2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 9

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2015

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: First, I would like to introduce Rover, wherever Rover is. Thank you for that.

[1005]

Aujourd’hui nous célébrons la Journée de la francophonie, B.C. Francophonie Day. The theme of today’s celebration is “Prosperity through partnerships,” and it is a great pleasure to celebrate the French language and culture as an integral part of our province’s economic growth and heritage. Since 2002 the province has joined Canada’s other provinces and territories in formally recognizing March 20 as the International Day of Francophonie.

Today we have the pleasure, with us in the gallery, of Dr. Réal Roy, president of Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. We have Monsieur Thomas Godin, président, Collège Educacentre; Mme. Berthe Lapierre, présidente, Association francophone de Campbell River; Monsieur Robert Rothon, directeur-géneral, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; and Emmanuel Hérique, professeur, Université de Victoria, département de français, et président de Français du monde, section de Victoria. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

S. Hamilton: I rise with great pleasure to introduce a number of people in the audience today, both with two legs and four.

First of all, the executive director, Disability Alliance of B.C., Jane Dyson; also Rob Sleath, for Access for Sight Impaired Consumers and a representative for CNIB; the board chair for Disability Alliance of B.C., Pat Danforth; the president of Pacific Assistance Dogs Society, Nancy Kemble; Laura Watamanuk, executive director, Pacific Assistance Dogs Society; their Vancouver puppy raiser, Tara Dong, with Bran, an 11-week-old puppy in training; Lisa Markin, a Victoria volunteer and CAI graduate, with Fina, in advanced training at age two years; and Kenn Pond with service dog Riddle, a graduate of PADS. He requires the wheelchair access that was graciously provided by you, Madame Speaker, as part of the reconfiguration.

Also, from B.C. Guide Dog Services: chief executive officer Bill Thornton; Vancouver Island puppy supervisor with her 9½-month-old puppy in training Timo, Laura Mahoney; Sonya Safort, a Vancouver puppy raiser, with her 14-week-old puppy Jenny B; and Rosamund Van Leeuwen, chair of PAWS for Independence, with her graduate of B.C. Guide Dogs, Rory, along with her husband, Richard Van Leeuwen, as my guest.

One other person I’d like to acknowledge that couldn’t be with us today is the patron for the British Columbia Guide Dogs Services: a former NHL player, a former Member of Parliament and also a commentator, Howie Meeker.

Would the House please make all of these wonderful people welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some special guests in the gallery today from the group ASPIRES. That stands for Asperger syndrome pathways to inspiration, resources, education and support. I have with me, up there in the gallery — and I would ask people to make them welcome — Lori Wallace, Stella Crofts-Fagerlund, Conor Murphy, Stephen Fagerlund and Denise Rose. Thank you very much for joining us today.

J. Tegart: It’s with great pleasure that I welcome my daughter Nadine and two grandchildren, Boston and Maggie, who got up at 5:30 this morning to be here for question period. I’ve guaranteed them that they will not fall asleep. Please help me make them feel welcome.

A. Weaver: I have two guests in the gallery today. First is Emma Gilchrist, who will be here a little later. She’s, as many will know, executive director of DeSmog Canada blog and a highly regarded journalist who’s worked in a number of organizations in the province, in the country and also internationally.

In addition, I’d like to welcome Lauren Pearson, who has recently joined the executive team of the B.C. Green Party. She’s just moved here from Somalia, where she was on the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, working in Nairobi coordinating responses to human rights violations. She’s also worked with Harvard University and Democracy International on election fraud research in Kenya and done numerous organizing with the United Nations on the ground in some of the most troubled parts of the world.

Would the House please make them both feel welcome.

[1010]

R. Sultan: If I may be allowed to read an introduction of a lady who’s already been introduced. I can’t resist this opportunity. She can’t read or write, print or drive a car. She has never seen her children or a glorious sunset. She is a retired physiotherapist, an adventurous cook, an addicted traveller, a skier and lifelong volunteer.

Rosamund Van Leeuwen is blind. She lost her sight at the age of two. This does not stop her from finding her way through a couple of miles of traffic, Marine Drive and Taylor Way, with her guide dog, Rory, to come and see me regularly in my constituency office. Would you please make Rosamund welcome.
[ Page 6696 ]

J. Sturdy: In the precinct today are representatives of the district of Squamish, Mayor Patricia Heintzman, Coun. Karen Elliot and Coun. Doug Race. They’re here to meet on a variety of issues generated due to the wealth of opportunities in the Squamish area. Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

D. Routley: We are joined in the precinct today by two school groups of 30 students and five accompanying adults from Ladysmith Intermediate School in my constituency. It’s a the lovely school on the hill. Everything’s on the hill in Ladysmith. I’d like the House to help me make them welcome today in Victoria.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — GUIDE DOG AND
SERVICE DOG ACT

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.

Hon. S. Anton: Madame Speaker, I move that Bill 17 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.

I, too, would like to acknowledge the special guests who are here with us today, and I’d like to add two names to that list. One is the MLA for Delta North, who has a longstanding interest in guide and service dogs; and the second is you, Madame Speaker, because you, too, have had a long history of advocacy and knowledge in this area. I’d like to thank you as well.

You and our guests here today have been instrumental in promoting the legislative changes contained in this bill. The Guide Dog and Service Dog Act will repeal and replace the existing Guide Animal Act. It will modernize the legislation, providing certainty to businesses and members of the public and establishing high certification standards for guide and service dogs.

This bill reflects advances in the training and the uses of service dogs, which can be trained to assist people with many more conditions than in the past — conditions such as mobility issues, epilepsy and hearing impairments.

The bill maintains current access and tenancy privileges for individuals with a certified guide or service dog. Additionally, the act will now provide access rights for dogs in training and extend tenancy rights to retired dogs that continue to reside with their handlers. It will also ensure that certified dogs can reside with their handlers in strata properties.

Through this bill, our government is taking positive action to support those who require a guide or a service dog to assist them with day-to-day living. We’re also fulfilling a commitment made in the Accessibility 2024 strategy by increasing opportunities for all British Columbians to fully integrate with their communities.

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 17, Guide Dog and Service Dog Act, 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.

[1015]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

FARMWORKER SAFETY

R. Chouhan: Eight years ago on March 7 a horrible accident took place on the freeway near Chilliwack, killing Sarabjit Sidhu, Amarjit Bal and Sukhwinder Punia and injuring seriously 14 other farmworkers.

The van in which they were transported did not even have seatbelts, and the seats were not even bolted to the floor. The tires were bald, but if that’s not bad enough, the driver didn’t even have the appropriate driving licence.

Since that accident, many steps have been taken to improve the safety of farmworkers, but we need to do more to make sure that farmworkers, when they go to work, return home safely.

Last Saturday a candlelight vigil was held in Abbotsford. Families, friends and the community got together to remember these women. At that vigil, it was also announced — with help from the B.C. Federation of Labour, PICS, the city of Abbotsford and individuals — that a golden tree monument will be installed in the memory of these farmworkers, in front of the library.

That memorial is not only for those three women farmworkers but all farmworkers who go to work in very unsafe conditions, unsafe transportation.

Let’s never forget the farmworkers who put food on our table. Let’s make sure that farmworkers get all the protections to have safer transportation and safer working conditions.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

L. Throness: I’m pleased to announce the proclamation of March 20, 2015, as Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. Since the House will not be sitting on that day, this event will be celebrated at noon right here today at the rotunda downstairs. The theme of this year’s celebration is “Prosperity through partnerships.”
[ Page 6697 ]

Francophone and francophiles shape a considerable segment of our society in B.C. Today the province will recognize a private sector B.C.-Quebec partnership that creates jobs in many regions of our province.

Quebec entrepreneurs have worked with British Columbians to create jobs and spur innovation here, their Quebec origin often masked by business names that work in both English and French. Such is the case for Cascades, one of Canada’s largest collectors and processors of recyclable materials, currently established in Prince George, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Richmond and Victoria.

Today’s proclamation of B.C. Francophonie Day also honours our vibrant and dynamic French-speaking community of more than 70,000 francophones, as well as close to 300,000 British Columbians who speak French. I know in my own riding there is enormous interest in French immersion offered to children in seven Chilliwack schools.

Our francophonie is an invaluable part of our heritage that enhances the economic, social and cultural fabric of our province and our country. [French was spoken.]

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN AND YOUTH

M. Elmore: The sexual exploitation of children and youth under the age of 18 years is any type of sexual activity in exchange for money, drugs, food, shelter or for any other considerations.

The commercial and individual sexual exploitation of children and youth is never considered prostitution or consensual. It’s a form of sexual abuse that cuts across all races, classes, genders and ages. It’s a $1 billion industry. Children in all our communities are affected, behind closed doors, on line, in parks, next door.

The underlying risk factors in this exploitation are youth who are kicked out of the house or run away from home; gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender youth; youth who live in poverty; youth who suffer mental health, physical, cognitive disabilities; or youth who experience racism.

We need to address systemic issues, have a poverty-reduction plan and ensure children have timely access to child protection, the criminal justice system, adequate access to addictions treatment, safe and affordable housing, and the full spectrum of health support services, most importantly mental health support.

All of us have a role and collective responsibility in ensuring the protection of our youth and children. The goals of prevention include ending the demand. We must eliminate the societal demand for commercial and individual exploitation of children and prevent children from being perceived and used as sexual commodities. We need more investment in research and to continue raising public awareness, especially of the growing danger of on-line predators.

[1020]

This week, March 9 to 15, is Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week. But beyond this week, this issue should be in our minds and hearts until the normalization of such exploitation for individual or commercial gain becomes socially, economically, politically and spiritually unacceptable in our communities, nation and the world. Together, let’s work to ensure all our children have childhoods free from sexual abuse and exploitation.

ASPERGER SYNDROME AWARENESS

J. Thornthwaite: “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.” Though originally spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King, these words are just as eloquent coming from Connor Wallace, a youth living with Asperger syndrome.

Since starting school 13 years ago, Connor says: “I felt like a freak because I wasn’t really like everyone else. Being invisible is a painful thing. It would be easy to hate people who are unjust to me. Every day I try to have more understanding about people before I make assumptions.”

Today some of my fellow MLAs and I met with Connor and his mom and friends who came to the Legislature to tell us about some of the challenges youth with Asperger’s face every day. A few years ago they formed the ASPIRES youth lounge, a group for North Shore teens and young adults living with Asperger’s. The lounge provides a place for them to play Xbox, watch movies and build friendships.

For people with Asperger’s, this is a rare luxury. Asperger’s is a form of autism spectrum disorder characterized by difficulties with social interaction. It often leads to isolation and depression and makes finding employment difficult, despite the fact that many with Asperger’s have amazing intellectual gifts.

With the right preparation and support, many with Asperger’s can excel, using their gifts to benefit employers. Many companies are already seeing a great return on hiring people on the spectrum, from diligence, focus and accuracy to increased productivity, job loyalty and a more open, inclusive work environment.

The Asperger’s youth lounge began as a parent-led effort to open the doors of friendship and fellowship for these incredible youth. It is an offshoot of the non-profit organization ASPIRES, which has organized many activities for their members, from whitewater rafting to snowshoeing. Some of the parents and volunteers who have made this happen are here today, and I ask the House to join me in giving them thanks. As Connor says: “To hate doesn’t require intellect; to love, or compassion, does.”

ROLE OF FRENCH CANADIANS
IN B.C. HISTORY

B. Ralston: Today, B.C. Francophone Day, la Journée de la francophonie, we recognize and honour the contri-
[ Page 6698 ]
butions francophones have made in the history of British Columbia and of Canada.

The distinguished historian of British Columbia, Jean Barman, in a book published in 2014, reports that French Canadians played a vital role in the early European settlement of the Pacific Coast. While names such as Simon Fraser and David Thompson are familiar to us, Barman points out that almost everyone, apart from the men in charge, were French Canadians. It was their courage and hard work that opened overland routes to the Pacific Coast.

She also concludes that French Canadians, who were almost entirely male, the indigenous women with whom they partnered and their descendants eased relations between newcomers and indigenous peoples, thereby firmly establishing new communities.

In the years that followed the Francophone community flourished in the fur trading centres of Fort Victoria, Fort Langley, Fort Simpson and many others. This industry, with a principally French-speaking workforce, was the main reason that Britain was able to resist American attempts to expand to the north. In short, it is thanks to francophones that Canada has a Pacific coast and that British Columbia exists as the coastal province we know today.

There are about 300,000 francophones in B.C. today, of whom 70,000 speak French as their first language. Our francophone heritage gives British Columbia a place in the global community. It is a source of pride for Canadians that our former Governor General Michaëlle Jean was chosen last year to head la Francophonie, a global organization with 57 member states and 20 observer nations.

C’est avec fierté que nous célébrons aujourd’hui les histoires distinguées de la communauté francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. Merci bien.

SOCIAL WORKERS

Moira Stilwell: March 8 to 14 marks Social Worker Week in B.C. Whether they’re providing a friendly smile during someone’s hospital stay or a comforting voice on the other end of the telephone, this week we celebrate and recognize social workers and all they do to make life better for British Columbians.

[1025]

Social workers are a vital part of our health care team. Every day across this province social workers strive to support healthy families and build positive, safe communities. They work in a variety of settings, from hospitals and schools to mental health and addiction clinics, using their skills to help others enhance their own abilities so they can solve problems and improve well-being.

They help citizens work through their poverty, homelessness, addiction and domestic violence. They work directly with those in need, helping patients overcome difficulties by empowering them to try and manage some of life’s very difficult challenges.

Finding help can be a struggle for many, particularly if there are cultural or linguistic barriers. Social workers are often the first contacts of new Canadians, helping immigrants settle, navigate complex administrative systems and connect to services so they can fully integrate into their new homes.

Social Worker Week is not just a chance to learn about what these professionals do. It’s also an opportunity to recognize the role they play in proper functioning of our democracy. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for everything they do to enable those at risk to improve their welfare so they can participate fully in our society.

Oral Questions

COMMENTS BY PREMIER ON AUDITOR
GENERAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LEGISLATION AND ROLE OF MINISTER

J. Horgan: Over the past number of weeks this House has been witness to a minister responsible for the Auditor General for Local Government struggling to keep afloat. We’ve been asking questions about the competence of the operation, why it is that $5.2 million was spent on one single audit.

The Premier expressed disappointment. Fortunately, she didn’t say she was going to get to the bottom of this, as she’s done with numerous other failings of her government, but she expressed disappointment.

She went on to say to the public, through the media, that she had every confidence in the minister because she, as a rookie, had stewarded the legislation through this House. Regrettably, that’s just a false statement. The minister responsible for this act was Ida Chong, a 17-year member of this Legislature, someone I would expect would know something about the legislative process. It was not the current minister responsible.

I’ll give the Premier an opportunity now, before she expresses disappointment again, to correct the record on who brought this legislation in that was so important to her not that long ago.

Hon. C. Clark: I understand the Leader of the Opposition went off the day before yesterday on a tour to visit all his supporters in the province, and here he is back today, having completed the mission. Delighted to see him back.

He’s quite right. He has corrected the record. What I should have said was that this minister has worked very hard to see the implementation of this legislation, has worked very hard to make sure that we are working with local governments and respecting what they need, recognizing what they need. For the crucial elements of bringing this legislation to life, this minister has worked hard.
[ Page 6699 ]

Now, he is also quite correct in quoting me in saying that I am really disappointed with the way this has unfolded. I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition wanted zero audits, but one is not good enough for me. We have some issues that we need to fix. The audit council is looking at that. They’ll provide us with a report and recommendations. We’ll look very closely at it and make sure that we find a way to make sure the office is doing better.

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

AUDITOR GENERAL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PERFORMANCE AND STATUS

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, more fact-free rhetoric from the Premier. I at no time…. There is an independent Auditor General in British Columbia — has been for decades — that has very understandable legislation that doesn’t require back-and-forth between lawyers to figure out mandates.

When this legislation for the Auditor General for Local Government was in this House, we on this side said: “Why are you doing this?” It could have been because they were firing the last Auditor General because they didn’t like the work that he was doing, but let’s put that aside.

Zero facts from the Premier and $5.2 million down the tube. I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that if I had a pet project, at some point I would be following its progress.

[1030]

Two years of failure — two years of failure — and 18 audits not done. I would have thought that more than disappointment would have come to the Premier when she was responding to this issue in the media rather than this House.

I’ll go through you, hon. Speaker, and ask the Premier. At what point do you say, “This isn’t working. Let’s blow it up,” and put the legitimate Auditor General in charge of the municipal governments — that this Premier tried to…?

Interjections.

Hon. C. Clark: I just want it on the record that I would have been delighted yesterday to answer in the House any questions about the Auditor General for Local Government, but his members didn’t get up and ask me any of those questions.

Welcome back, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. I’m delighted to be able to speak to the questions. This is an office that is of particular importance to me.

I understand that it’s not important to the opposition. They opposed the bill. They came up with no suggestions for changes. They said: “Just don’t do it.” They didn’t believe in the accountability that it was intended to bring.

They never stood up and said: “We think that, in principle, this is a great idea for making sure that local property taxpayers are better protected, that local property taxpayers have more transparency from their local governments.” It would have been nice.

He’s a little bit late coming to the dance. Now he’s suddenly a great proponent of more accountability. Well, we’re delighted you finally changed your mind on that, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. C. Clark: Welcome. Welcome to the accountability side of the argument.

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

J. Horgan: The advantage, I guess, we have on this side of the House is that we only have to hear the Premier go off on her rhetorical flourishes infrequently.

It may be funny to her to put $5 million in a pile and burn it. And we’re not done there. Everybody’s now got a lawyer. We’re doing a review of the people that are supposed to audit the people that were auditing the people that needed the audits. That’s where we’ve got to.

The Premier suggests that we had no ideas on this side of the House. I find that hard to believe. As an authority on this Legislature, the Premier didn’t even know who introduced and passed the legislation.

So even though half of what she just said is not correct and 100 percent of it does not come close to addressing the question that I asked, I’ll try this nice and simple question for the Premier. How much more money are you prepared to lose before you say: “This was a bad idea. The NDP was right, and I was wrong”? Try that.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair. Remarks will be directed through the Chair.

Hon. C. Clark: “The NDP was right, and I was wrong,” he says. And this is not in the….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Clark: I kind of get the feeling they’re still hurting from losing the last election. It’s kind of like what he said on April 1, 2011, just a lot like what he said on CKNW. “I am proud of what we did in the 1990s.” Of course, he thinks that everything the NDP did was right.

[1035]

The people of British Columbia have been very clear for 14 years now that they disagree categorically with his view of everything that the NDP did was right.

The facts are that when we stand up on this side of the House for jobs, they oppose it. When we stand up on this side of the House for accountability, they oppose it. When we stand up on this side of the House for lower taxes, less red tape, supporting small business, they oppose it. When we stand up for working people and making sure they have an opportunity to benefit from a growing economy, they oppose it.

Every single time they oppose it, and that’s why in every election since 1996 British Columbians have opposed them.

HEALTH CARE WORKER LAYOFFS
AT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
IN LOWER MAINLAND

M. Karagianis: When the Ombudsperson released her report on seniors care in 2012, one of her key findings was that seniors in residential care suffer when their care providers are constantly changed. She made it abundantly clear that large-scale staff displacements — and I quote from her report — “disrupt the lives of seniors in residential care, especially those whose needs are complex” and those with dementia.

She also went on to say: “The Ministry of Health has not ensured that there are safeguards in place to protect seniors in residential care from the lack of continuity of care during large-scale staff replacements.”

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he explain today why his ministry is allowing the disruption of services for nearly 300 vulnerable seniors at two care centres in the Lower Mainland by displacing more than 300 workers in the next couple of weeks?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the question, which we have canvassed previously in this House. We believe in making sure that our seniors are well cared for. We also need to ensure that our taxpayers are well cared for. We provide the very best health care and always ensure value for money. So when Vancouver Coastal, after ten years, decides to go out to the market for cleaning services with an RFP, we think that’s appropriate so that we can take as many dollars as possible and keep that in front-line care for our vulnerable seniors.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I think the minister misses the point. This is not about cleaning staff. This is about care providers to vulnerable seniors in residential care. Now, the reality is that the endless contract flipping is a direct result of Bill 29 and this government’s cavalier approach to contracts. But this government does not seem to care about that or take any steps to look after vulnerable seniors.

Now, Harmony Court is home to 77 seniors who rely on 80 care aides, nurses and recreational aides, not cleaning staff. All of those workers will be laid off on April 19. In Surrey 215 residents of Laurel Place are about to see their care disrupted, as 240 care and support workers will be laid off on June 1. It’s more disruption in the lives of frail seniors, many with dementia, who rely on continuity of care — exactly what the Ombudsperson warned us not to do. Yet this government continues to do it.

Why is the minister unwilling to put an end to this practice and provide long-term, stable care for our vulnerable B.C. seniors?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, thank you to the member for the question. I think she’s genuinely concerned about vulnerable seniors in residential care, as I am.

We met with the B.C. Federation of Labour recently on this particular issue. I’ve spoken with the seniors advocate on this issue as well. I tend to agree that in some very small number of cases we’ve seen contracts changed rapidly, a lot of times over a short period of time. I find that that is impactful on residents.

[1040]

We are going to work with the seniors advocate, who’s doing a report on housing for seniors. I look forward to the work in this regard. I’m going to work with the B.C. Care Providers and discuss this particular issue.

We need to make sure that the lives of those vulnerable seniors are not negatively impacted by a constant turnover of contracts while at the same time having a balance of finding the best value for money so we can provide front-line health care to the very best level possible.

SITE C POWER PROJECT
TIMELINE AND REVIEW

A. Weaver: Earlier this week Harry Swain, co-chair of the joint review panel appointed for the Site C dam and a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, raised some very serious concerns about the government’s approach to approving Site C.

Mr. Swain was very clear that the government was rushed in approving Site C, and British Columbians will pay for their haste. As Mr. Swain said: “Wisdom would have been waiting for two, three, four years to see whether the projections they” — that’s B.C. Hydro — “were making had any basis in fact.” That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for the fiscal underpinning of Site C.

The review panel predicted that by building it now, Site C will actually produce more electricity than we’ll need for the first four years, costing taxpayers $800 million. My goodness, we could use that money to build a state-of-the-art sewage system in Victoria.

Mr. Swain is only the most recent person to suggest waiting a few years to see if electricity demand for the
[ Page 6701 ]
project materializes. We could still build Site C down the road if necessary, but we could use the additional time to properly explore cheaper alternatives like our vast geothermal potential in B.C. We have the time. LNG final investment decisions are delayed or not happening at all or somewhere down the yellow brick road or perhaps in never-never land.

My question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is this. Given the massive costs associated with rushing into Site C, will he hit the pause button on construction for two to four years, as recommended by Mr. Swain, and use the time to save British Columbians money and explore viable alternatives?

Hon. B. Bennett: I will answer the question. I categorically disagree with the premise of the question, but I do have to thank the member for the question. We as government announced this project in December of 2014. It’s certainly one of the largest public infrastructure projects in the province’s history, and it’s an extremely important project to the future of this province, so I appreciate having the opportunity to stand in the House and talk about it. I’m not sure if I have a critic with the opposition. He hasn’t asked me any questions about Site C to date.

Fair enough questions about the need for the electricity, the cost of the project. These are all legitimate issues that we should be debating in this House.

I’d like to quote from the panel that Mr. Swain chaired. One of the things that Mr. Swain said was that Site C “would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would increase with passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly.” He went on to say, in terms of debt, that the panel concludes the risk of Site C to the province’s debt management plan “is entirely manageable by a prudent B.C. government.” He went on to say: “There is little doubt about the competence of B.C. Hydro to build and operate the project efficiently.” That’s what the panel report stated.

With respect to need, the forecast that Hydro had done, this is what the panel said. The panel said that B.C. Hydro’s forecasting techniques are sound and that B.C. Hydro “has done a responsible job in forecasting.”

A. Weaver: Well, we’ve seen Site C pushed through without adequate consideration of the cost effective-effective alternatives. I’d like to quote Harry Swain again. He called this a dereliction of duty. These are very strong words from a very highly regarded senior official from the Canadian government. To be even more blunt, it’s recklessness on the part of the government. We have a sense of the costs: $800 million lost in the first four years of operation because of construction timing.

[1045]

What we need right now is a government that is willing to show leadership on this, willing to put good policy ahead of ideological politics. My question to the minister is this. Will he listen to the call from every member of this side of the House, along with the expert opinion of the joint review panel and countless others, to send the Site C project to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for a proper regulatory review?

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, I appreciate the question from the member. I actually haven’t heard a peep from anybody on the other side of the House about Site C other than this member, but that’s fine.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members will come to order.

Hon. B. Bennett: They don’t seem to want to talk about economic issues for some reason or other.

B.C. Hydro has been working on this project for the last seven years. They forecast a demand for electricity that will require the province to have 1,100 megawatts of electricity by 2024. Their forecasting methodology has been tested by the BCUC. That’s the agency that this side of the House loves so much. The BCUC has actually said that B.C. Hydro’s forecasting methodology is state of the art.

B.C. Hydro figures that we’re going to need 1,100 megawatts of electricity in 2024. We set about, over the past two years, to determine what’s the best way to get that 1,100 megawatts of electricity. We looked at absolutely everything, and the decision that we made on this side of the House was to honour the ratepayer. We chose the option that is the fairest, lowest cost to the ratepayer, but that side of the House wants us to do something different.

ACCESS TO EYE HEALTH SERVICES
IN NORTHWEST B.C.

D. Donaldson: There’s already a one-year wait-list in northwest B.C. to see an eye surgery specialist on an elective condition like a cataract, let alone at least a couple of months’ wait for surgery to occur after that consult. And things got worse. The only eye surgery specialist in northwest B.C. is on medical leave from his practice in Terrace for anywhere from three to seven months, with no concrete plans to cover his absence.

As Dr. Barry Lester, an optometrist in Smithers, put it: “Patients currently can have no reasonable expectation of specialist care for ophthalmological services in the north. They are effectively sitting in limbo.”

Medical services premiums are going up under this government. People in the north with chronic eye conditions are getting less. What is the Minister of Health doing about this unacceptable situation?

Hon. T. Lake: Recruiting and retaining health care professionals in rural areas all over North America is a chal-
[ Page 6702 ]
lenge. Here in British Columbia we have invested heavily in attracting and retaining health care professionals into rural B.C. We have recruitment programs, incentive programs. We spent nearly $100 million in incentives in 2012-13 for physicians to stay in rural B.C. In fact, we have the highest level of physicians in rural B.C. than ever before.

Have we met the challenge yet? No. This is a very diverse and wide-ranging province. It is always a challenge to have health care professionals in all areas of the province, particularly as specialization continues to increase. We support those health care professionals, we provide telehealth services so that people can have access to specialized services, and we’ll continue to work hard to make sure rural B.C. has the health care needed to meet their needs.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: I think I just heard the Minister of Health say they’re going to check eyes by telehealth. He admits that they have failed northwest B.C. We’re talking about an ophthalmologist here, not general health care professionals. We’re talking about surgeons.

[1050]

Patients in the northwest were temporarily provided with one week of surgery by a visiting eye specialist. That’s coming to an end in a few days. There are no known plans for providing eye surgery doctor consultations in the northwest. Patients with chronic eye conditions that can no longer wait are being referred to ophthalmological on-call specialists at the emergency room in Prince George Hospital, a more than seven-hour drive away for some patients.

Surely the minister doesn’t think using a hospital emergency room a seven-hour drive away for someone with a tear in their retina is good care for northerners or an efficient use of the medical system. When is he going to fix this so people paying more through their medical services premiums aren’t getting less?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned and have mentioned previously, decisions made in the 1990s resulted in a thousand fewer doctors here today. The members opposite don’t want to recognize the fact that they tried to limit the supply of physicians to bend down the cost curve.

We have more than doubled the number of physicians we train in this province. We have increased the number of residency spaces available for people to come here to British Columbia. We have the practice readiness assessment tool so that foreign-trained graduates can come to British Columbia. Telehealth is a valuable service for specialists as well as generalists.

We’re working hard to supply those services all over the province, and I will stand on this record compared to the NDP record on health care any day of the week.

R. Austin: Fourteen years in government and still making excuses. The situation that Dr. Lester describes is simply untenable. “In the northwest,” he says, “local physicians must now treat ophthalmological conditions that are beyond their expertise. Furthermore,” he adds, “optometrists are being forced to work beyond their mandated scope of practice.”

That’s the result of the Liberal government’s failure to provide adequate eye care in the region. People are paying more for MSP premiums and getting less. Does the minister think it’s acceptable for patients to turn to doctors without expertise to deal with serious eye conditions?

Hon. T. Lake: We are working very cooperatively with the Doctors of B.C. on recruitment and retention. In fact, there was a symposium last week in Vancouver on the subject. We have invested heavily in incentives to attract physicians to rural areas of the province. We have made it easier for international medical graduates to come to British Columbia.

In fact, by 2016 there will be 58 entry-level positions and 134 international medical graduates in various stages of residential training. These are specialists that will, in fact, want to practise in all areas of the province. We’re working diligently to make sure that we meet the needs of rural British Columbians in health care.

Madame Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.

R. Austin: With all due respect, Minister, those generalities don’t get to the specifics of this situation. Dr. Lester believes that the situation is just going to compound across the north. He says patients are flocking into Prince George, leaving doctors there stretched, and he says it’s only a matter of time before specialists in Prince George can no longer take patients, meaning that a problem in the northwest becomes a problem across the entire northern half of the province.

Why is the minister expecting northerners to pay more for MSP but get less service?

[1055]

Hon. T. Lake: The fact is that we have more physicians in rural B.C. than ever before. With the aging population and the specialization, the expectations from health care certainly make it difficult to continue to match the demand. But we’re working hard to do that.

In fact, through the international medical graduate program that we’ve been able to expand…. I think there were five spaces in the ’90s. We’re up to 58 now. We have 60 family physicians and ten specialists that have been trained through the expansion and have a return of service. They go into underserviced areas of the province — Agassiz, Chase, Comox, Courtenay, Duncan, Enderby, Fort Nelson, Gibsons, Port Hardy, Terrace, Squamish,
[ Page 6703 ]
Vancouver, Vernon, Victoria, White Rock, all over the province — because we’re working hard to make sure that we meet the needs of British Columbians.

RELEASE OF REPORT ON EARTHQUAKE
PREPAREDNESS CONSULTATION

K. Corrigan: Last year the Auditor General’s Catastrophic Earthquake Preparedness audit found that our province is not prepared for a major earthquake. As part of their response to this damning report, the B.C. Liberal government hired Henry Renteria to examine what the province needs to do to improve earthquake preparedness. This report was due months ago.

A simple question: why hasn’t the Attorney General released the report to the public?

Hon. S. Anton: The preparation of British Columbia is extremely important in the case of a catastrophic earthquake. It’s important for individuals, it’s important for households, it’s important for businesses, and it’s important for governments — local governments and the provincial government.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: That’s why Mr. Renteria was hired to do his report. He did an extensive consultation. He has presented us with a preparatory report, and we will be reporting out on that before too long.

I agree with the member opposite. For us to be prepared in British Columbia is extremely important, and we are working towards that so that everybody in British Columbia can be prepared and ready if we have any kind of catastrophic occasion.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of International Trade — and in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 16, the Supply Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2015

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 16, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2015, be….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Can we have some order, please.

Government House Leader, please start again.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll try it again and see if I can capture the attention of the House.

I move that Bill 16, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2015, be read a second time now.

Existing voted appropriations for the government will expire on March 31, 2015. Bill 16 follows the standard practice of providing interim supply, in this case for the first two months of the 2015-16 fiscal year.

[1100]

In the past, I think we’ve done three months and, on one occasion, for unique circumstances, four or five months. In this case, it’s the first two months of the 2015-16 fiscal year, while members of the assembly debate the appropriations presented in the ’15-16 estimates.

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required, of course, to ensure that there is continuity of government services until the end of the legislative session, when we anticipate final supply will be determined.

Bill 16 provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the ’15-16 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements. These disbursements are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, that accounts for the higher level of interim supply, which is required to accommodate the payments made under those schedules.

Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of the ’15-16 requirements for schedule E financing transactions is being sought in this supply bill. Schedule E of the estimates outlines the revenue collected for and transferred to other entities. These distributions are statutory, and there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of this revenue and follows, again, in the standard pattern for interim supply bills.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the ’15-16 estimates.

C. James: As the minister has pointed out, this bill provides interim spending for the government while we go through the debate. I think I just want to take a minute to emphasize that.

For those people who are watching who imagine that a budget gets a great deal of debate, and they wonder what’s going on in the debate on this bill, this simply provides interim spending while we go through the debates in each individual ministry. The process for every MLA is to be able to have an opportunity to go through each individual ministry and to go through the spending in that individual ministry. We have continued the debate
[ Page 6704 ]
on the budget as well.

Those debates will continue. This is not a quick moving of a budget, which I think is important to simply state, as the minister has said. This is simply spending for those good people who keep the government running, each and every day. Whether we’re talking about teachers or health care workers or public servants, we want the government to continue to work while we go through the process of debating the budget. So there will be much opportunity to be able to ask specific questions and to continue the debate in individual ministries.

I look forward to my discussion with the Minister of Finance. With that, I’ll take my seat.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m obliged to the hon. member for her comments and, of course, for correctly pointing out that there is much discussion that actually has commenced — is underway now — to explore further the details of the estimates for the individual ministries and departments of government.

I should also point out that when we do eventually arrive at a final supply bill for ’15-16, the amounts spoken to in this bill will be incorporated in that final supply bill to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in the fiscal year.

Again, thank you to the hon. member for her comments.

I move second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 16 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 7.

[1105]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — PRIVATE TRAINING ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On section 24 (continued).

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask just a general question. It’s not just for those of us who are here but also for the future when people are trying to interpret this act or understand how it works and for anybody who might be interested now. I wonder if, as a general point, the minister could explain the relationship between the governance role of the trustee, as opposed to the registrar, and where they interface in this act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The role of the trustee is to be responsible for the tuition protection fund. That is vested in the minister, who can delegate it from there on. The registrar is the public servant responsible for administration of the regulatory framework.

K. Corrigan: That is consistent with my understanding. The reason that I was particularly asking that question is that one of the concerns that has been related to me by more than one individual and organization is the fact that when you’re dealing with claims against the fund, there is no appeal whatsoever.

I just wanted to make it clear. There are avenues of appeal when it comes to decisions of the registrar with regard to cancellation of certificates and penalties, and so on. But just to be clear, there is no appeal from a decision by the trustee with regard to claims to the fund. That is a real concern.

Certainly, the B.C. Career Colleges Association, in a letter that was signed by Jeremy Sabell, who is the president of the association…. This association represents, I believe, around 30 private training institutions and colleges.

[1110]

They expressed a real concern about the fact that there’s no appeal with regard to a decision of the trustee. They felt, in addition, that there’s no ability to call witnesses, or at least, it’s not clear. It does say that the trustee can examine evidence and information on oath by affirmation, but there was a real concern that there is not the ability to make one’s case clearly. I guess the question would be: can lawyers be involved in the adjudications of claims?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The process outlined in section 24 for the adjudication of the claims by the trustee or their delegate does not anticipate face-to-face encounters with witnesses or parties. What it does contemplate is a paper process, and of course, any of the parties can engage a lawyer whenever they see fit in that process.

K. Corrigan: Just to do with the claims and the fund — it may have more to do with section 23 but certainly relevant in terms of section 24 — I want to point out, again, in this letter on behalf of the B.C. Career Colleges Association, that the private training colleges and institutions are certainly not, in voicing their opposition
[ Page 6705 ]
to this bill, saying that they are opposed to a regulatory framework, because they have cooperated. They’ve had input. They just do not like what the result has been by any means, because they believe it is very rushed and does not reflect any of the consultation. They are very concerned about how much of it is left open to regulation.

Just one example of how they are not opposed to regulation per se. They say that, for example, in a case where a student alleges they were mislead by an institution, the institution should have a right to a hearing, which is what we’re talking about here. They are concerned that that hearing right does not exist.

To ensure institutions do not invoke this right frivolously, the act could provide for cost awards against the institution, in the same manner as is done in section 51 of the bill.

They believe that the privative clause in section 24(5) should be deleted, and that’s the clause which says, essentially, that the ruling of the trustee is absolute. They think that should be deleted. They believe there should be some right of reconsideration or appeal, and they also do believe, though, that there should be a right to a hearing.

That’s from the B.C. Career Colleges Association. I’ve also heard it from their lawyer. They are very concerned about that as well — lawyer acting for the Vancouver Island colleges, as well as the automotive training centres, Dorset College, Pacific Design, Langley Flying School and others.

All are concerned about the fact that there is, under section 24, no right of appeal, no ability to have cross-examination or a hearing. I’m not sure if the minister could perhaps explain why it is that the decision was made to go this route.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As we canvassed yesterday, the various levels of dispute resolution our country and our jurisdiction here in British Columbia encompass not only the superior courts but small claims courts. My belief is that the current judicial…. The compensation limit for small claims is $25,000. Small claims does not provide for any awards of costs. It simply provides for an award or lack thereof, to the claimant.

[1115]

Similarly, here there’s no provision for cost awards to the successful party to the process. The institution does have a right of reply to any complaints brought by a student. As noted in section 23 yesterday, the complaints or claims related to a student having been misled must be with respect to a significant aspect of an approved program of instruction. One can imagine there might be frivolous claims, and it’ll be up to the trustee to make it clear that frivolous claims will not be awarded.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

K. Corrigan: Section 25 deals with payments from the fund and says, "The trustee may, in accordance with the regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, pay from the fund, or authorize the administrator of the fund to pay from the fund” a variety of types of claims — for example, if the institution ceased to hold a certificate, “all or a portion of the tuition paid by the claimant, or on behalf of the claimant.” A variety of different ways — if a certified institution misled a student, again payment of part or all of tuition.

My first comment, or observation, is that, first of all, I saw that in the original act there is a typo. I know that’s not a big thing, but when I look at a bill and I see that there’s a typo — and I believe there are a couple in this act — it makes me wonder whether or not the process was rushed.

That may be just me, but I always think…. If I see an act and there’s a typo, it makes me wonder about whether or not the process was rushed. It would certainly be consistent with what I’m hearing from many in the industry and many organizations and teachers, that they’re concerned that this was rushed and should be put off till the fall. I don’t know if the minister wants to respond to that suggestion or not.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We all know that as time goes by at all levels of government there are miscellaneous statutes that correct numbering errors, typographical errors and other clerical issues that arise in the body of statutes. If the member opposite would care to point out where the alleged typographical errors are, that would obviously help the process.

K. Corrigan: Well, in the bill that I have — the version that I have, which came from the legislative website — it’s in subsection 25(1)(a)(ii)(B) as “a comparable orogram.” I believe that was supposed to be “program.”

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps we could turn to the institution we sit in today to sort this out because the copy that we have states correctly the word “program.”

K. Corrigan: I’d be happy to share my copy. It’s definitely an “o” and not a “p.”

Just for clarification, the first day, which was a few days ago, that we started considering this bill, is it possible that there was a correction filed by the ministry on that? Or is it just that there are different sources? This comes off of the legislative website, https://www.leg.bc.ca/40th4th/1st_read/gov07-1.htm.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As much as I would love to speak on behalf of the institution we sit in, the Legislature, I cannot. I can confirm that the copy I have, printed on February 11, 2015, has the correct spelling of the word “program” in section 25(1)(a)(ii)(B).

[1120]

K. Corrigan: Well, it may just be an unsolved mystery for all time. Mine was printed off on February 16 of 2015 from that website that I mentioned. Either we have a different source…. I have the legislative website. The minister has some other source. Somehow, mysteriously, at some point an “o” was changed to a “p” or a “p” was changed to an “o.” I will certainly retract any concern. It may be the legislative goblins that played havoc with the difference between a “p” and an “o” — which are next to each other on a typewriter. Maybe it was corrected at some point. Anyways, the version that I have in front of me definitely has a typo.

I wanted to ask about payments from the fund. Perhaps the best way to do this would be…. First of all, just to clarify, the decision was made that the only thing that a student can claim for is for tuition or part of tuition. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister, in crafting this legislation, considered or had presentations from people, submissions from individuals, suggesting that more than tuition should be covered by the fund.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That did not come up in the consultations, which were extensive leading up to this legislation.

K. Corrigan: The reason I mention that…. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the minister that this was the appropriate decision. It sounds like the issue wasn’t considered one way or the other. One of the concerns, not with this legislation but overall concerns, that I’ve heard repeatedly is that students — particularly students who are not domestic or not from British Columbia; students who come from other provinces and many, many students who come from oversees — pay far more for their education at private training institutions or language schools in British Columbia than just the cost of tuition.

They pay for books. They pay for transportation, and I understand why that wouldn’t be covered. They pay for homestays. They pay for a whole variety of other things that are associated. The concern is that if there was a school that was, for example, not to deliver, that they would be out far more than just the cost of tuition.

Perhaps it’s a good time for me to raise another issue. One of the things that is in the Manitoba act and is not in this act is that the Manitoba act makes schools responsible for the actions of agents and recruiters. Perhaps that’s a way that we could have more accountability and less of those situations where students were way out of pocket, far more than just the cost of tuition. I suppose that’s not really a question, but it is an observation.

Maybe I’ll just take it as the opportunity to again raise the issue. Does the minister not think that the gap between tuition and all the other expenses that a non-resident student might incur — the existence of that gap or those expenses — could have perhaps been minimized, this risk, if there was something in the act that dealt with the behaviour of agents or recruiters?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of note, in subsection 25.1(a) the arrangement that results from a claim is that the primary goal is to have the student complete their program so that their investment in transportation, room and board and books will not be lost or disappear. Rather, they will be put into a replacement program that satisfies the registrar as to quality so that the trustee can simply fund the completion of the course from the tuition protection fund.

[1125]

Of course, this is in keeping with the member’s concern that the student’s primary motivation is to finish the course and not have lost their other investment in getting here or putting themselves up and feeding themselves during the course.

In terms of agents, I believe this was canvassed two days when we began this process, when the issue of the law of agency and our jurisdiction was covered at some length in the House here.

K. Corrigan: Yes, we did talk about agency, but the issue of what can and can’t be claimed and what is covered for students just reminded me that one of the ways to avoid complaints or concerns by students that their costs are not being covered perhaps could have been addressed if the behaviour of agents was addressed in this bill.

I guess the minister’s answer raises another question — and I don’t necessarily need a specific number on this. The minister just said that the intent is for the students to complete their programs. I’m wondering if the minister could give me an idea of…. I know this scheme is going to be different, but it’s the same idea — to have a fund.

In the past what portion of the claims ended up being paid to complete the program and what portion of the claims ended up being paid for the students merely to get their tuition back because there was no way to complete the program?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The information we have is that since April 1 of 2012, roughly three years now, of 243 students who have made claims against the fund, 85 have been put into a teach-out situation at a replacement institution.

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying that the majority of the claims did not end up having the students go to another institution. They simply claimed for their tuition back. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of the remainder, the 158 other students who did not go through teach-out programs at
[ Page 6707 ]
another institution, they will have received all or part of their tuition back on a prorated basis.

K. Corrigan: Really, the minister is saying to me that the aim is…. These students might come from another country or another province to take these programs. They pay for airfare, they pay for a place to live while they’re here, they pay for their books, and they pay for a number of other expenses. In fact, in the past, since 2012, of the ones that resulted in claims, the vast majority of them, 158 out of 243, did not get the education or even something comparable. They instead got paid their tuition and were out of pocket for the rest of the costs that they incurred. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this involves individual circumstances of the 158 students — roughly 65 percent of the claimants.

[1130]

We don’t know if they changed their minds and wanted to go to a different course, or if personal circumstances supervened and they wanted to go home, or if they decided to take a holiday instead. We simply don’t have the information on each of the 158 files, so it’s impossible to leap to the conclusion that the member opposite just made.

K. Corrigan: I would assume that if a student made a claim against the fund, neither in the past nor under the new fund under this legislation…. If a student merely decided they wanted to take a different course, which is what the minister just alluded to, they wouldn’t get a refund under the fund, would they?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The fund, of course, compensates a student for a failed program. Either the program was grossly inadequate, or the institution ceased to exist, or for some reason, the course couldn’t be completed. That, of course, raises the question of whether the student would prefer to go into a teach-out situation because they desire the completion of the course, and perhaps it could be done down the street or in a nearby town or in another convenient location.

Some students may make the case that they are done with that course and do not want to carry on in a replacement course. They would make that position clear to the trustee. They would then make a case that they do not want a comparable program to be substituted, or perhaps there was too large a gap because the programs weren’t in a suitable time sequence. So the student would make an election to make their position clear to the trustee, and the trustee would take that into account.

K. Corrigan: Of those 158 out of 243, for some reason, the students did not take a comparable course and did not finish. I just want to be clear, then. Under the old act, and then perhaps the same information for the new act, if there is a comparable course offered, is a student not required to accept that option, or can they instead ask for their money back?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As we can see from section 25(1)(a) and its subcomponents, first of all, if a registrar determines that another program can be provided under that section, then that will be the solution put to the student. And of course, if the registrar considers that a comparable program of instruction cannot be provided or is satisfied that special circumstances prevent the claimant from a teach-out scenario, then there can be a refund to the student.

Now, obviously, the registrar is going to listen to the student’s circumstances, which will be recorded in writing, and it would be open to the registrar to make a judgment call. But the premise here is not to endorse hasty or frivolous or perhaps ill-considered decisions by the student. If a teach-out is available in a comparable program, in the judgment of the registrar, then that will be the remedy.

Obviously, if the registrar hears from the student there’s been a death in their family or that they’ve undergone an emotional circumstance beyond their control, then the registrar would take that into account in deciding whether to conclude that a comparable program is the right solution or to refund some or all of the tuition to the student. This, of course, takes into account that a comparable program may be available ten months from when the claim is adjudicated, but that might not be a viable approach. The registrar would take that into account, and the trustee would consider whether or not to make a payout.

K. Corrigan: It’s clear from that answer that this is up to the registrar. It’s not up to the student. To suggest that some of the 158 of the 243 claims over the last 2½ years or whatever the amount of time is, since 2012…. It’s actually over three years.

[1135]

To suggest that some of those claims might be that the students chose, as opposed to not having an option, is, to me, slightly misleading, because it’s up to the registrar to determine. If the registrar determines that a comparable program is available, then the student has to take that decision.

Perhaps the registrar would make a decision that would take into account the student’s desires. But that’s not what the section says. It says: “…if the registrar considers that a comparable program of instruction can be provided under that section.” Well, that’s the remedy.

I would accept that if there was a program that was happening in six months and the student was only in British Columbia for three months or four months…. Of course, I would assume that the registrar would conclude
[ Page 6708 ]
that that’s not acceptable. But it doesn’t sound like if there is something the registrar says is comparable the student has any choice whatsoever in the matter.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the section states, the discretion lies with the registrar, but the registrar must take into account and be “satisfied that special circumstances prevent the claimant from completing a comparable program of instruction.” That is clearly taking into account the circumstances of the student.

K. Corrigan: We’ve got it on the record, then — the minister. When there are claims — and there will be claims — from students and students say that they’ve been offered a program and they don’t want to take it, that’s a special circumstance, or that’s something the registrar needs to consider.

It’s not what I read in the legislation, but the registrar does have…. We certainly acknowledge…. Some of those that have contacted me have been concerned about the amount of discretion that the registrar has. In this case we will assume — and we can certainly point people to this discussion in this House — that when a student decides they don’t want to take the program that the registrar is offering, that will be a special circumstance that the registrar will take into account, and the student will at least have the possibility of an option of simply saying no if they don’t want to take that course.

Is that a fair interpretation of what the minister has said?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite normally refrains from the practice of putting words in my mouth. This time she has indulged in that because what was said is exactly what the statute says. The registrar, in the registrar’s discretion, will determine whether they are “satisfied that special circumstances prevent the claimant from completing a comparable program of instruction.” That is not a subjective test of what the wishes of the claimant student are. That is a statement of what the registrar must take into account.

K. Corrigan: We’ll say that the final word on this from the minister, then, is that if a student decides they do not want to take the course, that doesn’t matter if the registrar determines that there is a comparable program that can be offered. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am not about to indulge in a judicial interpretation of the section in the fashion the member opposite suggests. The section is clear. The registrar has some discretion, and the primary goal of the registrar is to find a program where the student can complete a comparable program of instruction. The registrar has the discretion stated in the section. If the member seeks additional interpretation, she is not a party to litigation, and she will have to find that in the courts.

K. Corrigan: Well, the whole purpose, I believe, that we have spent a long time on this bill is to understand what the intention is with regard to this bill. The minister knows and I know that when interpretation later does occur…. And it will occur, because this will be end up being a point of contention. Of course, there can’t be any kind of appeal to a court or other tribunal, so it’ll be according to what the registrar says. That’s the whole point. It’s to find out what this means.

[1140]

I absolutely guarantee that this section will be a point where there is contention and interpretation and argument and claims. I’m wondering if there’s any record of how many of the claims…. Now, I know we have numbers about those that took a teach-out — in other words, took another course in the past 3½ years — out of how many claims. For about 35 percent there ended up being another course. But do we know in what percentage or ratio or portion of the claims in the past there ended up being concern that students didn’t want to take another course and were forced to? Is there any record of that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the numbers are historical, dealing with a different regime. The new regime is laid out in section 25, which is the section we’re covering in committee now, and it is prospective with a different test.

K. Corrigan: To be honest, I don’t have the old act in front of me. I probably have it somewhere, but I haven’t looked at it recently. I guess the general question about that is: is the expectation that we are going to have more or less times, more or less claims generally? I think we’ve talked about that in the past. Is the expectation that we’re going to have more…?

Better question. Are we going to have more opportunities and more instances when the result is going to be that the student gets pointed to a comparable program? Is that going to happen more often than it did in the past? What is it that’s different about this legislation and this framework that would make that happen, if it’s going to?

[1145]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is, of course, a situation where we’re in transition from an old regime of self-regulation under PCTIA to a new regime, which will be managed under the Private Training Act, providing for the trustee to be prepared to pay students or teach-out schools from the tuition protection fund.

The registrar will be in the position to determine whether a comparable program of instruction can be provided, or in special circumstances that prevent the claimant from completing a comparable program, there could be a payout. In practice, in the past the student has been given a choice. In the future under this act the default
[ Page 6709 ]
under section 25(1)(a)(i) will be a comparable program of instruction — that is, a teach-out.

[1150]

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that comparison. The other part of the question was…. Maybe it involves some speculation. Is the assumption, therefore, that there will be fewer claims and that the amount will be less? I’m also taking into account that we canvassed yesterday that a particular class of claims that was allowed before is not going to be available anymore, up to 10 percent of the claims in the past.

Is it expected, then, with these new rules, with regard to that change, that that will result in a reduction in the number of claims against the fund?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As we canvassed yesterday, the quantum of the claims will shift somewhat, as will the number of the claims, because the new act applies to career training institutes that offer programs related to the national occupational classification, that charge $1,000 in tuition and last for 40 hours. Those under that threshold or unrelated to the national occupational classification do not fall into this framework. So the number of claims will shift.

The overall quantum of claims will probably reduce, as estimated yesterday, by roughly 10 percent at most, because the quantum of the claim is obviously larger for a longer course that fits into the description of the threshold criteria.

The nature of the claims was canvassed in section 23, which provides that the institution ceases to hold a certificate and, therefore, cannot teach the course, or the certified institution misled the student regarding a significant aspect of the approved program. Of course, the threshold of what’s “significant” will be determined by the trustee as they adjudicate the claim. Then, assuming the claim is successful, the registrar will conclude what the available options are in terms of a comparable program for teach-out, if the remedy is that the first course is no longer available to the student.

K. Corrigan: I still have some interest in that. I didn’t get to the very end of what I was looking for there. But that’s fair enough. I see that it is shifting sands and shifting time as well. I’m reasonably satisfied with that answer.

I did want to ask about subsection (c). Subsection (c) provides that the trustee can make a payment to the government “if all or a portion of the tuition was paid using funds from a provincial or federal student assistance program.”

Is that basically saying that if there is a student loan or student assistance, that money goes back to pay that provincial or federal student assistance loan first? Then, if there’s any money left over, it goes to the student?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here, of course, is that if the student has an outstanding liability to a provincial student assistance program and the student is deemed to be worthy of receiving compensation from the tuition protection fund, then the first call on that compensation would be to pay down the liability to the provincial or federal student assistance program. This does not represent a change from the current circumstances.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (d) says that the trustee can pay “costs incurred by the trustee in administering the fund, including the costs of (i) investigating and processing claims…(ii) ensuring that claims can be met, and (iii) recovering money paid in respect of an approved claim, including actual legal costs.”

All of these costs, then, can be and likely will be included in a charge to the fund. So the trustee, then, would recover the amounts from the fund that are outlined in subsection (d) as well. Is that correct?

[1155]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The provision in section 25(1)(d) is that the cost incurred by the trustee — that is, the minister or his or her delegate — and administering the fund can be recovered from the tuition protection fund. That is not a change from the current circumstances — except, of course, the character of the minister as the adjudicator.

K. Corrigan: That’s fair enough. Even though, in that sense, it would be…. I guess I’m asking that question partly because, thinking ahead to section 27, section 27 says that the institution can then be liable to pay back any costs.

I just want to be clear what those costs are, because section 27 provides that an institution may be required to pay back all the costs associated with the claim, including the ones, I presume, that the minister has just outlined, in addition to the original payment into the fund by the institution itself. I will have some questions about that when we get there.

One final question. Subsection (2) says: “If the fund is insufficient to pay all approved claims, the trustee may, in accordance with the regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, prorate payments among claimants whose claims are approved.”

Has that ever happened in the past?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer is no.

Noting the hour, I would suggest that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 6710 ]

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. Michelle Stilwell 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
INTERNATIONAL TRADE

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

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $48,521,000.

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

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, I have, Mr. Chair.

It is my honour to present a 2015-16 spending estimate for the Ministry of International Trade and as Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce my deputy minister, Shannon Baskerville, who is on my right; Clark Roberts, ADM of the international business development division; Christine Little, ADM of the international strategy and competitiveness division; Dean Sekyer, executive lead in the corporate initiatives and multiculturalism division, who is over there; and also David Curtis, ADM of management services.

My role and the role of my ministry is to grow our province’s economy by opening markets for B.C. products and services and by attracting investment that strengthens our most important sector, while promoting multiculturalism through ministry policy and programs.

We are seeing a lot of success so far. As part of the B.C. jobs plan, we have doubled our international presence. We now have a network of 11 trade and investment representative offices in locations all over the world, in key markets such as Japan, Korea, India, China, the United States and Europe. We have a special representative in Asia who helps to build those government-to-government relationships that are so critical to doing business in the Asia-Pacific.

This international network connects B.C. businesses with new markets and trade opportunities, helps B.C. diversify its export markets and promotes British Columbia as a stable and attractive place for investment.

Another key area to attract investment and grow exports is for us to meet face-to-face with stakeholders in key markets. My ministry has supported over 400 inbound and outbound trade missions since April 2011, including six major premiere missions to Asian markets. There’s no question that we all benefit from this growth. Through trade missions, we are attracting international investment in British Columbia’s priority markets. For example, last November gumi Inc., a leading mobile game developer from Japan, announced the opening of an office in Burnaby that will employ 50 British Columbians.

[1110]

Missions are a cost-effective tool for B.C. companies to participate firsthand in targeted export markets such as China, Japan, South Korea, India and ASEAN countries, and they present excellent opportunities to develop government-to-government relations that help open the door for B.C. businesses to expand.

My last trade mission to China, South Korea and Japan was particularly advantageous because of the newly signed Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement that went into effect on January 1. It was a great opportunity for me to meet with government and business representatives to discuss the trade possibilities now available due to the new free trade agreement.

This agreement covers virtually all aspects of Canada–South Korean trade, including trade in goods and services, investment, government procurement and other areas of economic activity. It will likely increase B.C.’s exports to South Korea by as much as 32 percent and possibly impact on key industries — LNG, seafood and agrifood sectors. In fact, trade statistics for January 2015 show that exports to South Korea are already up by almost 86 percent compared to the same month last year.

We are happy to see that businesses are taking advantage of that agreement. This June we’ll be hosting a summit on the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement so even more British Columbians can learn about this agreement and how it can benefit their businesses. Our trade and investment network, trade missions and other ministry programs and activities have laid the groundwork for strengthening ties with international investors.

Now we are taking that work to the next level through HQ Vancouver, our new joint project with the federal government and the Business Council of British
[ Page 6711 ]
Columbia, BCBC. HQ Vancouver is one of the key commitments in my mandate as Minister of International Trade, and I’m delighted to say we are delivering on that promise. The three-year $6.6 million project will deliver major Asian head offices to B.C., further entrenching our province as the gateway for Asian firms to launch their North American operations.

Over the next three years B.C. is contributing $2.1 million in funding and $1.3 million of in-kind contributions to this project. Head offices generate a number of direct economic benefits, including well-paying jobs, business growth and increased awareness that B.C. is a world-class, competitive jurisdiction to do business in. By working collaboratively with the federal government and BCBC, we can use our unique assets, knowledge and skills to attract investment to B.C. that will help create jobs, grow the economy and expand key sectors.

My ministry is also responsible for the province’s investment capital programs, including the small business venture capital program. Through this program, we offer tax credits to encourage investors to make equity capital investments in B.C.’s small business in order to give small businesses access to early-stage venture capital to help them develop and grow.

My role as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism is to celebrate British Columbia’s cultural diversity. The most ethnically diverse province in Canada, B.C. welcomes nearly 40,000 new immigrants every year. Our role in government is to create an environment in British Columbia where an inclusive and diverse population supports our shared communities.

We help do this through the funding of multicultural programs. Recognizing that multicultural programs are important to our society, government has added $1 million to the provincial multiculturalism base budget of $628,000. Our new budget is $1.628 million for the continuation of priority programs.

Speaking generally, we are prioritizing our programs that focus on anti-racism and community engagement and leveraging our multicultural advantage to promote international trade.

[1115]

I would like to conclude by saying that one of B.C.’s most valuable resources is our people. An important aspect of respecting our cultural diversity is having the courage to recognize when things did not go well. That is why, as part of the government’s apology for historical wrongs committed against B.C.’s Chinese-Canadian community, the Legacy Initiatives Advisory Council was established in October 2014.

The council is working with Chinese-Canadian communities and other key partners to ensure legal projects are successfully implemented. A few examples include identifying and recognizing historical and cultural sites and artifacts, creating a book that celebrates Chinese-Canadian achievement in B.C. and implementing the B.C. education curriculum supplement plan. The budget for the legacy project is $1 million, as recommended in the Chinese Historical Wrongs Consultation Final Report.

We can all be proud of the role we are playing in helping to honour Chinese Canadians who helped shape B.C.’s future. After all, our many different cultures contribute to the quality of life in our communities and the overall economic health of our province. Government’s goal is to ensure a meaningful legacy is created for all British Columbians to enjoy.

I will be happy to receive comments, remarks and questions from members of the Legislature.

B. Ralston: Thank you to the minister for introducing the staff who will be assisting her during this process. I think, as my colleague from Surrey-Newton said during his estimates, we appreciate the efforts of the professional staff that assist the minister, and, if I make any criticisms, they’re intended for the minister only, because she’s the accountable person. No attack upon any individual public servant is intended.

I want to begin with something that the minister will be aware of, which I raised in question period yesterday. Mr. Stewart, who’s the special representative in Asia of the government…. I believe his salary is $150,000 a year. His expenses for accommodation are $7,000 a month. His car allowance is $3,000 a month. He has $2,400 allocated for language lessons, $150,000 for travel and a contract which permits him a number of trips — I believe 26 trips — back and forth, at the expense of the government, to British Columbia.

He’s certainly well compensated, I think, by most standards, and probably qualifies as being in the top 2 percent and is getting a tax break on that very income that he’s receiving.

He disclosed in the meeting records a meeting that took place in Japan. This is in the course of his official duties. The only meeting that he was able to squeeze in, in Japan, with representatives of the wine industry was with Hiromichi Kuwahara of Kasugai Nenryo, the distributor in Japan for Quails’ Gate Winery.

The minister will be aware that Mr. Stewart is bound by the public service Standards of Conduct. Last year in estimates I asked whether he’d met with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The minister said that he had. She said last year that the conduct of his affairs was conducted in the same way it was when he was a cabinet minister. In other words, his business assets were in a blind trust, and he was conducting himself in the same way he would if he were a cabinet minister.

The public service Standards of Conduct state that a “conflict of interest occurs when an employee’s private affairs or financial interests are in conflict, or could result in a perception of conflict, with the employee’s duties or responsibilities.” So the standard is a fairly high one. It’s not conflict; it’s the perception of conflict. Indeed, when
[ Page 6712 ]
Mr. Hughes was Conflict of Interest Commissioner, he gave some decisions that expanded upon the importance of that aspect of the conflict rules — the perception of conflict.

Can the minister tell this committee whether Mr. Stewart’s meeting with the distributor for his family’s winery puts him in a conflict of interest?

[1120]

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you for the question. In fact, I have received additional information on the matter raised by the member opposite. I have a letter dated March 12, 2015, written by Avi Salsberg. He’s the trade and investment representative in our Japan office. Let me read part of the letter so that the member opposite understands what the meeting was talking about.

“The meeting with Kasugai Nenryo was not requested by Mr. Stewart but was arranged on my initiative” — “my” meaning Mr. Avi Salsberg — “to address two specific issues related to Kasugai Nenryo.

“(1) Kasugai Nenryo was attempting to become involved in B.C.’s LNG sector, and given Mr. Stewart’s mandate around LNG, I felt it was appropriate to have him address these questions.

“(2) Kasugai Nenryo is a central player in the Kelowna-Kasugai sister-city relationship, which has been in place since 1981.

“Kasugai Nenryo offered to arrange a meeting with both the mayor of and the chamber of commerce in Kasugai, which expressed interest in sending a business mission to British Columbia in 2015.”

I quote another paragraph:

“The topic of Quails’ Gate wine did not enter into our business discussion during the course of our visit to Kasugai. Mr. Stewart also made it clear that he could not engage in any discussions of the wine distribution due to his current position.”

Mr. Chair, I am happy to table the letter for the information of the member opposite.

B. Ralston: So the answer, then, to the question would appear to be that the minister doesn’t think that Mr. Stewart meeting with the winery that distributes Quails’ Gate wine in Japan is a conflict. Nothing arises that would contribute to a perception of conflict. Is that what the minister’s position is — that notwithstanding that longstanding relationship, there’s no perception of conflict?

The minister will be aware — I’m sure she’s been briefed on this — that, indeed, the connection between the Stewart family and the company does stretch back some decades. In fact, there’s an article that was published in the Vancouver Sun where it was stated that Tony Stewart, the minister’s brother, knew Mr. Yohei Kuwahara, who spent five years studying at the Okanagan University College in the 1990s. The relationship then developed from there.

So there’s a longstanding family relationship not only between the winery and this company but between the sister-city relationship of Kelowna and the city in Japan. So there are a number of reasons why this relationship might give rise to a perception of conflict.

Is the minister saying that Mr. Stewart was absolutely essential to this meeting and that Mr. Salsberg — who’s the representative of British Columbia and paid to do these kind of meetings; very well compensated and knowledgable about Japan — simply couldn’t undertake this meeting on his own and that he and Mr. Stewart were prepared to run the risk of a perception of conflict?

Hon. T. Wat: As I told the House yesterday, Mr. Ben Stewart is our B.C. special representative in Asia. His primary responsibility is to promote the linkages between government-to-government relationships in our priority markets — in China, Japan and South Korea. So part of his mandate and part of his job is that he has to travel between China, Japan and South Korea to try to promote British Columbia to our priority markets and, at the same time, try to encourage the priority market private sectors to import our quality products and services.

As part of his duty, Ben Stewart was visiting Japan in April 2014. He was visiting Tokyo, Nagoya and Kasugai.

[1125]

One of the meetings, as I told the member opposite — just now I was reading from the letter written by our trade and investment representative in Tokyo — was to meet with Kasugai Nenryo to discuss two major issues. The first one is to talk about the economic opportunities in B.C., in particular about their interest in getting involved in our LNG business. The second one was to talk about the sister-city relationship between Kelowna and Kasugai. This sister-city relationship started in 1981, and this particular company plays a central role in this sister-city relationship.

As for the member opposite’s question about the conflict of interest, I would like to let the member opposite know that all of Ben Stewart’s holdings remain in a blind trust, and his stock portfolio is in a hold-mail account, meaning that he does not know nor has he had any dealings with the companies in his portfolio since May 2009.

B. Ralston: Given the fact that Mr. Stewart’s holdings are in a blind trust, and when he was a member of cabinet, he recused himself on a couple of occasions — there’s a record of that — where issues concerning the winery came up…. Can the minister explain why he thought it appropriate, nonetheless, to attend this meeting, given that Mr. Salsberg is a very capable, experienced representative? Apparently the government continues its confidence in him.

Does the minister not consider it to have been imprudent of Mr. Stewart, given the very high standard that’s imposed in the standards of conduct, including the awareness of a perception of conflict — that it was wrong for him to attend this meeting? That’s my question to the minister. Does she not agree that it was wrong for Mr. Stewart, given the professional standards of conduct, given the danger of a perception of conflict — that he should not have attended this meeting?
[ Page 6713 ]

Hon. T. Wat: As I told the member opposite already, there’s no conflict of interest. B.C.’s special representative in Asia recused himself from any conduct that would place him in a conflict of interest. He disclosed his interests already. He refused to discuss his winery business in that meeting.

He already made it clear that he wouldn’t engage in any discussion of the wine industry in that particular meeting, and his holdings in the winery remain in a blind trust. As I was reading in the letter to the member opposite earlier on, our trade and investment representative in Japan said that Mr. Stewart made it very clear that he could not engage in any discussion of the wine distribution, due to his current position.

I have to emphasize once again that the whole purpose of appointing Mr. Ben Stewart into this position is because, from our experience, we feel that in doing business in Asia, and particularly in China, Japan and Korea, government-to-government relationship is extremely crucial to us trying to secure more business and promote our exports to the priority markets. It’s necessary to have a senior government representative in the priority markets. That’s why the Premier appointed Ben Stewart to be our special representative in Asia.

At that meeting it was important for Ben Stewart, as a senior government representative, to be present, because they were talking about LNG interests and also talking about more economic opportunities in the two sister cities. Actually, I’m pleased to let the member opposite know that as a result of that meeting, the Kasugai Chamber of Commerce is planning a business mission to Kelowna later this year to expand further business opportunities. This is a result of Ben Stewart’s presence in that meeting.

[1130]

B. Ralston: But surely the real issue here is, given the pre-existing relationship extending back some time between Mr. Stewart’s personal business interests and Kasugai, that the perception might very well be that when it came to dealing in the LNG industry, this company would have some kind of an advantage because of the pre-existing relationship. Isn’t that the very essence of the problem that the minister has set out and apparently appears to want to defend?

The perception of conflict is not just related to the issue of the connection between his personal business and the winery business or the winery side of this company. But the perception may very well be that because of the pre-existing relationship between Mr. Stewart and this company, in any initiative that they take in the LNG field, they will have an advantage. Isn’t that the focus? Isn’t that what the conflict-of-interest rules are designed to deal with?

I’d be interested in the minister’s…. So far we’ve only heard a vigorous defence of Mr. Stewart, which I expect won’t abate in any way at any point, but perhaps some reality might seep in. Isn’t that the issue here — the pre-existing relationship might give rise to a perception of favourable treatment, of special treatment, just for that reason alone?

Hon. T. Wat: I want to emphasize once again that there isn’t any perceived conflict of interest there, because this company requested the meeting. They made it very clear that they’re going to talk about two issues. The first issue is about the economic opportunities they see in investing in British Columbia, and that is the LNG business. The second issue is to further the economic opportunity between the sister cities, Kasugai and Kelowna.

The company is just asking for the business opportunity, investing in LNG, so there is no conflict of interest. Mr. Ben Stewart is fully aware of conflict of interest. That’s why he made it very clear to Mr. Avi Salsberg before the meeting that he would not engage in any discussion of the wine industry at all.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister hasn’t answered the question. The question is an important one. There’s a pre-existing relationship between Mr. Stewart, his business interests, his brother and the principals of this company that goes back some time. The discussion is, then, about another business opportunity which gives rise…. The standards are very high. It could result in a perception of conflict with the employee’s duties or responsibility.

The question is: given that pre-existing relationship, does that not give rise to a perception of conflict that this company is or was getting preferential treatment or will in the future get preferential treatment in relation to any LNG opportunities that they seek to pursue?

One could easily speculate, although there’s nothing that has been produced so far, that that’s the very reason that this company sought out a meeting in which Mr. Stewart was involved. They know him, they know that they have a good relationship with him from previous dealings, and it might be helpful to them, given that personal relationship, to get his help in advancing their interests in another area of business. That, in my view, gives rise at least to a question of a perception of conflict.

I’d be interested in the minister’s comments on that, and I’d appreciate it if she’d answer the question rather than evade it.

[1135]

The Chair: Member, if I can interrupt here, two points. One is that your question needs to be framed in such a manner that it ties to this year’s budgets. I put that there. Secondly, it’s almost becoming repetitive, so if you could find a different way to ask the question or to probe it from a different perspective.

B. Ralston: If I might respond, I thought the question was pretty clear. The Chair doesn’t seem to want to call upon the minister to answer the question. The reason that
[ Page 6714 ]
it’s repetitive is because the minister hasn’t answered the question, so I’m asking the question again.

Secondly, the tradition in estimates is — and I appreciate the member is a new member, elected in 2013 — that questions on estimates generally tend to be very broad, without a lot of interference or barriers from the Chair.

This is particularly related to Vote 30. The opportunities that the minister is speaking of in LNG are part of her ministerial mandate, her letter from the Premier, the service plan — international trade and investment, international strategy and competitiveness. All of those issues are related to the minister’s specific mandate that is covered in Vote 30. I’ve endeavoured to frame the question in that way so that it’s very clear that it’s part of Vote 30.

Would the Chair like me to ask the question again? I think the minister’s staff made notes and are prepared to respond, whether it’s an answer to the question or not.

The Chair: Member, I’ve simply asked you to rephrase your question so that it is not a repetitive question.

B. Ralston: Well, it’s a question that I’ll ask again, then, given your direction.

The question is: given the pre-existing relationship between Mr. Stewart, his business interests in this company and the principals of this company, is there not a concern, a legitimate concern, that this gives rise to a perception of conflict in that this company might get, or will get, special treatment in the future relating to investments or dealings in the LNG field?

Hon. T. Wat: Conflict or perceived conflict of interest must be between a representative’s public duties and his personal interest. The public duty is LNG development, and the possible private interest is Quails' Gate Winery.

[1140]

We have now made it very clear that there’s no conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest, because Quails' Gate Winery was not discussed. Also, I would like to draw to the member opposite’s attention that our special representative in Asia, in fact, had over 20 meetings with potential proponents who are interested in our LNG industry in British Columbia.

I want to reiterate once again to the member opposite — I already said it earlier — that there’s no conflict of interest. Our B.C. special representative in Asia recused himself of any conduct that would place him in a conflict of interest. He’s disclosed his interests already, he refused to discuss any winery industry in that particular meeting, and his holdings in the winery remain in a blind trust.

B. Ralston: If I can summarize, then, the minister’s response is that she doesn’t believe that there was any perception of a conflict of interest by Mr. Stewart meeting on this particular occasion. I think that’s the conclusion that the minister seems to want to enunciate, however elliptically.

I guess my question then is…. Last year in estimates the minister said that Mr. Stewart, despite his business interest in Quails' Gate, was still the representative who would be promoting B.C.’s wine industry in Asia. Does she stand by that description of his role? I know there’s a separate staff person who has some responsibility for the wine industry, but the minister will recall or her staff will draw to her attention the fact that in estimates last year she said that.

Is Mr. Stewart’s mandate still to promote the B.C. wine industry in Asia? Is that part of his duties?

Hon. T. Wat: Once again, I’d like to reiterate that the primary role of our B.C. special representative in Asia is to promote B.C.’s job priority sectors — all the priority sectors in our priority markets in China, Japan and South Korea.

He will be participating, in fact, in a B.C. wine promotion event later this month in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong. This particular event is about putting a spotlight on B.C. wines and seafood and promoting B.C. as a tourism destination. This particular event is called Taste of B.C. Wine. The event will be featuring ten B.C. wines.

In fact, even in Japan, when he was there in 2014, Mr. Ben Stewart also visited Heavenly Vines in Tokyo, which carries a wide variety of B.C. wines.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can just help me, then. In promoting B.C. wines, what’s the role of Quails' Gate as one of the B.C wine offerings? Does the special representative, then, not mention Quails' Gate at all? Does it not participate in any of the trade fairs at all? Is that the role, then, that he’s carved out for himself in terms of his relationship with his personal business interest in Quails' Gate? Is that what the minister is saying?

[1145]

Hon. T. Wat: Our special representative in Asia’s job is to promote our priority job sectors as a whole. If you are asking about the wine industry, he is promoting the industry as a whole, not any particular brand of wine. It’s really helpful for British Columbia to have somebody who has in-depth knowledge and understanding of the wine industry to promote wine — B.C. wine — to our priority markets.

B. Ralston: Well, I asked last year whether the Conflict of Interest Commissioner had given Mr. Stewart any particular advice on how to avoid the perception of conflict in the course of his duties, in the sense that if he were promoting the B.C. wine industry, how he would avoid the perception of conflict, that perhaps he was also promoting Quails' Gate.
[ Page 6715 ]

Apparently the minister, at that point, was not aware of any direction from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Again, I say this in the context of the very high standards that are set for senior public servants. I had the head of GPCP before the Public Accounts Committee, who stressed just how high those standards are.

Can the minister explain how Mr. Stewart is to conduct himself in relation to the task of promoting the B.C. wine industry but not triggering a perception of conflict as it concerns his own personal business? Of course, Quails' Gate is a big winery and a major player in the B.C. wine industry.

Hon. T. Wat: I just want to emphasize once again that when Mr. Ben Stewart is promoting — in particular, when the member opposite refers to the wine industry — he is promoting the wine industry as a whole. He will not promote one brand over another, so there is no conflict of interest there.

I also want to put on the record once again that since May 2009 all of Ben Stewart’s holdings remain in a blind trust, and his stock portfolio is in a hold-mail account, meaning he does not know, nor does he have any dealings with his company in his portfolio. He met the Conflict of Interest Commissioner when he became the cabinet minister, the same as when he took up this position, so he fully understands the conflict of interest and the specific conflicts of interest.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada