks and GeoBC. When they have completed their mapping, that is then reviewed and verified by the office of the surveyor general.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister explain to me what happened with…? I guess, it’s Burges James Gadsden Park or Burges and James Gadsden Park. Was that a mistake from earlier that’s been corrected? Was it the family request to get rid of the “and” and combine the name? What was the thinking behind this decision?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, even those who name parks make mistakes. In 1965 those who were naming this park were under the mistaken belief that there were two people, known as Burges and James Gadsden Park. Only last year, quite by happenstance, B.C. Parks staff realized — on the Victoria Foundation website, no less — that in fact the park was incorrectly named and should have been named after one Burges James Gadsden.

[1145]

S. Chandra Herbert: Many, many years later, after that initial mistake, I guess we are now correctly naming that park after the original Burges James Gadsden — not two, but one person. That is understandable to me.

It does raise another question in terms of park naming though. Certainly, I raised this question when we talked about naming Denman Island park, given Rear-Admiral Denman’s less-than-illustrious service, I would say, in terms of colonial tendencies towards First Nations people and the obliteration of a First Nations village.

That was Rear-Admiral Denman, not Burges James Gadsden. I just want to ask, in terms of this park and any sort of park renaming, is there a ministry policy that they connect with local First Nations people and others if we’re going to be renaming parks to see if they have suggestions? If so, was it done in this case?

Hon. M. Polak: If we were actually renaming the park, we absolutely would. These days, there’s extensive consultation with First Nations, as can be noted in some of the further sections we’ll be discussing. Certainly, if we were to be renaming a park, we would be in consultation with First Nations, unlike, as the member points out, what would have happened in the long past.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know my colleague has a number of questions as well. While we’re on the topic of naming, I’m wondering…. Haynes Point Park and Okanagan Falls Park, through this bill, will be renamed. I wonder if the minister might tell this House what the new names mean, if that’s possible, and share that.

People, I think — if the local First Nation is willing, of course — would be very interested in learning more about the historic, longstanding connection to the peoples whose lands, of course, the park is on.

Hon. M. Polak: I’m certainly pleased that the member did not ask me to pronounce the new names. We don’t have the meanings of the names here with us, although I’m told we
[ Page 6581 ]
do have them somewhere in the midst of this vast amount of paper. If we uncover them as we go along, I’ll pass that along.

I will say, though, that the Osoyoos Indian Band ensured that there was a significant amount of discussion with elders in the community to determine what would be appropriate names befitting those locations.

S. Chandra Herbert: I don’t think we’ll be done the bill by lunch-hour. Post-lunch, if the minister is able to find the meaning of the names, I think it’s important that in this House, as we do make these decisions, the names be read and be pronounced if possible — certainly out of respect, of course, for the Osoyoos Indian Band, but also to have their meaning.

Meaning is so important and naming is so important because it determines place. It so often frames discussion and frames debate.

I know these two parks have certainly generated a fair bit of debate in that community and in the South Okanagan, particularly since the discovery of First Nations remains, First Nations historical items and, really, signs of settlement.

It sounds like quite an incredible amount of information they’re discovering at the park that was known as Haynes Point Park. I don’t know as much around Okanagan Falls Park.

[1150]

Can the minister share a little bit more about decisions around naming but also management of these parks? I understand the management of these parks will be changing as well.

Hon. M. Polak: We have not finalized the go-forward plan for the management of those parks. However, our intent is that it will be the Osoyoos Indian Band managing them. The nuts and bolts of how that’ll work — we’re still engaged with them. The parks will open April 1. In fact, they already have people on the ground preparing them for that opening and for the coming season.

S. Chandra Herbert: For the park formerly known — once this bill is passed as I imagine it will be…. So far it’s received unanimous support, as far as I can see. What’s the ongoing archaeological discussion in that park? It is a park, but at the same time, it’s very important to the Osoyoos Indian Band, for obvious reasons. What does that long-term plan look like in terms of continued archaeological discovery and so forth?

Hon. M. Polak: The archaeological branch has declared the entire Haynes Point site as an important archaeological find. It is the driving force behind the decision to work with Osoyoos Indian Band, to see them take over the control and management of that park so that they can make decisions about that land in respect of their cultural traditions, ensuring that there is the high degree of respect warranted for a find of this type.

S. Chandra Herbert: I am certainly supportive of that.

I wonder — what was it that led to the discovery initially? I know it was a surprise to some, although some told me they had a feeling it was an important site for a long time. Was it the moving of an outhouse or a sump system that led to the discovery of this very important archaeological site?

Hon. M. Polak: As is tragically the case with many areas in British Columbia that saw the influx of colonial residents who moved First Nations from their land…. In this case, a latrine was being redug. As a result, remains were uncovered and then further investigation led to additional remains — obviously, a very powerful and traumatic experience for the First Nation. But we hope, as we look forward, it can lead to an improved situation now and an improved respect for those remains.

S. Chandra Herbert: It certainly is striking when you think of moving a latrine — an outhouse — and digging a pit for our own use, to discover that no, in fact, this is an area that holds such strong spiritual and historical and jurisdictional importance to the Osoyoos Indian Band. It certainly seems to speak to symbolism, anyways, in terms of how the relationship has been managed for such a long time.

I appreciate the government’s — and the Osoyoos Indian Band’s in particular — work to try and get through this, so we can have better connections long term.

Will this affect the park maintenance budget? Is this being discussed now, in terms of maintaining these sites? Is that not decided on at this point?

D. McRae: I seek leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: When the Comox Valley comes down to Victoria, they come down in large numbers. The rest of Arden Elementary is here joining us in the chamber today. The grade 4 students are joined again by their teachers, Phebe May and Kathy Segriff, who I mentioned earlier, but I see they’re actually in the gallery.

I also see Dave Stacey, who I went to high school with, and Chloe Leopkey, who I went to elementary school with.

[1155]

Could the house please make them all very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: Before I answer the question, I now have…. The wonders of technology.
[ Page 6582 ]

Haynes Point Provincial Park — the new name means “place where it is shallow or narrow in the middle of the lake,” a traditional crossing area. In the case of Okanagan Falls Provincial Park, the new name means “little falls,” a smaller version of the bigger falls at Kettle Falls.

In terms of how the maintenance and operations will occur and a budget for that, again we’re finalizing details with OIB. What we anticipate, and what we’ve discussed with them, is that it would be very similar to how other campsites are managed, in that Haynes Point, of course, is a very popular one, and they would be collecting revenues from the camping and ideally be able to operate using those revenues from time to time. This would remain part of the B.C. Parks system, so it’s also possible that from time to time there may be additional capital dollars available from the overall capital budget.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 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. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL INNOVATION

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

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,593,575,000.

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

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I do, thank you. I’d just like to take a moment. As many of you know, this is my first estimates, and I’m delighted to be here today. I’d like to take a moment to introduce my staff that’s joining me today. To my right I have my deputy minister, Sheila Taylor, and to my left Len Dawes, the ADM and executive financial officer, corporate services division. Behind me I have Molly Harrington to my right, who is the ADM for research, innovation and policy division. To my left, beside her, is Patricia Boyle, the acting ADM for regional services division.

As I mentioned, this is my first estimates, and I look forward to the discussions that we’ll have over the next few days.

I know that this government is committed to balance the budget while ensuring that we support those individuals in British Columbia that need the assistance most. That’s why we’re providing $2.6 billion a year to support British Columbians in every community across this province. That’s almost $64 million more than last year.

As we know, British Columbia has a solid income and disability assistance system that serves approximately 175,000 people across British Columbia. This year’s budget to support people receiving income and disability assistance is $1.71 billion.

We know the importance of family maintenance and families and children receiving income and disability assistance, and that’s why we are fully exempting child support payments from income and disability assistance starting September 1 of 2015. I know the member opposite was a strong advocate, as well as the families across British Columbia, and I’m pleased that we are able to make this change. This will provide an additional $32 million for 3,200 families and 5,400 children across the province over the next three years.

While I’m pleased that we are able to provide this additional support for single parents on income assistance, we know that the best social assistance program for those who can work is a good-paying job that provides people with the independence and the opportunity to find a job and work for British Columbia. That is why this government introduced Work B.C. Employment Services in April of 2012, which is a key component for the employment program of British Columbia.

The Work B.C. centres are available to help people find a job and keep a job, including those people who are on income assistance who can work. The ministry will provide $331 million for the employment program of British Columbia in Budget 2015. The majority of those supports will go to the 84 Work B.C. centres across the province.

If I may just touch briefly on Community Living B.C. I know we’ll be going forward with those estimates later this afternoon.
[ Page 6583 ]

For people with developmental disabilities, the budget for 2015 provides an additional $37.7 million for Community Living B.C., which is an increase of 4.7 percent over the last fiscal year. Over the next three years an additional $106 million has been allocated to Community Living B.C. to support people with developmental disabilities.

[1110]

The ministry transfers to CLBC’s base budget are increasing $834.3 million in 2015-2016, which is an increase of $37.7 million over the last fiscal year.

This government remains committed to funding the critical social services for the people of this province. We do this by providing temporary assistance to those who find themselves in a situation where they can work and those who are in need of longer-term aid — for those who have more a difficult time in working or who, unfortunately, can’t get into the workforce. By doing this, our government is ensuring that the needs of all British Columbians are being respected.

I fully look forward to the coming questions in the next few hours.

M. Mungall: First, let me say to the minister: “Welcome to the position.” I had an opportunity to welcome her via Twitter, but I think that on this occasion putting it officially on the record is more appropriate. I look forward to having a dialogue with the minister over the next couple of days.

I also always like to welcome viewers at home as well as the staff and other members here in what we call the little House.

You would be shocked to hear this, hon. Chair. I’ve had a few constituents let me know that they’ve watched this, and they reported that it wasn’t the most entertaining show that they had ever seen.

Interjections.

M. Mungall: It’s shocking. All the MLAs who are sitting here right now are expressing shock at that. So I will do my best to pick it up a little bit and provide a little bit more of an entertaining, yet still very informative and substantive, estimates debate here over the next couple of days.

As the minister alluded to, we’ll be heading into the CLBC portion of the ministry later this afternoon. We were hoping to start that off, so apologies to viewers who are at home and actually anticipating that this would be a time where they could watch what’s happening with the CLBC portion of the ministry. Unfortunately, due to fog, we will be shifting our schedule around a little bit.

To my colleague the MLA from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and to all the staff who are presently stuck in Vancouver, I understand what it is to be cancelled, being from Nelson and relying on Castlegar Airport. I feel your pain as you are waiting to get on a plane and get here.

We’ll also be talking about a variety of different things throughout the ministry, and that’s because, as anybody knows who has to deal with this ministry on a daily basis — whether it’s staff or, of course, the thousands of clients — the devil is in the details when it comes to Social Development and how we actually deliver the services that we are meant to be delivering to improve and better people’s lives.

We’ll be talking about a variety of different issues, including the employment program of B.C. as well as income assistance, and people will be able to tune in for that over the next couple of days.

I do want to say that we will also be going into some detail around the end of the child support clawback — which, of course, I’m very pleased to have seen in this year’s budget. I’ll just let the minister know, and everybody here and everybody watching, that some of the best phone calls I have ever been able to make and probably will ever be able to make as a member of this House was to families who were impacted and who I have been working with on the clawback.

When I called up one woman, one mother, and said, “On September 1 you’re going to get to keep your child support,” she started to cry. She burst into tears because, for her, that meant that she knew she could send her daughter to school every day with a full belly. That meant she was going to be able to learn better, do better in school. We all know that when somebody is able to do better in school, it opens a wide variety of opportunities up for children who otherwise may not have had those opportunities.

For roughly 6,000 children each year, those are the types of opportunities that this government and that we as a whole, everybody in this Legislature, are opening up for some of B.C.’s most disadvantaged children.

I thank the government for listening to what we brought forward in the Legislature as opposition, what families brought forward out on the steps of the Legislature, whether they wrote in or, in various community groups, were writing in, speaking to the media, sharing their stories, because it takes great courage to share your story when you’re living in poverty. There’s a lot of stigma associated with that.

[1115]

I thank the government for listening to that, taking it seriously and taking action.

With that, I’ll move into my first question. These are more of an administrative type of question.

The previous minister was issued a mandate letter by the Premier. I have not been able to track down if there has been a mandate letter for the new minister that’s been put out to the public. I apologize if there is one and I missed it in my research. I’m just wondering if the minister has herself received a mandate letter from the Premier, and if she has, if she’s able to table that.
[ Page 6584 ]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: No, I have not. When I do have it in my hands, I would be pleased to share it with the member opposite.

M. Mungall: Chair, I’m just wondering, then, if she is working from the existing mandate letter to the previous minister, seeing that more as a mandate letter for the ministry as a whole regardless of who’s in the ministerial position.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We continue to work off the previous minister’s mandate letter and build on the significant changes that he’s already accomplished through that mandate letter. We’ll see if I get another one.

M. Mungall: Looking at the federal funding that’s transferred to the ministry, that primarily goes to the employment programs. I’m just wondering if the minister can relay for the public viewing the total of that federal transfer and if it is only going to the employment programs or if there are other federal transfers.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There is $301 million that is transferred through the labour market agreement through the federal government, and that is for the employment programs of B.C.

M. Mungall: And that’s it? Just to clarify, that’s the only…?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Correct.

M. Mungall: Okay. I’m wondering if the ministry received Treasury Board approval for access to the contingencies and new programs vote — if they received any of that for this year.

[1120]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: For income assistance and persons with a disability assistance, the contingency access is available, if needed.

M. Mungall: Did the ministry access the contingency budget in the previous fiscal year?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Does the member refer to ’13-14 or ’14-15?

M. Mungall: For the sake of public interest, why don’t we ask for both years.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: For ’13-14, yes, we did access it. For ’14-15, it’s very likely that we will access it.

M. Mungall: Can the minister say the amount that was accessed for the year that she confirmed, for 2013-14, and the anticipated amount for just last fiscal, for 2014-15?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Unfortunately, we don’t have the information for ’13-14 here. We’d be happy to provide it to the member opposite in the coming weeks, days. I don’t know how long that takes — to get the information to her. In regards to 2014-2015, we will likely access the amount of probably under $20 million. That amount will be made public during the public accounts, when that’s released later, in late spring.

M. Mungall: Can the minister tell us for what the contingency was accessed, then? We’re looking at approximately $20 million, a significant sum — so just wondering where that’s going.

[1125]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: All the funds, should they be accessed, will go to income assistance.

M. Mungall: Is this because of an increase in the number of clients? Was it not anticipated in the budgeting for last fiscal?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The additional costs were from the added pressure on disability assistance and the supplemental supports that come with disability assistance. As you can imagine, the extra needs for people with disability increases costs.

M. Mungall: That answers the question.

I’m just wondering if there are any ongoing reviews within the ministry and if they have any reviews that have been completed in the last six months.

[1130]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There are two: one completed and one ongoing. The completed review is the Auditor General review on the PWD programs that we offer, and the ongoing review is on the ICM — the integrated case management — system, which is focused on system access controls and data quality.

M. Mungall: When does the minister anticipate that the ICM review will be completed and made public?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We understand that the review is almost complete, and the Auditor General’s office would need to be talked to. I’ll have to discuss with them when it will actually be complete. It will be up to the Auditor General to table it in the House.

M. Mungall: The minister talked about this report that the Auditor General is doing on the ICM being a review, but I’m also wondering about audits. I don’t know if this would be considered an audit, considering it’s coming out of the Auditor General. I’m just wondering.... So yes, it is considered an audit.
[ Page 6585 ]

Are there any other official audits that are being done of the ministry at this time?

[1135]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There are two normal annual audits going on. One is the normal fiscal audit that’s going on for ’14-15, as well as the annual audit for the labour market development agreement, which is conducted by the federal government.

M. Mungall: Going back to the audit on ICM, there has been quite a lot of trouble with ICM and its implementation. I think that we can all acknowledge that that has been the case. You know, there are always troubles with rolling out an entirely different computer system for a ministry as large as this one. We all understand that, but these have been quite exceptional on top of that as well.

I’m just wondering if those issues and those problems are the reason for the current audit that’s being undertaken on ICM.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The simple answer is no.

M. Mungall: What, then, is the reason for the audit?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Well, I believe when you spend $182 million on a significant project like this, you would expect to have an audit. This audit was started in October of 2013, and its focus was on user management and data and quality management.

M. Mungall: Then my next question just involves asset sales — if there are any asset sales from the ministry within this ministry budget and if there were any asset sales conducted in the last fiscal year, so 2014-2015.

[1140]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We actually don’t have any asset sales reflected in this budget. Our real estate is actually managed through the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services.

M. Mungall: I’m wondering, then, how much was spent on contractors providing services to the ministry in the last fiscal year. We all know that the ministry contracts the employment services to community organizations and various businesses. So if the minister can just give us a total.

It just dawned on me I should actually add a little bit more clarity to the question. I know that there are several contractors for the EPBC programs. I’m wondering if there are other contractors as well. There are contractors in income assistance and so on. What is the total number of contractors in the various sections of the ministry? That’s what I’m looking for.

The minister looks like she’s still not too sure what I was saying.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Originally, you asked the budget line. Now you’re asking about the number of people.

M. Mungall: Yes. If we can get the budget line items for each area of contracting. For example, the ministry has contractors that provide service on behalf of the ministry in income assistance as well as employment programs. There might be other areas that maybe I’m not aware of, that the public’s not aware of. If the minister can highlight those areas where there are contractors and the number of contractors and the total budget for those contractors.

[1145]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Through our employment program of B.C. we have 73 contracts. The total for that is $277.6 million in contracts. As well, through income assistance, our provincial program delivery service, there are 183 contracts with an expended amount of $204.3 million.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 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