2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: It is my great honour today to welcome the Wounded Warriors to the Legislature. Wounded Warriors Canada has a strong mandate to raise awareness about the staggering impacts of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Wounded Warriors, B.C., who are joining us today, have just completed a 600-kilometre run down Vancouver Island with the same mandate. It is my great pleasure to welcome them.

Hon. A. Virk: If I may join the member for Saanich South in also warmly welcoming the Wounded Warriors — the brave men and women who serve in the various uniforms of Canada and the sacrifices they and their loved ones make in their service to country. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Karagianis: I’d like to add to the introductions of the Wounded Warriors group. We have in the precinct today, and I think in the House, a number of veterans and representatives from the Legion, including a very good friend of mine, Jim MacMillan-Murphy.

Also in the precinct today we have had two really terrific sponsors of the Wounded Warrior program, Bob Saunders and his son Dave Saunders.

[1335]

I just want to say that Bob has, of course, run Saunders Subaru for many years in Colwood. He is a tremendous corporate citizen. He and his son Dave pay it forward all the time and support the community in just so many ways. They stepped up immediately and became sponsors for this. Dave was the previous mayor of Colwood.

They are just a terrific family and give to the community all the time. I know that their support for the Wounded Warriors program has been greatly appreciated, so I’d like to thank them publicly for that.

Hon. M. de Jong: We’re joined today by the executive team from the Real Estate Council of British Columbia — their chair Susan McGougan, vice-chair Marylou Leslie, executive officer Robert Fawcett and deputy executive officer Larry Buttress. I urge all members of the assembly to beware. The market is hot. They come armed with listing agreements and an offer you can’t refuse. I hope all members will make them welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I’d like to also add my voice in welcoming the Wounded Warriors group here, representing an incredible group of people and doing great work.

I’d also like to offer the congratulations of this House to…. He has already been recognized as Canada’s best Finance Minister, and all British Columbians are very proud of that distinction. He is now being invested into the Confrérie de l’Asperge Limbourgondië by the consul general of the Netherlands. Only one person per country per year is invested in this fraternity, and the Minister of Finance this year is the Canadian who is being inducted. We are very proud of him and of the relationship that he has established between Canada and the great country of the Netherlands.

I hope that the House will join me in congratulating our Minister of Finance.

K. Conroy: Our families have to give up a lot and support us a lot for us to be here. So I want to wish my husband a happy anniversary and tell him we’ll celebrate this weekend.

J. Thornthwaite: The Dietitians of Canada has brought a group of current and future dietitians here today to meet with all Members of the Legislative Assembly to learn more about their work that ensures access to credible nutritional information.

Many of you in the House today have already gone to visit them in the Rattenbury Room today. They are here till four. In the gallery up above are Sonya Kupka, regional executive director of the Dietitians of Canada, and Nicole Spencer, a member of the board of directors.

The College of Dietitians of B.C. is being represented today by their deputy registrar, Chi Cejalvo. Also attending are 16 registered dietitians in private practice and four current applicants and interns from the dietetics program in the faculty of land and food systems at UBC.

I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

D. Eby: It’s always an honour to represent Vancouver–Point Grey, but especially today. We had a bus of 50 people leave Vancouver–Point Grey at 5:30 this morning. The University Neighbourhoods Association civic engagement committee booked a bus, everybody loaded on, and they came over. For many people coming today, this is their first exposure to the British parliamentary system and to politics in Canada. So it’s a very exciting day for them.

I’d like to welcome them. There are too many names to list, but welcome to our House. I hope that everyone joins me in saying this. I hope you enjoy your first exposure to how politics works here in Canada.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m very pleased to introduce two very valuable members of the Parksville-Qualicum
[ Page 6940 ]
community. Craig and Lynn Dutton are current owners of the Pheasant Glen golf course in Qualicum Beach. But this is just the latest in a long list of accomplishments.

A one-time principal secretary for Saskatchewan Premier Grant Devine, Craig is also a lawyer and a successful entrepreneur. He and Lynn have made significant contributions to our community and also raised one of Canada’s Olympic athletes, their son Will, who was a speed skater in Sochi.

I’m grateful to share my community and our friendship with them both. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House today some very dear friends of mine from Kamloops–South Thompson.

[1340]

With us today are Corey and Deborah Bacon and their two lovely children, Sophie and Jack. Their children are roughly the same age as ours. We go to the same church together — very, very close. They really are a wonderful family. This is their first visit to the chamber, so I’d ask that everyone please make them welcome.

Tributes

GUR SINGH

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to, also on behalf of the Minister of Transportation, inform the House of the passing of a great British Columbian yesterday. Dr. Gur Singh passed away at the age of 78.

Dr. Singh came to Canada from India in 1961 and found himself in Kamloops six years later, when he joined the Royal Inland Hospital medical staff. He was the first neurosurgeon to work in the interior of British Columbia. He’s also served as president of the B.C. Medical Association and was chief of staff at Royal Inland Hospital for many years.

Gur is perhaps best known for lending his name and his passion for those affected by brain injury in the form of the annual Gur Singh Invitational Golf Tournament and the annual Survival Dinner that he and his wife, Manju, put together. Founded in 2004, the proceeds of the tournament go towards supporting the Kamloops Brain Injury Association, and so far they’ve raised over $1 million for the KBIA to help brain-injured survivors live to their full potential.

Dr. Singh’s great achievements were honoured in 2010 as the recipient of a Diamond Jubilee Medal and last fall when the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce awarded him with their president’s award.

Gur Singh was a mentor, a leader, an activist, a scientist and, above all, a good friend. I know you will pass on the House’s condolences to his wonderful wife, Manju; his son, Arjun; and his daughter, Sabina.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Societies Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to introduce the Societies Act, which will govern how societies are created, organized and run in British Columbia.

The document that’s been tabled today is a product of much consultation with the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians that are involved with over 27,000 societies. The bill incorporates many of the ideas and responses to the white paper that was released last year.

The new act reflects the broad spectrum and diverse nature of B.C.’s societies and will provide societies with a modern corporate framework and give them greater flexibility in their internal governance. At the same time, some fundamental accountability provisions will be expanded for those societies that rely on public financial support.

The new Societies Act is intended to be a self-governing statute. The new act will provide members of a society and persons who participate in running the society with the remedies they require to support accountability and member democracy as well as organizational needs.

Finally, the new act will embrace modern communication technologies to enhance efficiencies in operating a society. Specifically, it will enable electronic incorporation filing and searches and remove unnecessary steps in the filing process.

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 24, Societies 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.

BILL 26 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.
[ Page 6941 ]

[1345]

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 26, which I’m pleased to introduce, follows in the footsteps of a previous bill in November 2014, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, that received royal assent. That act, as members know, set out the key components of the liquefied natural gas income tax.

This act provides the administrative and enforcement provisions for the tax, completes the technical aspects of the tax and clarifies some minor issues identified following the introduction of the LNG Income Tax Act.

The bill sets out the following administrative provisions for the LNG Income Tax Act: the requirements for persons and partnerships engaged in liquefaction activities to register and post a bond; the filing of returns; payment of tax and installments; assessments and determinations; penalties, interests and refunds; audits; inspections; objections and appeals; books and records; general issues, including the designation of a commissioner and the giving of notice; recovery of amounts owing, including the use of bonds; offences; and anti-avoidance rules.

The bill also introduces amendments that complete technical aspects of the act. Finally, these amendments to the LNG Income Tax Act contained in the bill clarify a number of issues, including several key definitions and the application of transfer pricing rules.

The bill also amends the Income Tax Act to ensure that the amount of the natural gas tax credit is equal to 0.5 percent of the cost of the natural gas at the inlet to the LNG facility, as determined under the LNG Income Tax Act, plus a prescribed percentage. It also amends the administrative provisions of the Income Tax Act to recognize the natural gas tax credit — lots of technical provisions. Again, to my friend the critic, I certainly want to assure that we’ll make time available for a briefing.

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 26, Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 25 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Thomson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I am pleased to introduce legislation that will address a number of important legislative issues. Specifically, the act will address legislative gaps in the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, the Land Act, the Land Surveyors Act and the Land Title Act.

Changes to the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act will enhance the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales operations and act upon the recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales effectiveness review. The changes will encourage more accurate timber pricing, help B.C. Timber Sales generate more revenue and improve overall business practices.

Specifically, the changes will increase the competitiveness in the industry and support the accurate pricing of Crown timber by allowing non-B.C. Timber Sales licensees to provide timbers to B.C. Timber Sales for auction, improve the marketability of lower quality beetle-killed timber by equalizing the financial risk associated with cruise-based and scale-based timber sale licences, generate revenue by allowing B.C. Timber Sales to recover unamortized value Crown assets, provide forest management services to licensees and government organizations, and support sustainable forest management and market access by empowering B.C. Timber Sales to enforce its environmental management system.

In June 2013 the Premier directed my ministry to review the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales, and this was carried out in two phases. Phase 1 set a clear goal for B.C. Timber Sales to provide price and cost data for the market pricing system based on auctions of timber harvested from timber land. Phase 2 included recommendations designed to improve the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales and ensure that it is well positioned to deliver on its role. The legislative amendments address many of these recommendations.

Another proposed change to the Forest Act will once again allow for the transfer of pulpwood agreements. These are non-replaceable volume-based tenures that provide a secure fibre supply to large-scale pulp mills.

The province is also proposing changes to the Land Act to make it easier to regulate and manage low-impact community, recreational, industrial and commercial activity on Crown land.

[1350]

The proposed changes will streamline the application process and give government the authority to identify area-specific, low-impact activities, like camping and organized events, that are exempt from the application process. As well, government will be able to close areas as required and create special application requirements for sensitive or high-use areas.

Government has not substantially reviewed the Land Act in 40 years. The Land Surveyors Act change will help the province…
[ Page 6942 ]

Madame Speaker: Minister, it’s time to move the motion.

Hon. S. Thomson: …move this association into consistency with other professional associations in the province.

Madame Speaker: Minister, it’s time to move the motion.

Hon. S. Thomson: At the same time, the province is proposing amendments to the Land Act to streamline provincial service fees by reducing the number of categories in schedule 2 of the act.

Madame Speaker: Move the motion.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the Legislature after today.

Bill 25, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT

Hon. N. Letnick presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fish and Seafood Act.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the Fish and Seafood Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick: I am happy to cede some of my time to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Today I’m pleased to introduce the Fish and Seafood Act. The act will replace the Fisheries Act and the Fish Inspection Act, both of which are very old acts, and much of their content dates back to the ’50s and ’60s. Updating and consolidating these two statutes continues the ministry’s progress on modernizing legislation, much of which is very old.

The new Fish and Seafood Act applies to fish and aquatic plants that are produced and processed for consumption in B.C. Federal regulations govern those facilities producing seafood products for the export markets.

The new Fish and Seafood Act sets out higher levels of accountability for those people engaged in food production of fish and aquatic plants and higher penalties for those persons that contravene the act. The new act regulates a range of activities, from growing and harvesting of aquatic plants to receiving, selling, storing, transporting and processing of aquatic plants and fish. The act does not regulate the aquaculture of marine finfish, because that is now a federal responsibility.

The Fish and Seafood Act is another important step for the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure the production of safe food and supports the ministry’s goal of prioritizing seafood as an important agricultural product. I, of course, offer the two critics and independents a technical briefing if they would like one.

I move that the Fish and Seafood Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 21, Fish and Seafood 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.

BILL M211 — ELECTRONIC
PETITIONS ACT, 2015

J. Shin presented a bill intituled Electronic Petitions Act, 2015.

J. Shin: I move the introduction of the Electronic Petitions Act for its first reading.

Motion approved.

J. Shin: It is with much optimism that I reintroduce to the House for the third time this bill to offer British Columbians cost-effective and accessible means to promote public awareness on legislative issues and participate in parliamentary processes by having this assembly recognize and accept electronically submitted petitions.

Signatories will provide their name, phone number, mailing and e-mail addresses to validate their identities on line, thus making the electronic submissions of petitions a low-barrier complement to the existing practice of paper petitions in this House.

The Internet has been an increasingly large part of our lives for more than three decades. As legislators, we must acknowledge the permanent changes in how we communicate now with today’s technology, and we cannot continue to fall behind in the necessary modernization of our democratic traditions.

Many jurisdictions have already successfully instituted e-petition reforms to their governments. In the United States, the United Kingdom and here in Canada, in Quebec and, most notably, the House of Commons earlier this month, where NDP MP Kennedy Stewart’s proposal on e-petitions was passed unanimously.

This is a bill that presents to us not just a low-cost opportunity to complement the existing e-democracy measures in place to improve civic engagement at a time of growing voter apathy, but this is also a low-stakes platform for the members of the Legislative Assembly to have far-reaching implications in demonstrating to the public
[ Page 6943 ]
that partisan differences can be set aside to support a truly modernizing act.

[1355]

I earnestly look forward, with keen interest, to the government in the coming months for deliberation and support on this bill as we continue to explore economic ways to evolve our parliamentary institution with the digital era for today’s voters.

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

Bill M211, Electronic Petitions Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M212 — FAIRNESS IN
FINANCING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ELECTIONS ACT, 2015

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2015.

M. Farnworth: I move introduction of the Fairness in Financing Local Government Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

M. Farnworth: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the second time the Fairness in Financing Local Government Act. This act will amend the local government financing act to restrict campaign donations in local government elections solely to individuals, effectively banning political donations by organizations. This bill would eliminate some of the challenges we have witnessed in local elections throughout British Columbia.

New Democrats recognize running in local elections has become quite costly in many communities. However, we believe that removing the perceived conflicts that come with large donations from unions and corporations would do much to enhance the fairness of elections.

The principles of fairness and access to the democratic process require that there is a level playing field for all who choose to put their name forward to run for office. Eliminating corporate and union donations from the process and only permitting individual donations is one way to ensure fairness.

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

Bill M212, Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M213 — CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REFORM ACT, 2015

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2015.

G. Holman: I move introduction of the Campaign Finance Reform Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce the Campaign Finance Reform Act as one of the last in a series of private members’ bills to make elections fairer and government more accountable in British Columbia. The Campaign Finance Reform Act is a bill designed to improve transparency in election financing and increase election fairness by banning corporate and union donations to political campaigns.

Everyone knows that it costs money to run a campaign. However, while other provinces and the federal government have passed strict guidelines regarding the role of big money in politics, B.C. lags behind in making such reforms. Many British Columbians are concerned that political donations by large organizations can result in undue political influence. It’s one reason why many are losing faith in our democratic process, as evidenced by declining voter participation rates.

This bill, which empowers individual voters, would help reverse this trend and strengthen our democracy by creating a more level playing field for candidates and political parties. It will also provide greater transparency by attaching donations to individuals. This bill also provides for review of B.C. campaign financing by the Chief Electoral Officer, which could result in recommendations for further reforms.

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

Bill M213, Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SEA TO SKY TRAIL

J. Sturdy: Trails build community, and in the case of the Sea to Sky, the community has been hard at work.

Today I’d like to share a story about a community initiative called the Sea to Sky Trail. The Sea to Sky Trail connects Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton and beyond to the Birkenhead, Anderson Lake and the St’át’imc territory.

The heritage of this route can be traced back to origins of the trade route between the Coast Salish and the Interior
[ Page 6944 ]
Salish people, but a formal trail was actually first constructed by a fledgling province of British Columbia as a cattle route through to the interior. It proved somewhat too vigorous and was eventually abandoned. As a trail, it was reinvented in the 1990s but really took hold and reflected that grand national vision of the Trans Canada Trail in the 2000s.

Today over 100 kilometres of a 180-kilometre Sea to Sky Trail route is complete. Much of this multi-use, type 2 trail is accessible and takes you from the harbour of Squamish through the Cheakamus Canyon to Brandywine, Cal-Cheak, Whistler and north of Parkhurst and WedgeWoods.

[1400]

Since 2005 the trail has been operated by the Squamish-Lillooet regional district in partnership with the three municipalities and the Squamish and Lil’wat First Nations. The trail is an amazing addition to the region and has gained a world-class reputation as a destination suitable for day hikes, multiday excursions and, of course, the ubiquitous mountain bike.

The latest addition to the system, scheduled to be completed later on this year, is the friendship trail. This section of the Sea to Sky Trail bridges the Lillooet River and connects the communities of Mount Currie and Pemberton. The Sea to Sky Trail system hopes to eventually provide non-motorized access all the way to Lillooet in the north and a water route south from Squamish to Horseshoe Bay.

Madame Speaker, there are many access points along the trail, so whether you have a couple of days or a couple of hours, I’m sure you know that time on the trail is never wasted.

WOUNDED WARRIORS AND
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

L. Popham: I rise today to congratulate Wounded Warriors Canada and all of the participants in the 2015 Wounded Warrior Run B.C. The warriors have just completed a 600-kilometre run down the length of Vancouver Island. A central goal of the Wounded Warriors is to raise awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder.

PTSD is a medically well-established neurological condition. Like many other serious injuries, PTSD requires preventative action, scientific research and effective treatment. PTSD, however, is different from most other injuries in one way: its very existence has been discounted, dismissed or even denied. The effect of this has terribly worsened the impact of PTSD on those who suffer from it.

It is important to note that those suffering from PTSD are often, like the veterans joining us here today, the very people we ask to protect us from harm, to fight for us around the world, to put their own safety at risk. The very nature of what they do makes them vulnerable to severe trauma and therefore to developing PTSD.

The people of B.C. and, in fact, all of Canada owe a debt of gratitude to the Wounded Warriors. Their work is advancing a progressive shift in consciousness. When the soldiers among us can show their weakness and their vulnerabilities, then we see what courage truly is. In removing the stigma of PTSD, they’re helping not only veterans but first responders, those on the front lines — anyone who has been emotionally devastated by traumatic incidents.

Today our entire Legislative Assembly honours the Wounded Warriors and thanks them for transforming their pain and injuries into a societal change that will benefit others for generations.

DIETITIANS

J. Thornthwaite: Today is Dietitians Day in the Legislature. As a former dietitian, it gives me great pleasure to recognize B.C.’s registered dietitians and the critical role they play in improving health outcomes and quality of life for British Columbians.

Registered dietitians are nutrition specialists, holding bachelor’s degrees and educated in science, human development and the health of populations. They’re the only regulated nutrition professionals in Canada. They use their knowledge to improve the health of their patients by translating nutrition information into practical advice and helping clients to take control of their health, make healthy food choices and prevent chronic illness. They work in a variety of settings, from hospitals to community health centres to home care, and help government by providing policy direction for nutrition programs provincewide.

To support their efforts to improve awareness of healthy eating and preventative care, our government started healthy families B.C., a public health program that focuses on building and supporting healthy behaviours through tools like the Informed Dining program, Sugary Drink Sense and Shopping Sense.

The services at HealthLink also provide the public with easy access to registered dietitians simply by calling 811 or e-mailing healthlinkbc.ca. These services are offered in more than 130 languages and provide help for people looking to manage chronic conditions or answer questions on topics such as meal planning, allergies and infant nutrition.

Registered dietitians are at the forefront of nutrition education. Through their efforts, we are designing health plans that are tailored to individuals’ needs and are also providing British Columbians with the necessary information to fight chronic illness and malnutrition.

I ask the House to join me in thanking them for helping our province make healthier decisions in the supermarket and at the table.

[1405]

HEALTH AND WELFARE
OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH

C. Trevena: Kids are our future. We all say that, and I hope that we all believe it, but if that is the case, we have to take the state of our young people seriously.

Campbell River is doing just that. Success By 6 and the Campbell River Area Family Network have issued a report on the state of the child to bring greater awareness of the early years and to spur people into action.

The findings are stark: 22.8 percent of children younger than six live in poverty in the community. In one month alone, the Campbell River Food Bank fed more than 481 children — that means families whose income is too low to pay their hydro, pay their rent, pay their MSP and get food on the table. To put that into further perspective, Island Health costs a nutritional food basket at $948 a month.

The report also looks at health and wellness of our youth. Troublingly, early intervention programs have long wait-lists. For speech and language services, 76 kids are being seen, but the wait-list is 53. There are no occupational therapists, so 67 families are waiting for help, and two staff deal with 97 youngsters in infant development.

There are wait-lists for child care. When parents get it, there’s a hefty fee. A family with two children younger than five can be paying up to $1,750 a month.

The statistics may be depressing, but they are a call to action. In Campbell River now there’s a lobby for a living wage in the community and a demand for affordable housing. People are working on food security, so kids don’t have to depend on food banks and school meal programs.

There’s a call for better funding for early intervention and a strong voice for $10-a-day child care. The early-years community is also working on a children’s charter. Campbell River has a seniors charter and a youth charter. Now it wants to join other communities with a children’s charter, based on the UN rights of the child, developed with the children of Campbell River for those who are our most valuable resource: our kids, our future.

COLORECTAL CANCER

Moira Stilwell: Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the nation but interestingly is one of a few cancers that can be impacted by medical screening.

The risk of developing colorectal cancer increases with age, with more than 90 percent of cases occurring in Canadians aged 50 or older. Building prevention and early detection awareness is key to reducing mortality rates, but many find talking about this disease too uncomfortable.

There’s still a stigma and much embarrassment surrounding bathroom diseases such as colorectal cancer, but now is a great time to change that. March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, a chance for patients, caregivers and survivors to tell their stories, offer hope to others, spread the word on available treatments and create a dialogue about a disease that’s preventable, treatable and beatable.

Our province is a leader in cancer prevention and detection, and in 2013 we rolled out the colon screening program, a tool to fight cancer to save lives by focusing on primary care.

The screening program helps general practitioners refer patients between the ages of 50 and 74 for a screening test and also connects patients who have been referred for a colonoscopy with the health authority coordinator, who will provide information, support and encouragement.

There are often no symptoms in this early stage of colorectal cancer, and that’s why initiatives like the colon screening program are so important. With early detection and treatment, the survival rate is nearly 90 percent.

This month I encourage British Columbians aged 50 and up to talk to their doctor about cancer prevention and colon screening options and to help spread the word, because conversations can save lives.

BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Dalton: They are handmade. They are gluten-free. They contain no artificial anything, and best of all, they taste so good and come in nine mouth-watering flavours.

I’m talking about Hardbite’s kettle-style, handcrafted potato chips. They’re made right in Maple Ridge. Last year the company, Naturally Home Grown Foods Ltd., was selected as one of the top ten innovators in the country by the food processing industry’s magazine Food in Canada — just one example of the many innovators doing business where I live.

Maple Ridge is ranked No. 2 for the third year in a row as one of the province’s top investment towns. It also placed No. 5 in all of Canada for the same reason. Maple Ridge knows how to get it done.

We’ve got a company in Maple Ridge that is the world’s leading manufacturer of uniquely-shaped, high-quality ceramic tap handles. The handiwork of Chrislan Ceramics is at work every day in pubs and restaurants around the globe, wherever a bartender grabs a tap handle on the keg to draw a glass of beer.

[1410]

Maple Ridge is also a filmmaker’s dream. With one-stop service for film industry and some of the most beautiful scenery and settings, the area has been used as a backdrop for many productions. Coming soon, a new studio is being opened in downtown Maple Ridge.

The east end is home to AdvanTec and Advanced Flow Systems. The company manufactures massive and
[ Page 6946 ]
complex products, including piping, pressure vessels, tanks and modules used in most of B.C.’s major industries. Business is booming, and they plan to double their workforce.

Over half of Metro Vancouver’s available space for industrial growth is found in Maple Ridge, and this city is open for business.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF B.C. TREATY
COMMISSION CHIEF COMMISSIONER
AND STATUS OF TREATY PROCESS

J. Horgan: Partnerships require trust. Treaty-making absolutely requires trust. When you have three parties involved in making decisions that affect the people of British Columbia, that affect First Nations, that affect working people and that affect investment, you need to have some confidence that everybody at the table is playing with the same deck of cards.

For the past number of months — in fact, for the past six months — the federal government, the First Nations, the Treaty Commission itself and, we thought, the province of British Columbia were all on the same page with respect to who would be the next chief commissioner for the treaty process in British Columbia.

So 25 years of commitment by successive governments, federal and provincial, by successive leaders within the First Nations community in British Columbia all came apart with one moment of pettiness by the government of British Columbia.

My question to the Premier is: why in the world, after the behaviour of the provincial government with respect to treaty-making in British Columbia, with respect to certainty on the land base so we can grow our economy, so we can see social justice after generations of neglect…? Why in the world would you torpedo it now?

Hon. C. Clark: First, let me congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for once talking about wanting to grow the economy. That’s a big step. We all appreciate that on this side of the House.

Second, let me say that in the last four years we have concluded something like 250 agreements with First Nations, working to make sure that we are finding our way to certainty on the land base. It’s an absolute priority for us. We met with First Nations leaders in September last year, in the fall of last year — a historic meeting. All First Nations chiefs across the province attended, as did all the cabinet and all deputy ministers.

One of the things that became very clear in our discussions, and has become very clear in our discussions with First Nations, is that with only about 50 of about 200 First Nations in the process and treaty-making moving extremely slowly — much too slowly — most First Nations, many First Nations don’t believe the process is working.

We need to find a way to remake the treaty process and make it one that is going to move quickly, one that is going to move efficiently and one that is going to instil the confidence of First Nations and all Canadians so that we can get to conclusion.

The opposition are among those who’ve recognized that the treaty-making process as it currently stands is not meeting the needs of First Nations either. We need to work together with First Nations in redefining what that new future will look like, understanding how we will remake the treaty process.

We’ve decided to do that. We’re going to move forward and make sure that treaty-making is something that can come to conclusion, and good conclusion, for First Nations in British Columbia.

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

J. Horgan: I don’t know why anyone in British Columbia would believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the Premier when it comes to making good on commitments that previous governments have made.

She says there was a meeting in September. In October, on the 17th of October, the First Nations Summit ratified George Abbott to be the chief commissioner. I don’t know who she’s been talking to, but it certainly has not been the Treaty Commission. It has not been the First Nations Summit.

We all agree that we can accelerate the process in the interests of the economy, in the interests of social justice, but how, in this new direction that the Premier talks about, is it going forward when you waste six months? You waste goodwill and you break trust going backwards. That’s not a project that I want to be part of. That’s not a project that First Nations will agree to.

[1415]

Respectfully, to the Premier: what in the world were you thinking? Why are you so petty that you push George Abbott under a bus rather than saying to George: “We need to go in another direction. Let’s work together to get to where we all want to be”? That’s leadership. What you did was petty.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

Hon. C. Clark: Again, I am sure that Mr. Abbott would also be delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition standing up and speaking to his competence and his confidence. For once in this House we see some recognition on the part of the opposition of a member who served with distinction in previous cabinets as well as in my cabinet.

George Abbott concluded a deal with the B.C. Teachers Federation for two years, on the eve of an election, that
[ Page 6947 ]
was affordable for taxpayers. George Abbott introduced the learning improvement fund, which has gone a long way to improving conditions for kids in schools. He established terrific relationships with school trustees across the province, and he’s served our province with tremendous distinction.

The question that government had before it was: do we invest in the status quo, a status quo that has yielded very small results for a very large expense, a status quo that if we carry on the way that we have been, will mean that we end up with the province and First Nations covered by treaties in about a century from now? That is too slow.

What government decided is that we needed to move away from investing in the status quo and find a new path, which is what we promised we would do with First Nations — to work together and to define that future jointly — so that we can ensure the treaty process and other processes that support economic development through agreement-making work for First Nations in a timely way.

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

J. Horgan: I have a supplemental, hon. Speaker. When George Abbott phoned me after he had been approved by the summit, after he’d been given the thumbs-up from the federal government, after he was recruited by your Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, I gave him my unqualified support because he is qualified for the job. And I have to say that were I to get a call from anyone else asking about the credibility and the competence of the Premier, I would not give the same answer.

It’s not just George Abbott. It’s not just the Treaty Commission. There are First Nations across this province that have invested time, energy and resources and hope in a tripartite process that was established 25 years ago by people who had vision, vision for a British Columbia that included all British Columbians — not a petty British Columbia that tried to fix political scores at the expense of investment, at expense of social justice.

This is not a laughing matter. The Premier thinks it’s another night at Yuk Yuk’s. She thinks this is Comedy Central. These are people’s lives. It’s the livelihoods of people working in resource communities, and you’re going to blow it up, because you’re petty.

My question to the Premier is: will you do the right thing? Show some leadership and appoint George Abbott to lead the Treaty Commission. Do it today.

Madame Speaker: I would caution all members that remarks are through the Chair.

[1420]

Hon. C. Clark: I’m going to quote this member’s predecessor as leader, who said: “I think the treaty process is too slow, and I would like to see it improved. I will give a lot of energy to that personally, should I be elected Premier.”

Now, George Abbott was a big part of making sure that that leader and other potential leaders across the way never were elected Premier. We all owe a great debt of thanks to George Abbott for helping make sure that that was the case.

The process that the member is speaking so passionately to defend is one that has produced four modern treaties after 22 years at a cost of over $600 million.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. C. Clark: It’s produced four modern treaties over the course of 22 years at the cost of $600 million. This is the process that the member gets up and so passionately defends.

Yes, it was a process that was founded under an NDP government. It was a process that many people have worked diligently and with great heart to make work. The status quo has not produced the results that we all hoped that it would, and as I said, if it carries on the way that it has, in a century we will have concluded treaties with all First Nations in the province.

First Nations have waited long enough. It is time for us to find certainty in British Columbia. It’s time for us to chart a new course for treaty-making across the province so that we can get there faster, we can get there more fairly, and we can get there and assure certainty and economic sustainability, not just for First Nations but for people all across the province.

S. Fraser: It’s become clear over the last week that even the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation was surprised by the Premier’s sudden, unprecedented decision to pull Mr. Abbott’s appointment at the last minute.

Another of the Premier’s ministers, senior cabinet ministers, the Minister of Health, said he too was taken by surprise. When asked, he could only say: “I haven’t been an intimate part of those discussions. That surprised me.”

If she didn’t consult with the minister responsible or with at least one of her most senior ministers or with the treaty partners or with the current chief commissioner, Sophie Pierre, who did she consult with before making this damning decision?

Hon. C. Clark: The cabinet committee on First Nations has been working since the summer of last year diligently. It’s a committee that I personally chair of cabinet to make sure that we are working to close the gap with First Nations.
[ Page 6948 ]

As many people have observed, including the Leader of the Opposition, the Tsilhqot’in, in 25 or 30 years in court, achieved a decision on title that could have come from the treaty process but didn’t, because the treaty process is not working as everyone hoped it would. Four modern treaties over 22 years at the cost of $600 million, and the opposition is saying they would like the government and the citizens of British Columbia to continue to invest in the status quo. Our answer is no.

We need to make sure that we find a new path to treaty-making. We have heard that from First Nations leaders across the province. When we met with them last year in the historic All Chiefs meeting, we certainly heard that loud and clear. Only 50 First Nations out of the more than 200 in the province are currently even at any stage in the process. It needs to be fixed. We need to redefine what treaty-making is, and we need to redefine the path to get there. We will do it together with First Nations.

Madame Speaker: The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The Premier is obviously….

Interjections.

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

[1425]

S. Fraser: The Premier is obviously unaware that the minister has worn out that message box. It’s irrelevant and stale.

This inexplicable decision came out of thin air. To be clear, Mr. Abbott’s appointment was pulled at the very last minute — after the province recruited Mr. Abbott last September, proposing him as the candidate to the partners in the treaty process and agreeing with the partners that he was the best person for the job; after the First Nations Summit met and passed a resolution supporting the appointment and sent that approval to the province last October; and after five more months went by with absolutely no indication from government that there were any concerns with this appointment.

She didn’t talk to the minister responsible. She didn’t talk to her treaty partners. She didn’t talk to Mr. Abbott certainly. To the Premier, who did she talk to before making this devastating decision?

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Abbott is an eminently qualified individual who has served this government and this province with distinction…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …for over 20 years. But government decided that in light of what we’d heard from First Nations and what we saw was happening in the treaty process — frankly, what was not happening in the treaty process — it was time to take a different direction and, as we promised First Nations we would, work together to define a new way of making treaties, to find a way to come down a different path, one that will yield us more than something like four treaties in 22 years at the cost of $600 million.

We need to find a better way, because waiting a century — which is what that member would propose, if we stick with the status quo, and what the Leader of the Opposition would propose — is not good enough. We need to do better. We need to find a different process. We’re going to continue to do that. We’re going to work hand in hand with First Nations, and we will travel down that path together.

C. James: We’ve spent this week in the House listening to various government members try to explain the inexplicable. Now it’s pretty clear that the Premier has joined that parade. She’s thrown the treaty process into turmoil and damaged the trust between treaty partners, which has a direct impact on the economy in British Columbia.

Thousands of businesses operating in this province, treaty First Nations and the public expect their Premier to show leadership on one of the most critical issues facing British Columbia. Instead, the Premier chose to dump Mr. Abbott and won’t come clean on the reason.

So a very straightforward question to the Premier. Will the Premier tell us why she rejected Mr. Abbott?

Hon. C. Clark: What government did is decide that we needed to find a new path to treaty-making. And rather than investing in the status quo, which has yielded so little for the people of the province…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: …and which has yielded not enough for First Nations, we recognized that we needed to find a different way to go about making treaties, to redefine what treaties are and to find a way to make sure that more First Nations are involved in the process.

Having 50 out of over 200 First Nations engaged in the process at some stage, many of them at the very earliest stage, is not enough. It is not going to get us to certainty. So while the members were very happy to last week criticize the treaty process — say it’s not working, say that they would change it, say that they don’t like the status quo — today they will stand up and defend it.

We need to be brave in going into the future and finding a new path with First Nations that will garner certainty
[ Page 6949 ]
for them, economic sustainability and fairness in British Columbia. That is what we intend to do, and we intend to do it hand in hand with First Nations.

CORONER’S INQUEST INTO
LAKELAND MILLS EXPLOSION
AND CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

S. Simpson: Today in Prince George the chief coroner adjourned indefinitely the inquest into the deaths of Glen Roche and Alan Little, who died in the Lakeland explosion. We know that this happened as of last week, when it became apparent through testimony that there was a major private investigation done for the company of the explosion and that that was not disclosed to the inquest.

[1430]

It only became apparent through testimony last week, very late in the inquest process. A number of lawyers have been very clear in their concern and frustration about that, indicating that had they had that information, it may well have changed the nature of the inquest up to that point — to the point where the Steelworkers have withdrawn now from the inquest, saying that they’ve lost confidence in its ability to answer questions.

Today we also learned that the coroner’s counsel has said that he’s become aware that WorkSafe knew about this private investigation for two years. The question here is…. This becomes a major breach of trust that WorkSafe would be aware of critical information and chose not ensure it was disclosed at the start of the inquest.

My question is to the Premier or to the minister — to whomever. You’ve done significant investigation — Mr. Macatee. The Premier’s right hand, Mr. Dyble, investigated WorkSafe on these matters. Was the government aware of this private investigation? Were they aware that WorkSafe had this information?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite would know well that this matter has been very difficult for families. I know he has spent time in Prince George with those families, as have I. This is a very difficult period of time for them. We’ve said from the very beginning that we want this inquest to get to the bottom of what happened here, to find the facts. We are very, very sorry for what families have had to experience.

I can tell the member opposite that we have said from the beginning that the coroner has broad-ranging powers, and you can see from what happened today, that that is exactly what she is exercising. She is going to work through this process. We are certainly not going to intervene or interject ourselves into this discussion.

There is a process underway. The coroner has her work to complete, and we’re not going to speculate on the outcomes. We will wait for the recommendations and at that point take actions on those recommendations.

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

S. Simpson: The notion of this inquest as the vehicle to get to answers has been called into question by the families, by the workers, by the opposition. We have called for an independent inquiry because we believe that was the only way to get there. What we’re learning now just reinforces that call. The question here….

The inquest is supposed to get answers. We now know the company has its own interests, and they have protected those at the inquest. It’s now becoming painfully clear that WorkSafe has its own interests, and they appear to be protecting those at the inquest, maybe at the expense of the coroner being able to get those answers, and that’s wrong.

In October the widows of the four men who died at Babine and Lakeland wrote to the Premier. They asked the Premier for an independent inquiry. The Premier responded and said that that wasn’t going to happen and said that this inquest would get there. We now know the inquest is in serious trouble. We know that the parties are not looking to find solutions here.

The question is to the Premier. Will she reconsider her decision, and approach an independent inquiry now into both the explosions so the families can have some closure on this issue once and for all?

Hon. S. Bond: The coroner is doing exactly what one would expect her to do in the inquest. The issues are complex. They are very difficult for family members to sit through, and we certainly recognize that. But for the member opposite to stand up and suggest that the inquest is in trouble….

The coroner has made it clear she is going to work her way through the process. She’s also made it clear that she expects the information to be shared, and that is going to occur. That’s exactly what is taking place.

[1435]

To the member opposite’s questions, the coroner is using the powers that she has to ensure that all of the information has been made public.

I can make it very clear to the member opposite that my expectations of WorkSafe have been made extremely clear. We have worked through the process in terms of improving workplace safety in this province through the Macatee report, and we have made it very clear to WorkSafe that they are expected to cooperate, be collaborative and participate in this process fully.

H. Bains: Babine mill families have been in Prince George to offer support to the Lakeland workers. They have witnessed firsthand how the process is failing them. Maureen Luggi, who lost her husband in the Burns Lake explosion, says this: “The families were assured by the chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, that the coroner’s inquest is
[ Page 6950 ]
the proper venue for us to get answers. As I attended the inquest in support of my friend Rhonda Roche, I have noted that the families are not receiving the answers they need. In fact, there are more questions than answers.”

To the Premier, doesn’t Rhonda Roche deserve to know the truth about the events that led to her husband’s death?

Hon. S. Bond: There is not a single member of this Legislature that doesn’t care about what happened to those families — not a single one.

We have said clearly that the inquest needs to take place and that the coroner has broad-reaching powers. What you saw today was an example of the coroner determined to use those powers to ensure the information that is required to provide recommendations about ensuring worker safety in this province — that those recommendations are brought forward and that they will be acted upon.

We need to let this process continue. We recognize how difficult it must be. None of us can put ourselves in those families’ shoes. We can only begin to imagine how difficult this is. The coroner is conducting the inquest. She is working to ensure that all of the information that is relevant is brought forward. We are not going to speculate on the outcomes or the recommendations. We will await the end of this process.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
INTO MILL EXPLOSIONS

A. Dix: What we’re talking about today, to quote the coroner’s press release, is that WorkSafe B.C. has been aware for at least two years of the existence of a separate investigation that has been commissioned by the lawyers for the mill. They failed to disclose it. They report through the minister to this House. The minister is responsible for that. It has turned the inquest into a bit of a fiasco today — the lack of cooperation, not by anybody else but by the government through WorkSafe B.C.

In the days following the Lakeland explosion, the Premier personally went up and spoke to injured workers. She personally went up and talked to families. She promised accountability, and she promised justice. And what have we got? Botched investigations, unreleased reports, failure to pursue laws passed by parliament, finger-pointing between agencies, workers forced to extraordinary lengths to get the benefits that they deserve, a rejection of the family’s request for a public inquiry, a rejection of the family’s request for legal assistance. A total lack of accountability and justice for the families.

In her November 19 letter to Rhonda Roche the Premier said this: “You deserve answers. Your entire community deserves answers.” She added: “My thoughts and prayers are with you.” Well, pious words without action are not pious. Sympathetic words without action are not sympathetic. Glen Roche warned Lakeland about safety concerns before the explosion. Those words were not heeded, and Glen Roche and Al Little died.

[1440]

Will the Premier listen to the families today and call a full public inquiry into the Lakeland and Babine explosions?

Hon. S. Bond: As we have said continuously, we want to ensure that all of the information that helps prevent these kinds of tragedies from ever happening again…. The inquest that is currently underway…. The coroner is conducting the inquest using all of the broad powers that she has. She is going to continue to probe and to delve and to find the answers that are required.

While the member opposite might want to simply stand up and throw out the work that’s been done at the inquest, we are not prepared to intervene in an independent process which will result in recommendations to ensure that worker safety is improved in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. S. Bond: We’re going to let the coroner do her work. We are going to continue to make sure that as the recommendations come forward, additional action will be taken.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

K. Corrigan: I rise to present a petition from the Alliance of B.C. Students, a petition signed by 3,000 University of Victoria students who say they are signing this petition asking the B.C. government to join the rest of Canada and re-establish a provincial needs-based grants program.

B.C., they say, needs to realign its investment priorities and make post-secondary education accessible to all British Columbians, regardless of socioeconomic status. They also say that B.C. is the only province in Canada without a needs-based grants program and charges the highest interest rate on student loans in the country.

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome two grade 11 school classes from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School. They’re
[ Page 6951 ]
accompanied by their social studies teachers Bonnie Burnell and Auton Lum; Cecil Baird, the librarian; Maria Macdonald; and also the counsellor, Wendy Higenbottam; and parents Susie Martins, Ms. Lee Trong, Mai Lee and Kelly Read — who also happens to be my amazing constituency assistant.

There are two dynamic classes from grade 11; the Tupper Tigers; and also members from the senior rugby team, the successful senior boys who placed second in the province. Also, to let everybody know, Tupper has the best dancers in the province. Please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 13.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe just to get things going, I can introduce the very able people that are here to assist us as we go through a fairly technical piece of legislation. Jordan Goss, Sean O’Melinn, David Sherwood, Devon Windsor and Jeffrey Krasnick are all here to assist us. I’ll await my friends’ questions.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

C. James: Thanks to the minister, and thanks to the staff who are here. I think, as we’ve chatted with the minister, the main questions will come on one particular section of the bill — when we get to section 23, around ICBC, etc.

Just a couple of straightforward questions. On section 2 it talks about the carbon tax providing, if one or more persons are subject to the same tax…. I wonder if the minister could tell me what occurs now. What changes does this amendment bring in, compared to the situation currently?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the significant change here is that the principle of joint and several liability does not exist today. This section imports that, from a collections point of view.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

C. James: A similar kind of question. These next sections — 4, 5, 6 and 7 — all speak to a bond. They all speak to providing a bond. Again, my question would be: is that a change? What happens currently, and why is the change coming in now?

Hon. M. de Jong: In this case, it’s not a change to this extent. It’s part of the application process now. This creates an explicit authority for it — so from a practical point of view, not a change, but a specific legal authority incorporated into the act to support the practice that is already in place.

C. James: Could the minister tell me what authority exists now?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are general provisions that contemplate the requirement of bonds. The other aspect of this that is important to note is explicitly to allow for the making of the appointment subject to other conditions or limitations. The creation of that additional power around the creation of conditions is new to the section.

C. James: Just so I’m clear, then, the authority existed, but specific conditions have been added, through this authority, that have made the changes in this bill?

[1450]

Hon. M. de Jong: I did not explain that well to the committee or the member.

What was relied upon previously under subsection 16(1)(b) was the general power around the imposition of conditions. That existed. It was not very explicit. What is being added is the very specific authority such that it will no longer be necessary to rely on the somewhat more cryptic provision contained in sub (b).

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

C. James: A similar kind of question on section 8. I think it just helps for the public, as well, to understand why the changes are being brought forward.

I wonder if the minister could just talk about what provisions are currently in place and how this changes the provisions around collecting the tax. So what changes, from previously, with this amendment?
[ Page 6952 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll perhaps do this in pieces, so I don’t muck it up.

The provision for the writing off of bad debts exists. It exists presently. The most significant addition relates to the four-year period for the writing off of a debt, which then triggers some other things. That four-year period actually represents something of a defined benefit for agencies that find themselves in that position. It is the addition of the four-year period that is probably most significant in terms of the sections that already exist.

C. James: Is there no term currently, at all? You mentioned the four years. Is there a current term? Or is the four years new, in putting a specific term in?

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. In fact, in the existing provision, there was no defined period, which did leave it unclear. We’ll come to some provisions later that relate to the refund mechanism, but for the write-off period, there is in the existing act no specific period enumerated.

C. James: Could the minister tell me why a four-year period was chosen? If there wasn’t a determined time in there previously, why was four years chosen?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that that is consistent with provisions under the provincial sales tax.

[1455]

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

C. James: Again, a question on the changes. As the minister mentioned, some of these make some significant changes; some of them are simply housekeeping or catching up with other acts. Similarly on section 12, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the current process is around someone in bankruptcy and how this changes that in this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: Perhaps the most significant dimension to what is before the House with respect to section 12 is found in subsection 51(1.2), which is the amendment that authorizes the director to “issue a notice of assessment to the custodian or trustee in bankruptcy of a person in relation to whom the director has made an estimate or assessment.” That specific authority, again, does not presently exist in the act, and the act is deficient in respect of ensuring that that specific authority exists.

C. James: This authority directly relates to bankruptcy. Are there other pieces — and perhaps we’ll come to them as we go through committee stage — of authority that were left out of the act that are included in this piece around the carbon tax and that are coming forward?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not certain that I understood the question. If the hon. member is referring to these provisions or in general terms, I’ll let her clarify.

C. James: I’m speaking specifically to the Carbon Tax Act and authority in the Carbon Tax Act. The minister mentioned that this section, 12, comes forward because the authority wasn’t there and the act was found to be deficient, so this is being corrected.

Are there other pieces within the Carbon Tax Act where authority is an issue? Perhaps the minister will want to wait as we get through the committee stage, but are there specifics that the minister would like to mention that were also found deficient that are being corrected?

Hon. M. de Jong: A general answer. One of the themes that emerges throughout many of the pages and provisions with respect to the taxation statutes that we’re dealing with was the desire to clarify and specifically and explicitly enumerate authorities that may have existed in one but not others, and bring some parallel language. That’s a theme that exists throughout.

In the case of the carbon tax, the two examples that I’m advised of where we will see evidence of what we’re discussing today are with respect to lien provisions and with respect to something the member has already touched on — that is, the bonding provisions. So there are two general areas where the desire to bring consistency of language and explicit legislative authority will reveal themselves with respect to the Carbon Tax Act.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

[1500]

C. James: A similar kind of question on section 15, which again talks about an amount owing if an assessment is increased on appeal as it goes forward with the carbon tax. Again, my question would be: what’s the current process, and how does this change for people who have had an appeal and have had the amount increased?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I get this wrong, I will be the first to try to correct myself, based on the ample expertise here. A circumstance in which there has been an appeal by a taxpayer who, presumably, is appealing to have an amount owing reduced…. Instead, on appeal to the minister or minister’s designate, there is a determination that the amount owing is actually increased.

I am advised that under the existing provisions — and here’s a distinction that we come across occasionally in statutory instruments that I always find curious, but nonetheless, here it is — the authority exists to impose the requirement, impose the additional amount. There is, apparently, at present no parallel authority or requirement
[ Page 6953 ]
for the taxpayer to pay the additional amount, which is an interesting gap. Nonetheless, this is intended to address….

I am also advised that after conducting a search thus far in the life of the taxation regime that we are dealing with here, this has occurred once.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. Would this, then, prevent the government from having to go to court to then apply to be able to receive the amount or to mandate the taxpayer to pay the increased amount? Does this then give the authority to the government to say it’s a requirement?

Hon. M. de Jong: It has been confirmed for me that it would make enforcement difficult.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

C. James: This really is the section where we have the largest number of questions, as we chatted with the minister about. This is the section, for the public who are watching, which deals with debt, debtor information and the collection of debtor information by government. I think we’ll have a number of questions on this particular section.

Just to start off with subsection 23(16.1)(1), which talks about some definitions. It begins with the definition of a “collection officer.” It says: “request an appropriate officer or employee of a ministry to disclose debtor information….” It specifically talks about debtor information in the custody and control of the Ministry of Finance. It also refers, again within the definitions, to a person within the Ministry of Finance “responsible for performing duties in relation to the collection of debts….”

We’ll get into talking a little bit more about the collection of debt and a contractor doing that, but this speaks specifically to the ministry. I wonder if the minister could tell us: are there staff currently responsible for collecting debt in the Ministry of Finance, and if there are, how many?

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have a good portion of the information. I will have to get a number, though, for the member in due course.

Within revenue division, the receivables management office is a section dedicated to collections. What I will have to do for the member is secure an FTE count from the receivables management office as to the number of persons.

In addition to that, I am reminded that within the revenue solutions branch, there is a group of seven individuals who are also engaged directly in collections activities.

C. James: I wonder if the minister could tell us which office is responsible for the HP contract, where most of the debt collection — and we’ll talk a little more about the specifics on that — occurs.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that is the revenue solutions branch that I just referred to.

C. James: Just so I’m clear, then, there are seven individuals in the ministry, in that branch, who also manage the HP contract that then collects debt in the community.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is looking for specific answers, so I’ll try to be as specific as possible.

The branch is larger than the seven individuals I referred to. There are many other people engaged with HP Solutions, with respect to that contracted service. The seven individuals that I referred to are engaged in direct collections activity. So that’s the distinction that I’m trying to make.

C. James: Could the minister tell me what debts are currently collected, then, by the seven individuals within that branch? What areas of debt?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the significant feature that the member may be interested to learn, relative to the revenue solutions branch and the small subset of people that I’m referring to, is their duties are focused specifically on files that have evolved to a court collections process. I’m advised they run the gamut from court fines to defaulted student debt to MSP — the broad range of debt involving government. That small group would be focused on files that have evolved to involvement by the courts.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I know we’re jumping around a little bit. I know section 24 speaks more to the kind of debt, and I’ll get to that. Section 23 focuses more on the sharing of information and the expansion of the sharing of information.

[1510]

Just to set the context, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the ability of government to collect information and to share information — the ability of the Finance Ministry to do that — currently is, before we look at the changes.

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s an appropriate general question, so my answer will be somewhat general. Generally speaking, across a broad range of programming areas, the statutes that give rise to those programs or those agencies determine the types of information that are available to those agencies and, therefore, available for collections purposes.

In some cases the defining documents or defining statutes provide express guidance as to what the information
[ Page 6954 ]
can be used for or express restrictions on what the information can be used for. In other circumstances they do not. So it’s a bit of a mixed bag right now.

Of course, there is also overriding legislation that governs the sharing of information. From a collections and debt collections point of view, perhaps the appropriate general comment at this stage is that it’s a bit of a mixed bag.

C. James: I’m guessing there’s an authority already to be able to share information collected. As the minister has pointed out, there are individuals within the ministry. There’s debt collected currently. That goes on. I’m guessing there’s already authority to share that information with private providers through the definition of who can share that information.

I am just clarifying that — that there is an ability within this legislation, and within the authority, to be able to share that information with HP collection. What if there was a new contractor? Is that authority basically there within the legislation that speaks to the definition of who can share the information?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, an important and appropriate general question.

[1515]

The challenge we’re trying to overcome, or the problem, if you will…. I suppose, to be fair, the problem, from the perspective of the state, does not present itself — maybe I’ll do this in reverse — in circumstances where an individual has been engaged in a particular program area, has applied for something or received something, provided information in exchange — name, address, location information. In those circumstances, in the event where a collection activity is required, there is generally not an issue making use of that information.

The general step that is being contemplated and attempted to be facilitated through these legislative provisions is a circumstance where a debt arises in a different program area where the more recent information about the debtor exists in a separate program area. There are today not just limitations on the use of the more recent relevant information but probably, in many cases, restrictions on the ability to even seek that information. I guess, at the end of the day, it can amount to the same thing.

It’s that impediment to taking advantage of the most recent and up-to-date information that, generally, the provisions are attempting to address.

C. James: It’s interesting, and I think the minister pointed out in an earlier question that it all depends on your perspective. Some people may see it as a challenge and a problem. Some people will see it as protection, protection of privacy, and that in fact those provisions are positive provisions to prevent government from sharing information that is inappropriate to be shared or shouldn’t be shared across ministries. I think that’s really the concern and really the worry in this section.

I just want to ask a few more questions, and then I’ll turn it over to my colleague to talk about some of the worries about freedom of information specifically.

Subsection 16.1(4). This really is, from my perspective, one of the most challenging pieces of this legislation, where it says: (a) despite any provision of a non-tax enactment that requires a person to keep information…confidential, (b) despite any agreement or representation made with respect to a program of the government that a person will keep information collected in relation to the program confidential.” This basically is a wide-ranging section that allows the government to use any information, regardless of whether there was something signed that said that this information was only collected for the purpose of this program.

I wonder if the minister could talk about what kind of legal advice has been given. Not poking unnecessarily, but the government has had a number of cases come forward where breaking an agreement or breaking contracts has been a problem, and they faced legal action based on that. I wonder if the minister could talk about what kind of legal work was done to basically say that despite somebody signing a document that says at the bottom of the document, “I only give this information for this purpose,” this act and this section will now override that. What impact will that have legally?

[1520]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, a couple of things that are relevant to her relevant question. First of all, in general terms, I would say to the member and the committee that by virtue of having presented the legislation and commended it to the committee and ultimately the House, I do so on the basis that I am satisfied, on the strength of the information and the rigid process that is undertaken as part of the drafting exercise, that the legislation is constitutional and will withstand legal scrutiny.

Beyond that, I can tell the member that work was undertaken with solicitors for FOIPPA, and that takes into account the fact that that legal regime contemplates and, I think, expressly allows for the sharing of information for specific debt collection processes.

I think, in terms of the provisions we’re dealing with, therein lies the very important distinction. Maybe this will help by providing a specific example. There are statutes on the books, for example, such as the Medicare Protection Act, which contain very necessary and very strong confidentiality provisions that prevent the sharing of information.

I would suggest that the purpose of those confidentiality provisions is specific to providing the highest possible levels of protection for sensitive information, personal health information. I would suggest to the member, having regard for other legislative provisions, that the sharing of information like a name and address falls into a
[ Page 6955 ]
different category.

I think the member has fairly highlighted a difference of opinion or attitude that may exist, and that some in society may have, that any information received by the state for a particular purpose, for a particular program, should remain sacrosanct and not available for sharing for any other purpose, including a debt collection exercise.

Clearly, I and the government do not share that absolute view. But I would go further and say that, on the strength of the work that has been undertaken with solicitors for FOIPPA and provisions within that legislative regime itself, I can say with some confidence that it is contemplated and has been contemplated that information could and, indeed, should be shared when it is being utilized solely for the purpose of a debt collection exercise.

C. James: I appreciate the minister’s response, and I appreciate the limitations around that information. As the minister points out, it’s related to specifics around address, phone number, social insurance number. But if you look at 16.1(3)(j), it talks about “information given by a debtor to the government for the purpose of receiving income or premium assistance, support services, a loan, a credit or a benefit.”

From my perspective, that’s much wider than simply an address and a phone number. A fair bit of information is given when you apply for premium assistance or if you’re receiving support services, for example. There doesn’t appear to be a limitation around support services, for example. What kind of support services? You may be giving a great deal of personal information there.

I just wondered how that particular area fits with the minister saying there are limitations.

[1525]

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. member has made reference to a specific subsection: sub (3)(j).

I would preface my remarks by emphasizing that even before contemplating the specific provisions, it is important…. The prerequisite to being able to rely upon those provisions is the purpose for which the information is being sought, and that must be a debt collection exercise. This is not a licence. It is not intended, nor do I believe it creates, a licence for elements of the state to move through files and data banks to create profiles on people for the sake of creating profiles on people.

The purpose must be related to the collection of a specific debt that is owed to the Crown or an agency of the Crown. Having said that, I will acknowledge that the tool we are seeking to have created here would allow, in pursuit of collecting that debt, the most recent and accurate information about a person.

So someone made an application for receiving income or premium assistance. There is, of course, nothing whatsoever wrong with that. If that is a more recent application than perhaps the information another program area now engaged in the collection activity has, then that information would be relevant from the point of view of pursuing a collection activity.

C. James: I appreciate that from the Minister of Finance. I certainly don’t expect that this is being written so the government could provide the opportunity to create files on people or go through files on people. I appreciate that. I appreciate that comment. It’s certainly not the intent of asking the question.

I think what we have seen sometimes in government programs…. It often happens through technology and new technology programs being implemented, where access to information that wasn’t required and wasn’t supposed to come up in fact did. We have specific examples of that, particularly in the area of income assistance and child welfare, where information that was not needed to be seen for one particular worker’s job happened to be seen.

I guess I just put a caution out or a question to the Minister of Finance. What kinds of protections are going to be put in place around employees? If this information is contracted out, for example, to another company, what kinds of protections are going to be in place around someone who is accessing information, perhaps not intentionally but unintentionally, as they gather the other information needed for debt? What kinds of protections are going to be there around keeping that information confidential and not disclosing information that wasn’t needed anywhere else?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: Two themes to my response to, again, the member’s appropriate question. One as it relates to confidentiality and the overarching importance of that, generally, in areas where people have access to sensitive personal information via state agencies. I think the member’s specific question related to the access that a third-party contracting agent would have.

Of course, where there is that step removed from the public service, the oaths of confidentiality and the service agreement provisions become that much more important, because people do view an external third-party agency slightly differently. We try to remove the practical differences through these instruments, but people still do that. Ensuring that those mechanisms are in place, properly enforced, properly audited, I think is important.

Then the second thing that I would say and I would relate to the member. We begin, internally, talking about this and the creation of the tool and the work that gets done to create the framework for drafting legislation. I must confess I anticipated….

Well, the first thing I said was: “The only chance we have, in my view, of creating something that is workable, credible and that will withstand the kind of scrutiny that
[ Page 6956 ]
the member is bringing today is if we have engaged from the outset with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.” I will say that I wondered what the initial response would be, because historically and appropriately, privacy commissioners exist to watch very closely how the state manages information about citizens and the uses that it makes of that information.

I was gratified to learn early in the process that in this case the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, having received an assurance that the specified and defined purposes related to debt collection, indicated a strong willingness and desire to work closely through the creation of the statutory instrument but more than that, I think, will need to be involved on an ongoing basis to ensure that the state and the government remain true to the provisions that exist and utilize the tool in a way that is consistent with what we have undertaken its purpose is for.

[1535]

The legislation comes before the House and the committee. I am heartened and take some measure of comfort knowing that the agency we have created in this chamber to guard, on behalf of citizens, around this issue has been involved from the outset and — as the member has pointed out — in documentation to her and I, has made it clear that the office intends to continue watching and applying that set of principles, and has provided some very meaningful input into what we have before us.

Now, is that a guarantee that these weighty sections are perfect? I’ve learned never to say that, but I am comfortable that, used responsibly, the legislative framework is an appropriate one and a reasonable one.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister for the answers that he’s provided to this point. I’d like a little bit more information on section 16.1(2) that we’ve been discussing here. The minister has offered reassurances that the intent of government is solely to use information to collect debt — very specific and limited to that function. But we’ve seen many cases where the sharing of information between ministries has been less controlled and less reliable than the assurances that the minister has provided.

I wonder. He’s indicated that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contemplates this form of information-sharing. What specific section of that act is he referring to?

Hon. M. de Jong: These are all lengthy sections, but I can refer the member to section 33.1(1)(i) of that act.

D. Routley: If the minister feels assured that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contemplates this form of information-sharing, then why is it necessary to bring this act into effect if the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act already provides that freedom?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer, in part, relates to the myriad of cross-references and how these protections have evolved over time — how, on the one hand, the privacy protections have evolved over time and how more recently and, I suppose, now very recently the government’s desire to create different collection tools has evolved over time. To give an example, there are, to my knowledge, today no impediments for the Ministry of Health to share information with the Finance Ministry for the purpose of effecting collection on an MSP debt.

[1540]

Where there are impediments and where there needs to be more specific statutory authority, if the House is desirous of creating this authority, is a circumstance where — having received that information from the Ministry of Health, that specific information to collect the debt arising out of the Ministry of Health operations — if the Finance Ministry collections division then becomes aware that there is another debt owing from that individual, there are restrictions today or limitations on the use that could be made of that same information for that purpose.

The authorities are unclear and varied. The section I referred the member to…. I hope I didn’t overstate it or misstate it. What I meant to convey to the member in response to his first question was that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act contemplates the sharing of information for the purpose of collecting a debt. But the authorities that exist in various departmental levels, and some of the limitations that have been created, do not contemplate the sharing of some of that information for the purpose of collecting non-program-related debt from a particular area.

As I said in our earlier conversation, it’s a bit of a grab-bag at the moment that we’re trying to bring some consistency to.

D. Routley: I think I understand the intention of what the minister is trying to communicate, but I do still have concerns about the potential undermining of specific privacy protection components of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. Whether it’s viewed from a perspective of general principle or specific statute, it seems that expediency may trump the specific nature of regulation.

We’ve heard from various ministries a desire to have a freer hand in sharing information in order to be more expedient to their purposes, but that is, I think, a dangerous road to travel down in terms of how it will specifically affect the real protections that people can depend upon. I think that becomes more apparent as we go through this act.

I would like the minister to explain more clearly what he means by the notion of information being shared for the specific purpose of debt collection being contemplated by FOIPPA and what he specifically means when he
[ Page 6957 ]
uses the word “contemplated.” Does he contend that it’s specifically referenced? Or does he extrapolate?

Hon. M. de Jong: I may have left the member — and I didn’t do this purposely — at a disadvantage. Let me read the section. I won’t profess to have committed the entire act to memory, so I hope the member won’t accuse me in a moment of taking something out of context. I will read what I think is the relevant provision from the act.

The title of the section is “Disclosure inside or outside Canada” — sub 33.1(1), “A public body may disclose personal information referred to in section 33 inside or outside Canada as follows,” and then it lists a whole series. The one that I referred to, after the “as follows,” sub (i), if “(i) the disclosure is for the purposes of collecting amounts owing to the government of British Columbia or a public body,” and then it lists all the people that might be covered by that.

If I used the word “contemplate,” I was simply trying to summarize what I take that on the surface to mean — that the act, subject to likely a whole bunch of limitations and requirements, in general terms contemplates the sharing of information or the access by the state to information or the disclosure of personal information for purposes of collecting amounts owing to the government. That general principle exists today within FOIPPA.

[1545]

D. Routley: I understand the minister’s reference and appreciate that. It still leaves the question as to why it’s necessary to take this step. It would appear that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act already provides the necessary tools, but the minister is bringing forward Bill 13 that seems to go further. I wonder if he could explain to me why he feels it’s necessary that the House support that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I will provide a general answer, and we can drill down into more detail. Notwithstanding the general provision I referred to in FOIPPA, I am reminded and can advise the member and the committee that there are other enactments in other statutes that are very restrictive, that place significant restrictions on the ability to access information for any purpose, including debt collection–related purposes.

I don’t want to be coy about what we are endeavouring to do, what the government is endeavouring to do here. It is through these provisions to address those restrictions and say — again, in general terms — that for the purpose of collecting debts, those provisions are now secondary to the authority that will be created here.

I think the member’s question is, having just read out the general provision in FOIPPA: “Why is any of this necessary?” It is because in other statutory provisions, restrictions exist that preclude the kind of activity that we are seeking to authorize here.

D. Routley: Does the minister, then, contemplate the amendment of other legislation in order to reflect this, specifically FOIPPA?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the way this is drafted and presented is designed to accomplish that or preclude the need for that to happen in individual cases.

D. Routley: In the case of 16.1(3)(b)(ii) — it mentions “home and employment or business contact information” — what limitations will be provided in order to protect third parties when this information is collected?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the member’s question correctly with respect to the subsection (3)(b)(ii), I think the question is the rationale for seeking authorization for access to this information. It relates to some of the collection tools that would be available or would be sought to be applied, whether it’s liens or garnishee provisions.

[1550]

This is all kind of distasteful stuff — right? — when we’re talking about people owing money and collections activities. But these are the instruments that exist in our society when it has been found that someone owes a debt — the imposition of a lien or a garnishee. This is the kind of information that would be relevant to exercising those creditors’ rights, if you will.

D. Routley: Yes, it is a difficult subject but also very important, not only to the debtor but also potentially to third parties, as is envisioned in section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Specific regulations therein go a long distance to protect the third-party interests that might be impacted.

When a collection officer of the ministry or a contractor acting on the part of government seeks information from a public body, will the information from tax returns be subject to this act?

Hon. M. de Jong: A good and important question that I wanted to verify as pointedly as I could. The longstanding custom, convention, tradition, legal precedent around not utilizing information contained in taxation documentation is preserved. These provisions do not apply. They specifically exclude taxation-related information and documents. That is one area where the information-sharing abilities, even for the purpose of debt collection activities, would not exist.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister. Then 16.1(4) is very concerning. In (a) it prescribes: “despite any provision of a non-tax enactment that requires a person to keep information collected under that enactment confidential.” Bill 13, through the various subsections — (4)(a), (4)(b), (4)(c) and (4)(d)…. All refer to the overriding of confidentiality agreements.
[ Page 6958 ]

The principle of consent is a pretty essential one whenever the subject of privacy protection is entertained and discussed. I wonder if the minister can explain what limitations there will be and how he thinks it’s legitimate that a person’s agreement with government, undertaken solemnly — that the confidentiality of their information will be protected, that it not be shared — can then be overridden, both currently and retroactively, under this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, an important and relevant question.

Maybe I’ll deal with it in reverse. I would say clearly the rationale I bring to the committee for commending these sections is that we are creating an exception in circumstances where an individual owes a debt to the Crown, to the state. We talked about this a little bit earlier, both with the member and the member’s colleague.

[1555]

Those other statutes that I referred to a few moments ago have very broad provisions. I’m not critical of that. I think that was the appropriate thing to do. Whether, at the time they were created, people specifically turned their mind to the question of circumstances in which a person owed a debt to the Crown or not, I don’t know. I can’t say that for certain.

What I can say is that in a circumstance where an individual demonstrably owes a debt to the Crown, to the state, and the state is in possession of basic information that would assist in the collection of that debt, we would like to create the legal authorization and authority to make use of that information. Because of how other statutes have been created or other agreements between the departments of government, agencies and individuals have evolved, in order to accomplish that objective it is necessary to create — I think the member might have used this term — a sort of override. I don’t think that’s the term that he used, but it was something like that. To be fair and to be clear, that is what this does.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister for the forthrightness of that answer. Indeed, that is what it does. Now the question would be: do we agree or disagree with the principle of creating an override to that act?

My understanding of both FOIPPA and PIPA is that they were specific enactments to defend generalized principles. The general principle of privacy protection would allow government to collect information and use information while still protecting the control over that information and allowing a citizen to maintain that control, as much as possible, while still providing the service that they’ve agreed to. FOIPPA and PIPA, both in the public and private sectors, specifically create regulations as to how that control will be maintained on the part of a citizen.

It seems to me that although the goal of government is clearly laid out by the minister, it’s clearly an attempt to make more expedient the collection of debts owed to government. The minister has been assuring the House that these would be debts that are seriously in arrears or that court orders have been granted in relation to, but still this act is a very….

This section and the subsections are a very serious step. The basic principle of privacy protection and the basic principle of allowing citizens to control their own information, even while receiving government services, seems to me to be seriously undermined by this act and this section. It would require, I think, the minister to be very reassuring around his description of how this act will be limited and how the regulations that support this act will inform these sections.

Can the minister offer, perhaps, a more detailed description as to how the basic principles of privacy protection and consent on the part of citizens will be protected while this section and the subsections appear to essentially completely override that notion and undermine it?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it’s always appropriate to seek an articulation of where the protections will lie. As I, I think, fairly candidly acknowledged earlier in the discussion, there will be some people — I don’t know, in fairness, if the member himself falls into this category — who take the view that facilitating the transfer of any information, even a name and address between departments or programs of government for the purpose of collecting a debt, is inappropriate.

For people who believe that — and I’m not critical of them, but if they believe that — this section will be offensive, because it clearly contemplates that. I would say this though. I am clearly not one of those people and believe that there are circumstances where an individual — we’ve talked about individuals — or a corporate entity owe moneys to the Crown and it is appropriate to have access to the most recent basic information about that individual or agency.

How do we ensure that the tool is used properly — for those people who acknowledge a legitimacy in the tool? One is to touch back to the basic principles that are contained in statutes like the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. But as we have already canvassed and discussed in this debate, that foundational legislation does contemplate the disclosure of information for the purpose of collecting debts owing to the province of British Columbia.

The ongoing work of the Privacy Commissioner and that office and the watchdog role that they play and the interest that that office has always expressed in tracking information-sharing between departments of government is, I think, an important aspect and something I hope the member will take into account as he considers these provisions.

[D. Horne in the chair.]
[ Page 6959 ]

Thirdly, the protocols that are entered into between agencies within government or departments of government for information-sharing, those agreements will continue, and they will enumerate the specific purposes for which information is exchanged and the uses to which they can made.

Look, when it comes to the vast body of data and information that governments now possess about people, one of the reasons we have privacy commissioners, offices of privacy commissioners, is people are entitled to maintain a healthy dose of suspicion and skepticism and want to know that their information is being properly dealt with.

Again, however, I would say that it is not unreasonable, in circumstances where a company or an individual owes the province moneys, to have access to basic information and not be constrained from accessing that information in the way that we presently are. But I am not disputing what I think is the member’s admonishment to ensure that safeguards remain in place to ensure that the tool that is being created here is not abused.

[1605]

D. Routley: Yes, and I appreciate that answer from the minister. I, too, am not one of those people who would say that any information-sharing in government is inappropriate — just the potential sharing of information in a manner that compromises the integrity of a person’s security, personally or financially or in any other way. That’s the essential problem that we have.

The former acting Information and Privacy Commissioner, Paul Fraser, told the review of FOIPPA committee a few years ago a story about moose hunters who were out hunting a moose. They shot a moose, and they were trying to drag it back to their truck, were stumbling, tripping and scraping themselves up. The game warden came along, checked their licences to make sure they were legitimate. Once doing that, he said to them: “You’d make far better progress if you didn’t drag it backwards with the behind legs. If you got on either side of the antlers and pulled it forward, you’d make better progress.” So they did.

They tried it, and it worked really well. Then one hunter said to the other: “You know, he was right. This is working really well.” The second hunter said: “Yes, but we’re getting further and further away from the truck.” It was an example of how sacrificing principle for expediency can lead us astray from our basic intent to get the moose to the truck.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah, okay. Then there was the one about the guide-outfitter….

The Chair: We seem to be getting off topic. I’ll let the….

D. Routley: I think we’re zeroing in on the topic actually.

The Chair: Good, good.

D. Routley: The notion that government requires an expediency in dealing with information in order to provide services to citizens effectively is accepted. The problem is that we don’t want to sacrifice the true intent and principle of privacy protection in getting there.

The minister has said that it would be reasonable to share the most basic information about people in order to collect government debt, and I would agree with the minister. The most basic information would be detailed, as it seems to be here in there, as a person’s address and basic personal information — identification, identifiers.

Then the minister referred to the legitimacy of the tool. I think that the legitimacy of the tool that he’s trying to create for government will be judged by how it impacts that basic premise of dragging the moose in the right direction — in other words, protecting privacy while still offering enough latitude for government to deliver services effectively.

Can we see in this act an overswinging or an overstepping in that in several sections, including this one, it refers to any information in any ministry and the right of a collection officer of government or an agent of government to direct public servants, a head of a public body, to surrender information without limitation, at least the way that the act reads? It’s in the specific limitation of this power.

The Privacy Commissioner refers to this in her letter of March 2, 2015, where she says that while FIPPA, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act — FIPPA or FOIPPA — “provides authority for public bodies to collect and disclose personal information relating to government’s ability to collect a debt from an individual, the linking of personal information between government agencies and ministries raises privacy concerns. This is because it often involves disclosing personal information which was collected for one purpose and using that information for a different purpose.”

She goes on to say that the authority of government to compel the collection of personal information is accompanied by an “obligation to limit the subsequent use and disclosure to those purposes that are truly necessary.”

[1610]

These are important considerations that I think we need to have greater clarification and assurance than is offered here. In fact, the way the act is written, despite the general assurances of the minister, swings the door wide open to any information held by any ministry or any public body being accessed by any agent of government collecting any debt described by cabinet at a future date.

The most important aspect of this, as noted by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, is that public bodies must be subject to transparent and adequate oversight. How does the minister foresee that adequate transparency and oversight being provided and the gate being kept in a secure way?
[ Page 6960 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair, and to the member. I’m gratified and obliged to him for, again, referring to the letter from the Privacy Commissioner. He and his colleagues and others in the House have been here long enough to know that the Privacy Commissioner and the present Privacy Commissioner, following in the tradition of other commissioners, have not been shy to articulate views about legislation that impacts upon privacy rights. This clearly is legislation that falls into that category.

I would say this. When we received the letter, I was gratified to get it. The message…. I would never seek to put words into the mouth of an independent officer of the Legislature. But I took, in general terms, the letter to be an indication (1) that the Privacy Commissioner and her office and her staff had been involved in the work that had taken us to that point and (2) that the Privacy Commissioner is watching very carefully and, as always, is interested in circumstances where the government is purporting to utilize and share data and information about citizens and companies cross-departmentally.

I will also say this, pointedly. The Privacy Commissioner did not in this instance, as she and her predecessors have done in the past, say in explicit terms: “I am opposed to” or “I am recommending against provisions of what is being proposed here.” The language was very different than that.

Again, I would not presume to speak for the Privacy Commissioner, but the warning included within this letter relates, I think…. It’s, first of all, very important and very valid that the member has read out portions of that warning. It is: if you are creating this authority for a specific purpose — in this case, the collection of debt — it must only be utilized for that purpose. My office will be watching to ensure that the tool that is created is not misused or abused.

[1615]

I suppose it’s possible to take the letter — not that I am suggesting the member has done this — and wave it about and say: “Ah, the Privacy Commissioner says no.” I don’t think she says that. I think she says: “This is new. This is a further step in the direction of information-sharing within government. You must be careful. You must proceed carefully, and I and my office will be watching very carefully to ensure that you do.” I think all of that is appropriate advice from the Privacy Commissioner.

D. Routley: Yes, I agree with the minister that the Privacy Commissioner is not expressing an objection to the act being passed, but is reserving a consideration and a potential discomfort with some of the unintended consequences that could come about as a result of this act being passed if proper consideration isn’t given. I agree that the Privacy Commissioner has expressed a concern, rather than an objection.

The Privacy Commissioner has also expressed other concerns that I think are generally related to this subject. One of them is that she and previous commissioners have expressed concerns about carve-outs, particularly where it related to health data–sharing, that there are carve-outs from provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In other words: “Well, we need an exemption from the act because of this specific purpose.” Those carve-outs stack up and begin to have a cumulative effect of undermining the basic principle of the act.

I think, just by way of expressing a concern, that this might represent another of those specific exemptions that, in aggregate, have a very negative effect on privacy protection. We’ve seen that the devil is in the detail in terms of what information will be available, what powers there will be to collect it and what freedom there will be to share it. The real problems are created in the actual mechanisms, in the actual process of achieving those things.

One of the big concerns around privacy protection and legislation is the lack of understanding in the public service of what the obligations are and what the provisions specifically are. This has been expressed by numerous commissioners as well — that there’s an education gap in the public service about how their business is affected by privacy legislation.

When this section appears to override the obligations of the head of a public body and employees of a public body to protect information, what steps will be taken by the minister or the government to ensure that there’s adequate understanding of what this means, so that information isn’t inappropriately shared once these provisions are triggered?

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, over time a number of mechanisms have evolved to try and ensure that the state, the government, fulfils its obligations with respect to privacy and protecting the information that is collected on behalf of citizens — the office of the chief information officer internal to government being an example of that.

I’m advised that there are two documentary instruments that the member will want to look for, in the days and weeks ahead, as playing a role in fulfilling the obligation and the objective that he has ably articulated here. One is a document I’ve already referred to, which is an information-sharing agreement that will be — I shouldn’t say “be”; there will be more than one, I expect — between the Finance Ministry and other departments of government.

There is one of the instruments that is intended to provide the framework around which that function and that objective can be achieved. Then the second is an instrument that we have not talked about thus far in this discussion: a privacy impact assessment, which the Finance Ministry will undertake and undertakes in advance of the movement of data for these purposes.
[ Page 6961 ]

If I were going to highlight two documentary instruments that the member might at some future date want to refer back to, those would be the two.

D. Routley: Has there been an information-sharing agreement established at this point or with any public body?

Interjection.

D. Routley: An information-sharing agreement — is there one in existence yet?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are information-sharing agreements in place now. I’m reminded that the Justice Ministry has one with the Finance Ministry as it relates to court fines. These agreements are not new, and in many cases existing agreements will be adjusted or amended to take into account should the House choose to pass this legislation.

That instrument, the information-sharing agreement, is one well known both to government and actually well known to the Privacy Commissioner and one that she watches and that her predecessors have tracked and watched very carefully.

D. Routley: Mr. Chair, and I apologize for my distraction, my inattentiveness to the answer, but I think I understood it.

Who will undertake the privacy impact assessments? Will they be done for each information-sharing agreement with each ministry? How will that process be undertaken?

[1625]

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily, I can be very particular about this. I’m advised that there will likely — in the event that the committee and the House pass this legislation — for the purpose of this debt collection initiative, be one privacy impact assessment, one full-scale one. We’re joined by the individual who will lead that initiative in the early days.

D. Routley: I believe the minister had planned for a break at about this time, and if….

Interjection.

D. Routley: Okay. I’m fine if you’d like to move on.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I would move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit later today.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading on Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015. I wonder if the House might recess for two moments.

Madame Speaker: The House will be recessed for five minutes, please.

The House recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:29 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 15 now be read a second time.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

[1630]

Hon. S. Anton: The main focus of this bill is to enhance and safeguard the life-saving benefits of several road safety programs, including the immediate roadside prohibition program, the vehicle impoundment program and remedial programs.

Further amendments clarify the use of the left lane on multi-lane highways, provide authority to prescribe winter tire and traction device specifications, and allow municipalities to regulate motorcycle parking near traffic control signs and signals. Minor amendments in the bill repeal the AirCare program, which was suspended on December 31, 2014.

The elements in this bill relating to road safety programs aim to improve the operational efficiency of the existing administrative review processes and allow for timelier resolution of reviews by the following.

Requiring the superintendent to revoke prohibitions on review if certain police documents are missing. This provision will help decrease delays during the review process.

Secondly, clarifying the general legal principle that in administrative matters, whoever asserts a proposition bears the burden of proving it. What this means for an IRP is that if an officer has complied with the statutory requirements and provided the required documents, then in a review the onus is on the applicant to prove one of the grounds of revocation.

Third, allowing the superintendent to obtain and consider other relevant information, such as an expert report
[ Page 6962 ]
or technical materials in a review. This will ensure that all relevant information can be considered, allowing the superintendent to make the most fair and informed decisions possible.

Lastly, enabling regulations to place page limits on an applicant’s legal argument in an IRP review and establishing deadlines on the applicant’s submission of argument and evidence in an IRP review. This provision will provide the applicant with a maximum amount of time to present a clear and concise argument while ensuring the superintendent has sufficient time to make a fair and timely decision.

Further amendments provide certain vehicle owners with a more meaningful review process by: authorizing the superintendent to consider the IRP report to superintendent and the VI report to superintendent on corresponding administrative reviews; creating regulations governing early release of specific designated vehicles from the vehicle impoundment program.

A vehicle impoundment exemption for emergency vehicles is also included in this bill. This provision will ensure public safety is not compromised in the unlikely, but possible, event that a driver of an emergency vehicle has committed driving infractions under the act that would otherwise result in the impoundment of the vehicle being operated.

In addition, this bill establishes mandatory remedial requirements for drivers with serious alcohol- or drug-related driving sanctions or where the driver has more than one alcohol- or drug-related driving sanction within a five-year period.

Mandatory remedial requirements will increase the public’s confidence in the province’s strategy to combat high-risk driving behaviour by ensuring drivers who are served with serious or multiple alcohol- or drug-related sanctions receive an appropriate level of remediation.

The legislation will also provide transitional provisions to ensure drivers in existing processes are not affected by the new legislation.

These amendments are critical to maintaining the effectiveness of the province’s comprehensive approach to high-risk driving. By strengthening these programs, B.C. remains at the forefront of road safety legislation in Canada and demonstrates our commitment to protecting road users in British Columbia.

An amendment in the bill relating to AirCare will give full force and effect to the decision to wind down the AirCare program on December 31, 2014, as announced in May 2012, repealing statutory authority for the program in the Motor Vehicle Act and the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, and validating the order-in-council that suspended the program.

My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is sponsoring three amendments in this bill. The first amendment clarifies the left-lane rule for drivers to improve road safety and simplify enforcement.

Between November 29, 2013, and January 24, 2014, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure undertook a provincewide consultation and engagement regarding rural highway safety and speed limits. The consultation found that there was a significant public concern with slower drivers using the leftmost lane, generally considered a passing lane on high-speed highways, despite direction in the Motor Vehicle Act that slow drivers are to use the right lane.

[1635]

Law enforcement told us that the existing laws were difficult to enforce. Slower-moving vehicles can reduce the efficiency of the highway system and can cause driver frustration and aggressive driving behaviour, reducing safety.

Amendments contained in this bill provide for a new rule that drivers cannot use the leftmost lane of a highway with two or more lanes of traffic in the same direction, having a posted speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour or greater and the actual speed of the traffic is at least 50 kilometres per hour — unless they’re overtaking and passing another vehicle, moving left to allow traffic to merge, preparing for a left-hand turn or moving left to pass a vehicle authorized to display an authorized flashing light.

The second amendment provides clarity with respect to winter tires. Due to changing tire technology, law enforcement agency concerns regarding the lack of a clear definition of a winter tire and public confusion as to what a winter tire is, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure included an assessment of the existing definition of winter tires and chains as part of the rural highway safety and speed limit review. The amendments will allow specifications for winter tires and traction control devices, such as chains and tire studs, to be prescribed by regulation.

The third amendment provides that motorcycles, subject to municipal bylaw, may park within six metres of an intersection where there are traffic control devices located adjacent to the roadway. This will allow more efficient use of curbside parking space that is not sufficient in size for cars.

C. Trevena: . I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. It’s quite an interesting bill, bringing together a number of different areas, both the areas which are covered by the Ministry of Justice, with the roadside prohibitions and changing some of the legislation around that, as well as those which are related specifically to the way we drive and the way we maintain our vehicles.

I’m going to initially focus on the driving side, the Ministry of Transportation side, and then make some comments about the changes that come under the Minister of Justice’s purview. I really am most interested in a couple of the things that the Minister of
[ Page 6963 ]
Transportation, as the Minister of Justice is saying, is sponsoring in this legislation — specifically, the piece about driving in the left lane, the passing lane, and about the winter tires. I’ll also makes some mention about motorcycles.

We had, as the Minister of Justice mentioned, last summer in the Ministry of Transportation’s, I think, desperate efforts to make some sort of mark on the province…. Seeing as he was definitely sinking on the issue of ferries and was just not being able to keep his head above water when he was ever challenged on this very significant piece of infrastructure for B.C. and when he was being challenged about what has been happening with the Port Mann Bridge and the fact that it’s not meeting any of its expectations for traffic, the minister was, I think, starting to look for something that could possibly be a win for him, something that might be able to engage the public. So we had two, if I might say, significant pieces of consultation.

These consultations that come from this Liberal government tend to be devised in a very clever way. They are, in fact, devised a bit like the customer surveys that you get on B.C. Ferries. They are devised in a way that you can never go wrong. You can never say that something’s really bad. So we had a couple of pieces of consultation from this government. They should be significant, but I think that what you ended up with, really, are the answers that were expected.

One of the pieces of consultation was on the ten-year transportation plan. I know that we’re going to have lots of opportunity to talk about that in the coming weeks while we are here. It’s essentially the budget plan for three years but with pictures to it, so it looks nice. It really doesn’t have anything in detail beyond the first three years. This was one part of consultation.

The minister went around, or his staff did, did a lot on the Internet and was asking people: what are important issues for transportation? These issues, obviously, were framed around, for some reason — but obviously the government’s idea of a sensible way of framing it — LNG. Are roads used for LNG? Should we have railways? Is it useful for LNG? What do you think about this for LNG?

[1640]

We got the ten-year transportation plan there, into the ether. Discussions were going along, and the minister’s parliamentary secretary, the MLA for Sea to Sky — I believe that’s his constituency — was talking about how to deal with Vancouver Island. Vancouver Island is dealt with somewhat separately. The rest of the province had this bigger consultation.

The other thing that the minister was doing in his early stages of trying to make a mark on the development of the province, shall we say, trying to perhaps be, in a way, earning his wings, if you can say that for a transportation ministry that doesn’t really have much to deal with aviation…. He also had his staff conduct a review of highway safety and speed, asking people essentially what were the main concerns.

It’s very interesting. Again, very nice graphics. Thank goodness for modern technology. We can make things with very little substance look very pretty with lots of pictures and lots of graphics, lots of charts. In this, there were a couple of things that came up. People talked about speed limits. They talked about the winter tire issue, which I’ll get to in a moment. They talked about slow-moving vehicles, and they talked about wildlife and the interactions with wildlife.

I notice that wildlife provisions aren’t in this legislation. They are partly in the ten-year transportation plan but not in the details that many advocates are asking for. This is something that I will be raising with the minister at a separate date.

The other areas — the issue of speed limits, the issue of passing on the left lane and the issue of winter tires — came out of this consultation. Very interesting, though, that we saw the decision to increase speed limits pretty well in many hundreds of kilometres around the province. Despite concerns from local residents, nowhere did we see a decision to decrease speed limits.

I’m raising the issue of speed limits because it’s in the same review that brought us this passing on the left and the winter tire suggestions, but we don’t actually see in the legislation any comment about speed limits. They’re not writing into law the speed limits. Now, that makes sense because you need to be able to vary them up and down, depending on need.

It’s very interesting that we have in some areas…. Say the highway I do quite a lot, Highway 19. It was built by the NDP and has gone up to 120 kilometres an hour, a four-lane highway — great. But you see people going well above 120 kilometres an hour along that highway. It was very well constructed and brought together during the 1990s, with a lot of people getting work, getting apprenticeships building that highway, along which you can now go at 120 kilometres.

We have on the highway, as you’re driving up now…. I’m going to use Highway 19 and Highway 1 as an example. It’s the one that, since we’re coming back and forth to Victoria, I drive very, very regularly, usually once or twice a week at the moment.

Two things that you see on this highway, which is a four-lane highway for pretty well the whole way…. You’re coming out of Victoria, and you are doing what has come to be known as the Colwood crawl. If you’re coming out of Victoria any time during a rush period, you are going to get into very, very slow-moving traffic. The speed limit is posted, but you know you will not be doing the speed limit.

Get up to basically Malahat and beyond, and you are likely to be able to meet the speed limit, and some people do exceed the speed limit. We have those who are easily now, on the section of highway which is from Nanaimo
[ Page 6964 ]
north…. It’s the highway built in the 1990s. It’s opened up the north Island. Quite truly, I can say that. It makes it very easy to come back and forth. You can do up to 120 kilometres an hour. We’ve got the new speed limits posted.

[1645]

We also have on those highways the posting of large graphics, very large billboards, which show very clearly that you are to pass on the left and then get back into your lane. It says very clearly: “Keep right except to pass.” In fact, this is shown graphically in the review that came after the consultation. There are graphics there: “Keep right; let others pass.” You’ve got the little green car. It’s already there.

Before we had these big billboards that went up over the last few months, we just had smaller signs across our highways, where there was a passing lane, where you knew there was a passing lane coming, or where you were on a divided highway, a four-lane highway. It would say: “Keep right except to pass.” People already know that if you’re on a divided highway, you drive on the right, you pass on the left.

Now we have this in legislation, and we have it in quite detailed legislation — about how you can do it, at what speed limit you can do it, where you should do it, whether you’re passing an emergency vehicle — things that really, for anyone who drives, are the rules of the road. These are what anybody who drives anywhere in the world should know — particularly in places where you have a very thorough driver’s licence, where you have police checks, where you have regulations about how you drive.

Most people know that you drive in one lane, you pass in the other and when you finish passing, you move back. There are people who don’t do it — absolutely. There are people who drive badly — the people who are either holding up their left lane because they think that they can manage the speed flow. There are people who are doing it because they feel that it’s their right. There are people who are doing it just because — for whatever reason.

Then, to say that we really need to put this in legislation, I’m a little bit surprised. It gives the specifics of who and how and where you should be doing it. But we are the first jurisdiction to actually be quite so detailed in legislation.

I know that B.C. has a reputation of having people who do hold up in the left lane. It’s very interesting. I mean, I’ve driven across Canada a couple of times, and I lived in Ontario for a number of years. It hadn’t really struck me until somebody mentioned, “Well, you know, in B.C. we’re the worst,” and you start thinking about it: “Well, maybe, yes, we are.” Other jurisdictions haven’t seen the need to put it in legislation.

This is something that is going to, I hope, make people drive better. I hope they’re going to realize that you’re not wasting time by putting in legislation. At least, I hope the minister isn’t wasting time by putting in legislation. But if you’re having legislation, you’ve got to have the enforcement. Will the RCMP be able to be out there enforcing this all the time? Will the RCMP be pulling people over and then, at times, asking them why they’re staying in the left lane?

There are some jurisdictions south of us where you are fined if you aren’t in the lane appropriate, if you’re not back in the right lane. But this legislation doesn’t come with a penalty. At least, it doesn’t come at the moment with a penalty, where there is going to be some possibility in regulation to bring a penalty and to enforce it. When you are talking about driving infractions, a penalty really does help you enforce that infraction.

It’s very interesting that something that is so ingrained as a driver isn’t there with that…. One, it’s being enshrined in legislation, but if you’re enshrining it in legislation, you’re not backing it up by providing the RCMP with more resources or by having the carrot and the stick.

The other thing is, as I understand it, that when you are doing driving, there are going to be a number of questions we have in the committee stage on this whole bill. But as I understand it, this piece that is going to be written into legislation doesn’t affect you when you are passing an emergency vehicle, let’s say. You are still allowed to go into the left lane there, even though you might not be doing it appropriately. You might be going a little slow.

I also understand that if you are doing it on an empty highway, to avoid wildlife or if the weather is bad and you’re comparatively close to another vehicle, you wouldn’t be stopped for that.

[1650]

There is also the issue of when you are in the crawl, whether it’s in the Lower Mainland in a snarl-up in traffic there — because there isn’t the ability to use transit; there isn’t the investment in transit there — so you’re stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, or you’re in bumper-to-bumper traffic here on the Colwood crawl, that this legislation wouldn’t, then, come into effect.

I do think there is the question of having legislation like this. How is it going be policed — literally? And how are you going to encourage people to do it? Lots of it, I think, comes from people who have experience driving, have seen a lot of driving and are used to the rules of the road.

Maybe some of what needs to be done — and that isn’t in the legislation — is better education, better driver education, so we all know how we’re supposed to drive. It’s very interesting. I mean, better driver education can evolve. It’s a bit like — you know, we all now put on our seatbelts. That is education. It’s a safety thing.

I drive in Europe. Many years ago when I drove in the U.K., the concept of passing — it’s on the right there — and moving back into a lane wasn’t quite so instinctive as when I now drive in the U.K. People are much more rigorous about doing that. There’s been a lot of education in doing it.

So I think part of it really is going to be up to education.
[ Page 6965 ]
Having the legislation, obviously, is going to make…. It’s important to clarify this. It’s clearly an issue that has come from discussing with people in the consultation. But is it really necessary to have in the legislation?

Another area that I think is very interesting in this legislation is the winter tire section where it’s defining a winter tire. It amends the definition of a winter tire but then authorizes the Minister of Transportation to prohibit operating a class of vehicle without chains and so on. But it doesn’t actually say what a winter tire is.

I raise this because there has been no small controversy about winter tires in B.C., about whether m and s, which is mud and slush, is a winter tire or whether having the snowflake on it is a winter tire. Well, the snowflake one is the winter tire. The mud and slush one is used by many people as a winter tire.

Again, I’m interested in the timing of this. I live on the coast and feel very smug that we haven’t had a winter yet. While I have winter tires with the snowflake on my car, it has not been a necessity, because I have not been driving, really, in snow.

Back in October when we had the start of winter tire season, big new boards all over the highways stated very clearly that if you are a car, you can drive with either m and s or the snowflake. If you’re a truck, you need to have chains. This definition, I assume, is for trucks as well as other vehicles, cars and SUVs and so on, where it talks about chains, studs, cleats, ribs, clamps and other traction devices. This is the new technology that the Minister of Justice was talking about.

I’m going to be in the…. I know that part of this is so, as these traction devices, the evolution from chains, which I think most of us agree are really hard to put on…. This allows for any change in the chains and traction devices to be adopted without having to change the legislation. This is something that I’m going to be asking some questions about in the committee stage — I give the minister a heads-up right now — that confusion about definition.

I know that the industry association talked with the Ministry of Transportation about getting some clarity there. The ministry had a fact sheet on the difference between m and s and winter tires with the snowflake. The industry had hoped that there would be some amendments to that fact sheet and, I think, was slightly disappointed that it went out as is.

They’re very concerned with the fact that without proper regulation — I’m not sure it needs legislation — people could be driving in very difficult situations with tires that they use all summer long.

[1655]

The m and s tires are ones that you could be…. I mean, you could be driving in Arizona in the summer with them and trying to drive through a pass in B.C. in the winter with them, which isn’t according to the signs that are up on the boards at the moment and the signs that went up before this legislation came into effect.

I think there is a potential safety concern here — having it defined in legislation that a winter tire means a tire that meets the standards and specifications prescribed for winter tires, yet on these billboards we are still saying to the general public that they can drive with an m and s tire. So that is a section that, when we come to the committee stage, I think is going to be well worth exploring because of that.

As I say, we’ve all been very lucky on the coast that it hasn’t been an issue this year. It very well can be, and we want to make sure that we are allowing people to drive in the safest conditions possible, whether it’s by being responsible with speed limits, whether it’s by encouraging people to drive appropriately on the righthand side and just pass on the left when you are passing and get back on the right or whether it is the actual fabric of your car, the tires and everything else. There is no question that we are all interested in road safety and making it the best place for driving and the safest place for driving. That’s an area where I think I will definitely be following up — the designation of the tire.

Interesting, also, to see that there is this comparatively small amendment, but I think it’s going to impact quite a number of people. The fact that a municipality can change the bylaws for parking of motorcycles so that it’s not just near…. You used to be able to park a motorcycle near a crosswalk. Now, if there is still visibility, motorcycles will be able to be parked near the intersections. This is going to be up to each individual municipality — each individual intersection, obviously.

I think there’s going to be quite some interest from people who use motorcycles. There are a lot more people using motorized cycles — whether they are electric scooters, motorbikes and everything else — in our communities now. I know that in my own community you see many more people on these vehicles, partly because of price, partly because of environmental issues, partly because it’s…. You know, for those who live on the islands, it’s cheaper to use a motorbike. So I think there’s going to be some interest there.

What isn’t in the bill — and I know that one of my colleagues has raised this as what could have been an amendment through the Motor Vehicle Act — is the sound of motorbikes and having some changes which could ensure that when motorbikes are exceedingly noisy in an urban area, there is more regulation on the sound of motorbikes. That isn’t there. But the parking one, I think, will create quite a lot of interest.

The other couple of areas that I’m going to touch on…. I find it very interesting, quite an eclectic bill. One of the areas I wanted to talk about isAirCare. What this does is interesting. I was very grateful. We had quite a quickly organized briefing from people from the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Justice just this afternoon, just literally ahead of this. My question in that briefing was…. Well, I thought AirCare had gone, and
[ Page 6966 ]
AirCare has gone. This is to really get it out of the statutes that now we no longer have AirCare.

In this legislation, as I understand, it’s a housekeeping matter. That being said, I think it’s a shame that we’ve lost AirCare. It was a very good, cost-effective way of reducing emissions and improving air quality. I know the argument is that the standard of vehicles is improving and that there is less of a need for this. But not all vehicles are improving. I mean, at the same time as saying that, we heard the announcement at the end of last week or the beginning of this week that for those vehicles that are older than a 2000 — so 15 years old or older — if you are willing to trade in, you can get assistance to get an electric vehicle or a fuel cell.

[1700]

There is an incentive there to be trading in older vehicles with older emissions. The reason for that is because those vehicles are more polluting than the vehicles that are on the road today. If we’re still having those old vehicles…. I think that people aren’t necessarily going to jump at this, because electric vehicles and the alternative fuel cell ones, even with an incentive and assistance to buy, aren’t necessarily the cheapest and aren’t necessarily best suited to some people’s lives.

I look at myself as an example. I often do when I’m looking at the Transportation file. The way I drive — on a four-lane highway, driving on Highway 19. When do I pass? Am I driving in certain places because of wildlife?

I have a 2002 vehicle. I look at electric vehicles. With the roads I drive, being on the highway, is it useful to have a hybrid? Is it useful to have an electric vehicle? Is it worth it at this moment? Not all vehicles are going to be able to be phased out. People drive older vehicles. It’s more expensive to buy a new vehicle. I think everybody realizes that.

While we are driving older vehicles, I think that it is important to continue to have that sort of standard. We have to make sure that we are looking after the emissions and ensuring that our air quality is the best that we can possibly make it. Having a program like this in place did help that. Without having that in place, there’s no monitoring. There’s no way that we can ensure that the emissions-related defects….

In fact, the AirCare review committee said, in getting rid of AirCare, said: “In the absence of an inspection maintenance program, there’s no deterrent to neglecting the repair of emissions-related defects or overt disabling of emissions control.” It takes away something that provided really good benefits to people, benefits to everybody’s quality of life.

You drive a car, and I know that it’s very rare we see a car belching out emissions these days, although you still do see it. You still do see some trucks and everything that do that. It really isn’t very good for any of us, any of our communities.

AirCare has now officially gone, sadly — or will officially go when this comes into force. I think it’s a mistake. I think there were benefits that could have come from it, that did come from it. I don’t really understand the reason for getting rid of it.

Again, it’s something that I very possibly will bring up in the committee stage, although this is, as I say, a piece of housekeeping rather than a justification for getting rid of what was a good program and a leading program, particularly here in B.C. where we are very concerned.

I think everybody is concerned about the environment. I mean, the fact that we had earlier in this session the question about where you can and can’t use e-cigarettes shows how concerned we are about the air that we breathe.

We already have very strict regulations about where you can smoke, but we aren’t going to have those sorts of moot programs that are going to assist drivers to ensure that their vehicles are using fewer emissions, particularly — I’ve got to say also — when we are talking again and have been talking about increasing speed limits, which uses more fuel, which is, again, not good for the air that we breathe and our carbon footprints.

The other section of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. This bill was tabled by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, Attorney General. The other area that this covers is the immediate roadside prohibition program that the government introduced and has introduced a number of times.

[1705]

I’m very much looking forward to the committee stage of the bill. As I understand it, it makes some parts of the law mandatory that were discretionary before. What is very interesting about this is that it hasn’t appeared to be discretionary before, and now it’s being made mandatory. I think I and my colleagues will be asking a few questions about this.

One of my concerns about this…. It will be explored more, and I realize that I have very little time to get into the discussion of it in debate right now. I think all members in this House must have had constituents come in to them with piles of documents about the roadside prohibition they’ve faced, and it has faced constitutional challenges. I’m very interested to find out how this piece of legislation — this evolution of, addition to and increase of the immediate roadside prohibitions — is safeguarded from being constitutionally challenged.

We’re here as part of our democratic system. As the Legislature making laws, we hopefully make laws that are lawful, that the courts aren’t going to overturn. It’s not always the case. That is the way that our system works, that you can have court challenges. But one would always hope that when a government comes with legislation, it has done all it can to make sure that it won’t face a constitutional challenge. If this is a matter of the interest to get more people pulled over for drunk driving and if it’s unconstitutional, I don’t think any of us could support that.

With that, I’ll take my place. I very much look forward
[ Page 6967 ]
to hearing what other people have to say about this bill.

Hon. T. Stone: I’m very pleased to rise today and speak on second reading with respect to the Motor Vehicle Act amendments that are before the House here today. I’m going to speak to those sections of this bill that are specifically items that fall within the purview of the Ministry of Transportation.

Those items are the changes that we’re making to the legislation that relate to left-lane hogs; secondly, the modernization of the definition of “winter tires”; and thirdly — what might seem like a minor amendment but something that we believe is going to be very well received by the motorcycle community and local governments around the province — some changes that will enable motorcycle parking in a number of additional locations within municipalities should municipalities decide to pass the bylaws to allow it.

Last summer I released the results of my ministry’s rural speed and safety review. I think, as most members of this House would agree, it was a very extensive engagement that involved probably one of the highest levels of public participation on any transportation engagement that we’ve seen in a very long time.

In fact, we held hundreds of face-to-face meetings across the province. There were over 550 different stakeholders that were consulted in those hundreds of meetings. We had 44,000 visits to the engagement websites. Indeed, the number of submissions was quite astonishing. We received almost 13,000 surveys and submissions from British Columbians. Obviously, there was a high degree of interest in this particular review.

We even tried a Twitter town hall. We weren’t sure how effective this was going to be, but we received 180 unique ideas during that Twitter town hall.

It’s really all of that input that was received from British Columbians, in addition to the separate review that was conducted very ably by my parliamentary secretary, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. He met with over 70 organizations on Vancouver Island and was able to dive really deep into the transportation priorities of folks who live on Vancouver Island. All of that input helped inform the decisions that we decided to move forward with coming out of the review.

[1710]

Now, as part of this review, I have said many times…. Obviously, the vast majority of feedback that we received and input that was provided related to the concept of adjusting speed limits. There is no question that there are passionate opinions right across the spectrum on that. I’ll talk more about speed limits in a moment.

One of the top pieces of feedback we received and one of the top themes that we heard in almost every community around this province was: “Please do something about people who seem to be parked out in that left lane. Please do something to address the fact that it’s just not safe to be travelling in that left lane and impeding traffic behind you.” In fact, it is, today, illegal.

We also heard from law enforcement as part of our review — and, generally, from British Columbians — that the current “keep right except to pass” legislation is not clear enough. It’s somewhat fuzzy. What the net result of that has been to date is that police in communities across this province have been largely hesitant to issue tickets respecting the current “keep right except to pass” requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act because the tickets simply don’t tend to stand up in court due to the fuzziness of the language that’s currently in the act.

We decided to take a look at this. We spoke to, again, hundreds of stakeholders — over 550 stakeholders. We talked to law enforcement. We talked to ICBC, the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles and other stakeholders to really try and peel this one back more.

Where we landed is we determined that while driving behaviour, when it comes to “keep right except to pass,” is not going to…. You don’t change the behaviour overnight. We can’t expect that we’re going to make some amendments to the legislation on a Thursday and on the following Monday suddenly the challenge that we’re trying to address here has gone away. Rather, a coordinated and comprehensive approach to this is what’s required.

So we are going to move forward within this bill. We’re moving forward with the amendments to the legislation, which we believe will provide law enforcement with the tools that they need, with much, much clearer language in the legislation, so that when tickets are issued, they will stand up in court.

Coupled with this…. The member for North Island mentioned this in her comments, and she’s quite right. The legislative requirements will not be the be-all and end-all of this. Education and awareness are an important piece of the solution moving forward, and so is driver training. We are working with ICBC to ensure that the requirements that ICBC has, and the rigour that they have with respect to “keep right except to pass” requirements from a driver testing perspective, are current.

The improved signs that the member for North Island mentioned — we went forward and updated the signs many months ago. We have received very good feedback. They’re much larger. They’re much more visible. We looked at “Keep right except to pass” signs from many different jurisdictions around North America and consulted widely. We landed on the current design. We think that the current and modern signage is an important piece of the solution moving forward.

Yes, penalties will be part of this too. The current “keep right except to pass” requirement provides for a $109 fine and three penalty points. We will, as we shepherd this legislation through the Legislature over the coming months, be assessing whether or not that current fine structure makes sense for these new “keep right except to pass” provisions, and we’ll adjust accordingly.

[1715]

To make it really clear, again, these amendments relating to “keep right except to pass” are all about clarifying for British Columbians exactly when it is appropriate to be in the left lane. We want to make it very clear to British Columbians that on highways across this province the left lane is for passing. We want to make it clear to drivers who use the left lane that there are some specific conditions. There are circumstances that allow for the use of the left lane. But as a default, you’re not supposed to be in the left lane.

The proposed left-lane law will require motorists on highways with two or more lanes in one direction, such as on multi-lane highways or within passing lanes where the posted speed limit is 80 kilometres per hour or higher, to keep clear of the left lane unless they are passing a vehicle, allowing traffic to merge, preparing to turn left or exit the highway themselves to the left, or if they’re slowing down and moving over because there is an emergency vehicle or some other official vehicle on the side of the road that has its flashing lights on. That’s as per our recently expanded “slow down and move over” regulation.

We’ve also thought about a couple of scenarios that have resulted in some exceptions that we’ve included in the legislation as well — for example, how to best deal with congestion. In some parts of the province at certain times during the day there can be congestion. We’ve provided for that, we think, in an elegant fashion in this legislation whereby during peak periods where traffic is slowed to 50 kilometres per hour or less, drivers are able to use the left lane. In fact, in many cases in that situation, you might not even be able to get out of the left lane. So we feel that we’ve covered off the reality of congestion.

Likewise, during low traffic volume times — this is really important, particularly in rural parts of the province — drivers may want to travel in that left lane to give themselves a bit more time to react to wildlife crossing the roads. That happens all the time, whether you’re on the north Island or in the East Kootenays, in the Kamloops area. That, we believe, is a commonsense exception to this rule.

There are times when our maintenance contractors are plowing a highway and have only cleared the left lane, particularly in a situation of heavy snowfall. Our maintenance crews do the very best they can to clear as much of the road as fast as possible. In some situations, they will clear that left lane first, and drivers will have no choice but to be in that left lane.

We are very confident that these amendments relating to “keep right except to pass” will provide law enforcement with the tools that they have long suggested, that they have long asked for to form a piece of the solution here to changing driver behaviours and getting people out of that left lane.

Now, I will say that since we indicated we were moving forward with a provision for “keep right except to pass,” I have heard some comments or criticisms. “Well, what if I’m in the left lane and I’m doing the speed limit? Why do I have to get over?”

I’ve even heard comments where some individuals have suggested that they actually take it upon themselves to self-regulate the flow of traffic. You know, it’s — can you imagine? — their God-given right to slow everybody else down to what the speed limit is.

To those drivers and to those individuals, I would say this. Yes, it is against the law to be driving beyond the posted speed limit. No question about that. Whatever that speed limit is on that sign, that’s the maximum that drivers should be driving under ideal conditions. But it is equally against the law — and it will be even more so with these tightened provisions — to be camping out in that left lane and impeding the flow of traffic behind you.

It is not up to individuals, almost in a vigilante kind of mentality, to take it upon themselves to enforce the law. That’s the job of the hard-working women and men who work in law enforcement across the province.

[1720]

We also are moving forward with some changes relating to winter tires. As part of the rural speed and safety review, we committed to clarifying the definition of “winter tires” and to updating the legislation for winter tires.

Now, shortly after I became minister in June of 2013, the following autumn…. October approached, and the discussion and the debate and the dialogue that apparently is pretty normal every October in the province of British Columbia raged on. What exactly is a winter tire? What constitutes a winter tire?

It was one of the first files that crossed my desk and one that I immediately decided to take a deep dive into. It became really apparent to me that there actually were conflicting messages. It wasn’t a big surprise to me that there was the high degree of confusion out there amongst British Columbians as to what actually constitutes a winter tire.

The Ministry of Transportation website and related resources had a definition of winter tire. The Motor Vehicle Act has a definition of winter tire. It was a little bit different. Law enforcement had their definition of what a winter tire was. This created a tremendous amount of confusion every fall as we would head into winter, so we set about to update the definition.

First off, last fall we posted new signs approaching high mountain passes and in areas of the province that regularly experience winter conditions. I think it’s important to remind ourselves, as well, that there are 60 percent of motorists in this province, 60 percent of British Columbians, who very rarely encounter snow on their roads. The vast majority of people who live in the Lower Mainland don’t….

Interjection.

Hon. T. Stone: That is un-Canadian, in some respects.

They don’t experience those changing winter conditions
[ Page 6969 ]
that involve snow and that can make our roads very treacherous. Now, yes, the rain poses other challenges. For a lot of British Columbians who live in the Lower Mainland, it’s an occasional jaunt that they might take up in the Interior once or twice a year. It was really important to keep that in mind as we sought to consider how to go about tightening this definition of winter tires.

Where we decided to go with this was to bring forward legislation which will allow the definition of winter tires to be prescribed in regulation rather than in legislation. In fact, when we do move forward with the regulation, we will be defining winter tires to reflect industry standards, such as the Snowflake in a mountain tire or the m-and-s designation, the mud and snow tire. This means that we will have the flexibility in that regulation and, in it being a regulation in the first place, to keep more current with changing tire technologies and update the definition accordingly. It also means that we can modernize the regulation around studs, chains and other traction devices.

It’s important to point out that the requirement that is currently in the act relating to winter tires, relating to minimum tread depth of 3.5 millimetres, will continue. That’s very important. You can have the best Snowflake in a mountain winter tire. If it’s bald, it’s of no use to you whatsoever. So getting that tread depth right is important.

Fundamentally, the decision, the recommendation that was made by engineers, by the professionals in the Ministry of Transportation, after consulting widely with industry, with many stakeholders across the safety landscape…. The technology that’s available today in m-and-s tires and Snowflake in a mountain tires qualified them both, assuming you have the minimum tread depth, as tires that are acceptable for winter conditions.

I will end this particular piece of my remarks by saying this. We as a government, and certainly in the Ministry of Transportation, recommend that those British Columbians who experience winter travel on a regular basis, largely folks who live in the Interior…. The Snowflake in a mountain tire is the best, the optimal tire to use under severe winter conditions. Certainly, that’s what I put on my truck. I know that’s what most folks in Kamloops put on their vehicles.

[1725]

With respect to the third element of the Motor Vehicle Act amendments that are being sponsored by the Ministry of Transportation here, the Motor Vehicle Act amendments relating to changing where motorcycles are allowed to park, many communities have commented that they would like to maximize the utility of curb space and provide more room for motorcycles to park. Under the existing law, municipalities may, by bylaw, permit motorcycles to park within six metres of crosswalks but only if they don’t obstruct a motorist’s view of the crosswalk.

Communities have told us that they would like the same authority to apply to intersections — intersections that have stop signs and traffic signals. Under the changes proposed in this bill, we are giving them that authority. Municipalities will be able to enact a bylaw and post signs permitting motorcycle parking near stop signs and traffic signals, provided it can be done safely and the motorcycle does not block the motorist’s view of the intersection.

All of these changes — the keep right except to pass, the updated definition of winter tires and this piece on motorcycle parking — are about safety and improving safety on our highways and our roads in British Columbia. I’m very, very proud of the wide array of initiatives that we have moved forward with over the last couple of years.

As I mentioned earlier, we decided to adjust a number of speed limits. In fact, while we looked at potentially 47,000 kilometres of highway in this province, we adjusted the speeds on only 1,300 kilometres, with the theory being the optimal speed is the speed that represents the natural flow of traffic on that particular corridor. In fact, the most dangerous drivers are those who are driving significantly faster or significantly slower than the natural flow of traffic. In the engineering world, for those that do this for a living, it’s defined as the 85th percentile.

I will say that I share the member for North Island’s concerns and others that have been expressed about impacts on safety. Particularly, the metrics that will be used to judge the effectiveness of these speed limit changes will be collisions and fatalities. I’m pleased to say that as of today, since we made these changes last summer, we are not seeing a trend develop whereby collisions and fatalities are increasing where we have increased speed limits. But we’re monitoring that very, very closely — very, very closely. I made that commitment when we made the changes, and I will maintain that commitment moving forward.

I will say that the 85th percentile on the Coquihalla before the speed change was made was 127 kilometres per hour. Since the speed was adjusted upwards to 120 kilometres per hour, the 85th percentile is unchanged at 127 kilometres per hour. Generally speaking, people are not driving faster. Those crazy drivers that were driving 140 kilometres an hour before are still, perhaps, driving that fast, and law enforcement should and will continue to throw the book at those people.

I’m very proud of the “Slow down and move over” improvements that we made — to extend that regulation to apply to all official vehicles on the side of the road with flashing lights. That is improving the safety of roadside workers.

We announced last year — and it was included in B.C. on the Move — that we’re going to pilot variable speed zones in three locations to start with: west of Revelstoke, on the Coquihalla around the snowshed and on the Sea to Sky Highway. This state-of-the-art technology, which will involve radar and sensors in the road, is going to enable us, via electronic signs, to dial the speed limit down
[ Page 6970 ]
if the conditions warrant that. That’s going to save lives.

We’re installing wildlife detection systems in a couple of locations to pilot new technology. It will start in the East Kootenays. That’s going to reduce collisions and save lives.

We’ve included a new road safety improvement program in B.C. on the Move — $25 million per year. That will be dedicated to initiatives like improved snow avalanche technology, crosswalk signals, more guardrails and median barriers around the province as well as livestock fencing. All of this is going to reduce collisions and save lives.

[1730]

We’ve dedicated $30 million over the next three years to intersection safety improvements. It’s all detailed in B.C. on the Move. We’re focusing on strategies to reduce not just the prevalence of highway closures but the duration of those highway closures.

These three amendments today that are sponsored by the Ministry of Transportation are amendments that are focused on safety. I believe they build on a tremendously positive track record of improving safety on B.C.’s highways and roads. I’m very proud to support these amendments here today.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: We can go back to committee on Bill 13.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:33 p.m.

On section 23 (continued).

Hon. M. de Jong: The two numbers I undertook to obtain I can now pass on to the member and the committee. For the receivables management office branch, total employees is 97, 50 of whom are directly involved in the public collections.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

C. James: Thanks to the minister.

Section 24 speaks, again, to one of the concerning parts of this bill, which basically allows ICBC to be utilized as part of the tool around debt collection. I just want to speak to the very beginning of this section, which speaks to the issue of “government claim” meaning that any debt can be prescribed in this section via regulation.

We’ve heard the discussion around student loans. The minister has said that what’s being contemplated currently is student loans — not named in the legislation because that happens through regulation, I understand. I wonder if the minister could tell us what range of debts the government could look at in this section through regulation.

[1735]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member’s question, and I’ll explain how I understand it. If I’ve misunderstood it, she can correct me. That will ensure that I provide a more accurate answer.

I think the question — or the question that I will endeavour to answer — is, “Given the definitions contained within the section in the act, what type of debt could be captured by this?” as opposed to: “What are the government’s intentions today?”

We have spoken, and there has been a measure of public discussion around defaulted student debt, student loans. That is one area that actually fits into both categories. It is captured by the definitions, and it’s something the government, in certain circumstances, contemplates applying the tool towards. Non-motor-vehicle-related, court-imposed fines — again, I don’t want to suggest that in every instance it would be utilized, but the definition captures them all, and in some cases it is contemplated that the instrument would be used.

Now, in the category of what the definition does include for which we haven’t contemplated use from within the Health Ministry, are pharmaceutical-related debts. There are MSP debts. We haven’t turned our mind…. Well, we’re not contemplating the use of the tool, but the broad range of….

I would never presume to either anticipate or try to speak for the member, but as I’m answering the question, I’m thinking about: are there debts that exist between the state and an individual or an agency that the definition doesn’t cover? If the member is not offended, maybe I’ll put that question to the official. That may be a helpful answer for the member as well.

[1740]

Off the top of my head and with the collective wisdom, I can’t think of a definitive example of: “Here’s a debt owing to government, within the definitions contained in these pages, that would somehow be disqualified.” I am reminded, and I’m sure the member was going to raise it in any event, that the Minister of Finance is vested pursuant to 84.1(2) with the authority, and via his or her designate, to determine the use of the tool as it relates to this section and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. But I wouldn’t want to incorrectly leave the impression that the definitions exclude conventional debts. I don’t think they do.
[ Page 6971 ]

C. James: I appreciate, as the minister has said, that because it’s done in regulation because it’s not written in the legislation, the real question, I think, is: what’s out there? What could be captured? As the minister pointed out, I understand government may not be looking at those pieces.

I know we’re going to run out of time here, so perhaps I can just leave it with the minister. If there are other areas of debt that the minister hasn’t mentioned, if I could ask for just a follow-up, a list, perhaps, of the debts that could be captured — recognizing, again, that it doesn’t mean that government is looking at it.

Maybe I can ask a specific question, then, around the discussion on student loans and ask the minister where that discussion came from. Why is that the first piece that’s being looked at and contemplated by the minister? Did that come forward from the contractor who has the responsibility right now? Or was that a discussion in government?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, but I’m happy to answer it. I think it derives from two things. One is the amount that is in default, which I learned about at some point. In fact, I think I learned about it before I was Finance Minister and — I suppose I should be really specific, and maybe the member will say uncharacteristically so — not just within government.

As I watched the success and the use to which this collection tool has been put for with something like child maintenance, it occurred to me that perhaps this was, used responsibly, a proper application of the tool. We had a conversation in second reading. I don’t believe nor do I intend for this to be a tool that is used in other than extraordinary circumstances.

I have to tell the member, and I’ll take advantage of the opportunity in the committee, that I was really lucky. I went to school. I had student loans. I paid them, and I think many people here did. But ten years after graduating I was practising law — or I think I was an MLA at the time — and would run into people who were working, who were enjoying a very comfortable lifestyle and bragging about the fact that they’d never paid back their student loan — contrasted, of course, with people who find themselves in difficulty and aren’t in a position to do so, for which there are provisions where a specific repayment schedule or suspension of payments could be tailored.

People who have received the benefit of an education or training and are doing very, very well and earning significant sums of money and brag about the fact that they managed to avoid their obligation….That punishes people who are in need.

Finding a way, in those exceptional circumstance — at that point where most people have regular contact with the state — to arrest that, which I describe as irresponsible behaviour, is why I am drawn to the creation of the tool but recognize that it needs to be utilized judiciously.

[1745]

C. James: I’ll just put on the record — as the minister has said, as we did in second reading — that we recognize the importance of paying back debt. I don’t think anyone…. No member in this House has stood up and said that they don’t believe that paying back debt is important. That is important. It needs to be addressed.

I think there’s also a worry that a blanket approach may not capture those individuals and may capture many more individuals who really are facing challenges. That’s the real concern. Certainly, the focus of the questioning is that often the blanket approach doesn’t catch the people who are being unfair and who are cheating, so to speak. It catches everyone.

The minister mentioned his own personal experience. I think we all know that circumstances are different for individuals. There are many of us who managed to get through school based on support from family. Well, not everyone has a family who is able to support them, who is able to put the tuition aside, who is able to provide that kind of support. So I think we have to be very careful about what we’re looking at here, and I think the real concern is the safeguards.

Continuing on, then, just around the student loans. We know right now, as I said earlier, that the contract is contracted out, that it’s a third party who looks at it, HPAS, and who brings in those debts. What kind of effort is made right now by HP around collecting those debts? What kind of commission is given to HPAS for collecting those student loans?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m sure the member will have more questions, but I thought I would try to offer her as much information as I can on the broad parameters. Roughly, of a very extensive student loan portfolio….

I will say this. The member hasn’t disputed this, but I want to say it and put it on the record. The discussion we’re having and the provisions we’re dealing with do not affect someone who is today a student. I fear that in some cases, either purposely or inadvertently, students have come to be concerned that somehow this affects their status. It does not. Students will receive loans and continue to receive loans, and they’re interest-free while they are a student. None of this is relevant to that period of their life, and I don’t think that the member disputes that.

An extensive portfolio of student loans, approximately just over $180 million of which is in default. I thought the member would like to know. Well, what does that mean? What qualifies a loan for being in default? I can advise her that that is when a loan has been in delinquency for at least nine months and there hasn’t been a payment plan or an adjusted payment plan entered into.

[1750]

It is entirely possible and common and understandable that when there has been a payment plan and someone’s circumstances have changed, they are obliged to make some adjustments to that. All of that is contemplated,
[ Page 6972 ]
, and all of that is possible, but a loan becomes delinquent when there have been no payments and no payment plan entered into for that nine-month period.

It’s at that point, I am advised, that the contracted collecting agent becomes involved, not before. At that point the file gets transferred, and the collection agent begins to use whatever creditor remedies exist today to attempt to collect that.

I expect I also have some statistics — although I didn’t check this before, and if I don’t, I can get them for the member — around the historic success rate on collections following delinquency. If I don’t have that here or available today, I can provide it to the member. So there’s a start, and I’m certain she’ll have more questions.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. Just another question on why student aid is in the mix, why it’s part of what the minister is looking at. There was a review done in 2011, 2012, on student aid, a report done in the Ministry of Advanced Education. My understanding was they were looking at the issue of default. They were looking at the issue of student debt. That report has never been made public. I just wondered: has the minister looked at that report? Was that part of the minister’s considerations? Was there a review of what the report might have said on the issue of student debt and default?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll say this to the member. I don’t recall going through a report of the sort that the member has described. By the way, I don’t suggest that it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen. I don’t recall having gone through it, which isn’t to say that information contained within that report didn’t flow to me or flow to the ministry and get factored into some of the considerations. I just don’t recall having read the report.

C. James: Just continuing, then, on the process. The minister talked about the process of the length of a loan and the amount of time that it would be in default before it got turned over to the contractor. Then there are a number of provisions, and the minister talked about them in second reading, around notice for ICBC to become involved. I wonder if the minister could just describe that process, then. We’re now at the nine months. It’s been handed over to HP Solutions. What happens now, and when does ICBC get involved?

[1755]

Hon. M. de Jong: I was just going through the chronology and who is involved in what part of the chronology, and I’m going to say this. I’ll describe this in the context of what we are talking about. Variations of it are equally applicable to other forms of debt, but I understand that the member has posed the question in the context of defaulted student loans.

At this point the debt, the file, has been transferred to the third-party contracting agency, and, despite whatever previous attempts have been made from within the ministry, the contracting agency sends a notification notice advising of the debt. At 30 days a demand letter is then sent to the debtor. At day 60 a legal notice is sent warning that legal action may be taken. Legal action at this point, even today, would contemplate a garnishee, a commencement-of-action garnishee — the suite of creditor remedies that are then available.

It’s at that point, as between the third party and the ministry, that a decision could be made around what is — and the member will see this in the legislation and hear this term — RTI, “refuse to issue,” which is the terminology that has arisen to this point in other circumstances around ICBC and refusing to issue insurance or a driver’s licence renewal.

An additional notice is sent at that point, a 30-day notice, around the RTI. I think the important feature — as I say, there’s a bit of experience on this with the child maintenance — is that at any step along that way, the debtor has the option, one would hope, to come in and engage with the collection agent — we had hoped prior with the ministry, but at this point we’re dealing with the collection agent — and say, “Look, here are my circumstances; I would like to enter into a payment plan as follows,” which precludes any of the subsequent activity from taking place.

The person finds themselves at risk if they have ignored all of those notices and taken no steps, no steps whatsoever, to address the situation.

There’s my clumsy attempt at a synopsis of the chronology of what takes place once the file moves from the Finance Ministry to the collection agent.

C. James: Continuing on, then. In the subsections it talks about exceptions. It talks about the Minister of Finance getting involved — the Minister of Finance or a designate, depending on the definition. Subsection 84.1(5)(e) says that the Minister of Finance is satisfied that the debtor, without a licence or corresponding plates, will experience great hardship or financial difficulty to the extent that the debtor will be unable to pay — so in other words, a way to pull back on the taking away of a licence or the plates.

I wonder if the minister could tell us, then, how that’s going to be determined. Who will determine, then, what is great hardship? Who will determine whether the Minister of Finance is satisfied to be able to withdraw the notice that has gone to ICBC to withhold licence and plates?

[1800]

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought what might be helpful is to convey the answer I can in the context of what takes place now, because the principles are precisely the same.

In a circumstance — again dealing with, for the purposes of this conversation, a defaulted student loan debt
[ Page 6973 ]
— absent this tool that we are talking about, but with respect to the other collections tools available, when someone who is in difficulty makes contact and says, “My problem is that I’m not in a position to make the payments. I understand that I am in default, and I certainly can’t make the payments that my original agreement called for me to make” — which strikes me as a fairly typical situation that might arise — the first step in that is to complete what’s referred to as a financial hardship assessment, which at the end of the day amounts to an analysis of income and expenses.

Is there disposable income remaining at the conclusion of that calculation? If there is, then there is a discussion about how that translates into a new payment plan. That becomes the instrument by which the person is expected to conduct themselves going forward. If I’m told there is, as a result of that calculation, no disposable income available — it can certainly happen — then the file is placed on hold for six months, and a similar analysis will take place six months hence.

In both of those circumstances, though, the collection activity would suspend. It would cease. None of the creditors’ remedies — and, if this were to pass, including the one involving ICBC — would take place. That, again, is the chronology that’s followed now with respect to assessing hardship — which I think was the essence of the member’s question — and is intended to be the process followed in the future, if and when a new collections tool exists.

C. James: Just a question, then, as a follow-up to the minister on the issue. The minister said there’s a process that’s being followed. Are these requirements in process? Are they in regulation? Are they in an agreement between the contractor and the Ministry of Finance currently? In other words, could they be changed? Then, just to add onto that, the minister described the processes, the number of things that take place before we get to ICBC garnishing wages, etc.

I wonder if there’s been discussion that, if garnishing of wages isn’t working, you’re then going to ICBC to say: “That’s another step or the next step we’re going to take.” I’m guessing it’s progress, so you go through those steps first, and then go to ICBC, as the minister mentioned. I want to make sure I’m right there and that you’re not looking at garnishing wages and withholding a licence, that it’s a process. Just a question related to that, to make sure I’m clear on that.

[1805]

If so, has there been a discussion? If garnishing of wages isn’t working — in other words, someone doesn’t have an income — again, the reaction of taking away a licence and taking away a car, in my mind, would make it more difficult for someone to be able to be working and, therefore, paying back the student loan. I wonder what discussions occurred around that as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there were two or three questions there. I’ll start from the first one, which I believe was, as I described, the processes and where might one find them. It is, I believe, most accurate to describe them as policy- and procedural-related. So here’s what they’re not.

They are not in a statute. They are not in an order-in-council — at least to my knowledge, they’re not. They are mostly not, or entirely not, contractual. So they are policies and procedures that exist between the ministry and the service provider.

I think the second question related to the circumstances in which someone might be confronted by, if I might call it, dual collections activities: so a garnishee order and then action — a “refuse to issue” by ICBC.

I think the practical point that was made to me is in a circumstance where the collections agent has sought to garnishee a debtor and has been unsuccessful…. If they have been successful, then as a practical matter, the creditor is probably receiving all they’re going to get anyway. If they are not successful, it’s generally because the person has no income or isn’t employed. In that circumstance, probably what the person is confronted by is a hardship circumstance, and they haven’t notified the creditor or the creditor agency of that.

By the way, I am alive to the fact that when people encounter difficulties in their life, it can sometimes be a daunting task to arrange their affairs. I understand that. Certainly, for some people that can be harder than most.

I have to also confess to the member and the committee, though, that one of the things that influenced my thinking in this is the fact that by definition in this case…. Not that people who went to college or a vocational institute or to university automatically are brighter than everyone else, but they by definition are educated people and trained people. So asking that when they do encounter difficult circumstances, at some point over a nine-month period they get around to contacting an important creditor to try and make arrangements struck me as a reasonable request.

[1810]

It was reasonable to ask people over a nine- or 12-month period — when you add it all up, it’s actually a 12-month period — that they would recognize that, yes, they are experiencing difficulty, and secondly, there is something they can do to rearrange their affairs to address that and provide themselves with some temporary relief in their time of difficulty.

I think the member had a third query, but I can’t remember what it was because I’ve talked too long.

M. Elmore: It’s just a couple of questions. First is the relationship between HP Advanced Solutions and ICBC itself. This is in the circumstance when…. The example given was in the case of defaulted student loans. After a period of nine months, that might be the point where it went to ICBC in terms of having ICBC intervene in
[ Page 6974 ]
terms of restricting the issuing of a driver’s licence or licence plates.

My question is with respect to…. So it’s ICBC that will be undertaking that expense or that administrative work. What’s the relationship with HP Advanced Solutions? Is there a commission that is given to ICBC to cover the cost? What’s the financial arrangement between the former government revenue services program privatized to HP Advanced Solutions and ICBC?

Then that falls into the question, the function of ICBC serving as a…. I wouldn’t call it a collection agency but collecting fees on the one hand and not being…. Basically, it’s policyholders who pick up the cost for that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Really, two issues there and two questions. I’m going to try and verify, make sure that the first part of the question — that I have it correct. I think what the member is asking is…. In a circumstance where the file has gone from the Finance Ministry to the collection agent, the timelines have played out and the decision has been made for the refusal to issue, ICBC does that, and there is a collection. Or maybe there isn’t a collection, I suppose.

I think the member’s question is: in that circumstance does HPAS…? What, if any, remuneration, or what is the nature of the remuneration they receive? I see the member nodding. Is that, in essence, the first part of the question? I will endeavour to answer that.

[1815]

I apologize for the delay, but I think it’s an important question the member has asked, and I want to make sure I’m as accurate as I can be.

The starting point is no direct relationship between HPAS and ICBC. What happens is if the RTI decision is made and the debtor shows up and is told, “I’m sorry. We can’t renew your licence” or “We can’t renew your insurance. You are obliged to contact revenue collection services for the government of British Columbia” — that all happens — any moneys that the debtor then pays are paid to revenue services of B.C. There’s no commission that flows to HPAS in those circumstances. A lot of that exists now with respect to other debts that ICBC is involved in, whether they’re traffic fines and tolling provisions.

I think the member’s second question related to a more general observation about the use of ICBC as a collection agent. Maybe I could ask her to expand on that just a little bit, and I’ll try to answer.

M. Elmore: Yeah, that’s the other area. Maybe I can pursue that in estimates a little bit more fully with ICBC. I think that would be the place.

I just wanted to make mention and pose a question with regards to the proposal to integrate the CareCard and the driver’s licence into the one B.C. Services Card in 2018 and concerns raised around the…. In the event of a driver’s licence being withheld for any number of different circumstances, that would impact the individual’s access to a CareCard. There are a whole host of concerns around that, but if we could hear some of the rationale behind this proposal.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for asking, again, a valid and important question.

Since we’ve created this option to have one or two cards, a combined card…. I don’t know what the stats are. My sense is that the vast majority of people have opted for a combined government services CareCard and driver’s licence card. I don’t know that, and I’d have to get the stats. My sense is a lot of people have opted for that, which makes the member’s question that much more relevant.

Let’s take this as a scenario. All of these things that we’ve described have occurred. The refuse to issue has occurred. The person shows up — and this, by the way, could be as applicable to any of the debt that we have talked about, not just a student loan–related debt — and their driver’s licence is due to expire. They have a driver’s licence that’s on a combined card. It’s due to expire in two days or that day, and the agent says: “I’m sorry. We can’t renew it.”

I think the member’s question is that, well, that person could be left…. If that’s the case and however long it takes them to bring their debt into good standing, are they going to be left in jeopardy of not having access to a CareCard? That question, I hope the member will take some comfort, is something I and we addressed specifically. We did so, actually, several years ago when we made the decision around…. I think I was Health Minister at the time.

The answer is clearly no, because that person will immediately qualify for the government services card, the individual card. It won’t have a driver’s licence attached to it, but they will immediately qualify for the government services card that ensures they have continuity of service with the health care system.

It’s a good question.

[1820]

K. Corrigan: I’m just going to ask one question, but I do want to say first that the minister talked about knowing people who…. It sounded almost like it was common for students, from the minister’s recollection of when he was younger and had gone through university, to laugh about the fact that they’d defaulted on their student loan.

I went through university. I went through the same program. So I spent seven years and a little bit more going to university. I left home when I was 16, was on my own, paid for university myself. Even though I worked all the time, with law school and so on, I racked up a pretty substantial student loan over the time. I’ve got to say that I never heard anybody saying they intentionally were just ignoring their student loan and not paying it. I never heard a person, nobody that I had contact with through my university years, so I guess that’s just two different experiences.
[ Page 6975 ]

Just a couple of years after I finished law school, I ended up staying home and having kids. I’ve got to tell you that it was a tough, tough time. We found it difficult. We were racking up credit card debt, trying to make a life, but had these student loans, both of us, hanging over our heads. We, through no fault of our own…. We were doing everything right, as I think most students are. You’re trying really hard after going through school, ending up with a debt often in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. It’s really tough.

Not every kid finishes school, first of all, and they can be caught up…. And not every student that finishes school ends up getting that job that pays well — or any job, necessarily — in the short term. I choose to believe — and I do believe — that, by far, the vast majority of these students that are going to get caught up in this are students who are trying the best they can in the world, but they’re finding it hard to make a go.

So that gets me to…. Actually, I’ve got two questions. I’ll just pose them both and sit down so that I don’t take any more time.

The first one was…. I just want to be absolutely clear that when the minister says there is no commission paid to HP Advanced Solutions, there’s no other type of financial advantage that HP Advanced Solutions is going to get. There’s not going to be any incremental value to HP Advanced Solutions, for example, in the form of perhaps some kind of not a commission but that the performance standards require a certain return on the dollars and that there are increments or anything like that. There will be no financial advantage to HP Advanced Solutions — and no chance of advantage — because of the collection of student loans under this ICBC collection route.

Then my second question for the minister is: what, if any, kind of evaluation of the profile of the types of people who do default…? Has there been an evaluation done of what kinds of circumstances those students are in?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of questions she’s raised. I should maybe put on the record, I think, as I listen to what the member said, that I’m not sure I quarrel with much of her analysis. I hope I didn’t leave — I didn’t mean to leave — the impression that I somehow believe irresponsible behaviour is the norm or the rule or common. I think it happens.

[1825]

Perhaps the member is correct. Our experiences were different, but I guess we are products of our experiences.

I say that I think there are some examples of folks who choose, not just in the context of student loan–related debt but in other cases of debt, to ignore absolutely their obligations. I don’t think the member actually would take the view that that never happens. I think I heard the member say that she doesn’t think it’s common, and I agree with that. I agree that in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases people take these things seriously. But there are exceptions, and creating tools to deal with those exceptions, I think, is a legitimate exercise of the role of the state.

Now, to the questions that the member advanced. No, there is no advantage to HPAS, but I will say this. The advantage accrues to the government if, as an additional collection tool, it leads to the collection of additional moneys. Then the state and, arguably, the taxpayers have enjoyed the advantage that comes with collecting those additional resources. I didn’t want to leave the impression that there is perhaps no advantage. If it is utilized and it works in appropriate circumstances, then the Crown enjoys a direct advantage.

On the question of profiling the default, the only…. The member wasn’t here. I think she knows this, but I will…. Perhaps I’m overly sensitive to this. The member said profiling the default of students. I simply make the point, again, that by the time we get to this, the folks involved, the debtors, are not students. They are former students. I think the member doesn’t quarrel with that.

I’m told, by the way, that the challenge is that of the roughly 26,000 folks — now I am, by the way, talking about the student-related debt — who fall into that category, the branch has contact with only between 1,500 and 2,000. So part of the objective is to find a mechanism to re-establish contact with some of these folks.

There’s not a lot of information. For those 1,500 to 2,000, I expect there’s a bunch of profile information about what their circumstances are and where they are. For the balance, there would be very little information because there’s no contact, which is part of the problem around the collection side.

The member doesn’t have to agree, but I hope that gives her an idea of my thoughts on this.

Sections 24 and 25 approved on division.

Sections 26 to 133 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 13, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
[ Page 6976 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage on Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 6:32 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

C. James: This section deals with the tax reduction credit. As we’ve talked about in second reading, this is the section that is a small but positive measure. I mentioned that in second reading as well.

The budget documents talk about 500,000 people benefiting from this credit, but I think it’s important to note that not all people receive the full amount of the credit. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many people receive the full amount of this credit, could benefit from the full amount, based on the numbers that we’re looking at.

If the minister doesn’t have this information, perhaps he can come back. What is the average amount of the credit that most people, based on the existing population and the tax system, would receive of this credit?

[1835]

Hon. M. de Jong: The additional information I can provide is to indicate to the member that the group that benefits…. And I again acknowledge, depending on where they are in this spectrum, the benefit is more or less. Anyone earning between $19,000 and $31,000 will benefit, but the amount varies, depending on where you are on that spectrum, from a few pennies, depending on where you are, to more than that.

C. James: Perhaps I can just ask the minister, then…. Perhaps later if I could ask to get those numbers. I think it’s important just because the budget document contains numbers of people who are impacted. I think it would be helpful, if that’s reasonable, to get those numbers of who’s impacted in the population and the numbers with each of those amounts.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

C. James: Section 9 talks about the children’s fitness tax credit. I think, again, we touched on this in second reading and talked about the $12.65. I know, as I said then, that every penny is appreciated by parents, but I think there will be a lot of parents concerned about that amount. I just wondered. Again, this touches on fitness. It touches on sports or fitness. I wonder what the definition of “fitness” is in this tax credit, if the minister could speak to that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I was just reminded that this flows from…. Well, let me first say again that I recognize the amount here is modest, to be sure. The specific question, though, relates to definition. This flows from the definition contained within the federal Income Tax Act about fitness-related activities and fees for fitness activities. Once you’ve qualified for that under their definition, you automatically qualify here. We tried to at least simplify it, given the amount involved.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

C. James: Section 10 continues on with tax credits. It’s the coaching tax credit, which provides a tax credit for teachers and all those prescribed individuals who meet the specific criteria. Two questions on this section. First, what discussions and consultation was done with teachers and with teacher-coaches around this criteria? And two, was there a discussion to include music, drama or other areas where teachers provide over ten hours of support to students outside the school days?

I think, as I said in the second reading, all of the teachers who provide that kind of support are critical in our system.

[1840]

Hon. M. de Jong: I again apologize for taking a moment. I’ll do it in reverse order. I want to be clear on the record that this is intended to cover arts-related activities very purposely. That’s why under the definitional sections there is reference to “coaching activity,” and then in sub (b) the reference to “students who are participating in the extracurricular activity or program to which the coaching activity relates” was specifically intended to capture not just sporting activities but also arts-related activities. That was the intention. It is now on the record as the intention.

The member also asked about consultative activities. I will tell the member that we sought some guidance from the Ministry of Education. I do not want to leave the impression that we consulted extensively with teaching organizations in B.C.

Sections 10 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.
[ Page 6977 ]

D. Eby: As I understand this section, it proposes to increase the additional hotel room tax or create the possibility of increasing that tax. Can the minister explain the effect of this section as it’s written?

Hon. M. de Jong: I say this not to be cute or coy, but the member can make up his own mind about that. The effect may be nothing at all, because I think, as the member recognizes, it is enabling. What it does create, though, is the option for a community or a designated recipient, were they to make the request to increase the rate of the tax from 2 percent to 3 percent. But passage and proclamation of this on its own do nothing. It is dependent upon that community or designated entity making the request to see that amount go up.

D. Eby: I can assure the member that that was not cute or coy. It was very precise. And that was not a comment on the member’s appearance at all.

The curious part for me is why the government is allowing this tax to go up or why they are enabling entities to approve this tax. Do cities and specified entities need more money for tourism marketing? Who is asking for this?

Hon. M. de Jong: Several communities have asked. Tourism Vancouver has certainly asked. I was listening with interest to when the member spoke in second reading. He focused some attention…. I must confess that my memory of his remarks in their entirety isn’t accurate enough for me to try and dissect. I will say this.

[1845]

There were elements of what the member said that I did not take issue with in terms of the pressures that Tourism Vancouver is under. The member also correctly identified that there is another provision in this bill that repeals a provision that Tourism Vancouver and the tourism sector in Vancouver were originally empowered to take advantage of, and didn’t.

To the extent that Tourism Vancouver has expressed an interest here, they are choosing — they have asked, and we have, by virtue of this legislation, agreed, if the House agrees to facilitate this — to replace a mechanism that was originally created to create a revenue stream that they have chosen not to avail themselves of and, instead, are provided a mechanism by which they could request this higher amount.

I am advised that there are several other communities that have expressed an interest now. What I can’t say to the member authoritatively is whether that is a conclusion they came to some time ago, or they’ve heard about this and decided that if it’s good enough for Tourism Vancouver, it’s good enough for that. I can’t say that for certain.

D. Eby: The minister did anticipate my question about the connection with section 77. Currently a fixed share of the additional hotel room tax in Vancouver, as the minister alluded to — 37½ percent of it, in fact — is assigned to paying for convention centre debt. Is there some provision here that would prevent this increase — well, more than a third of it — from being fed, basically, directly back into general revenue for this government through that agreement to pay, that obligation to pay?

Hon. M. de Jong: Very directly, I can acknowledge to the member that in creating this enabling provision — and, looking ahead, having created it — presumably, at some point there’s a desire to take advantage of it, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But do I see this as a mechanism by which the pressure an agency like Tourism Vancouver is facing around the debt issue can be addressed? Yes, I do.

I can’t tell the member today what that might look like in terms of payment schedules. That’s really the subject of a discussion that will have to take place with the agency in a contribution or a revised contribution agreement that will need to take place. I hope the member will accept this at face value. It does represent an additional revenue stream that can help offset those costs. I can’t confirm a particular percentage amount along the lines of what the member has suggested.

Sections 50 to 78 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Chair, I move the committee quickly rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2015

Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I’m advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[1850]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Building Act

Chartered Professional Accountants Act

Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Private Training Act

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015

Federal Port Development Act

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2015

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Hamilton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,923,282,000 (continued).

M. Mungall: In 2012 a review was conducted by this ministry — Advanced Education — on student aid. Sorry, it was completed in 2012. It was started earlier. Then in 2013 Deetken consultants were hired to do another review, again on student aid. I’m just wondering if the minister can share with the House what the results of that review were.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am advised that the general tenor of the report was dealing with streamlining the administration of student aid — making it simpler and more accessible, in terms of the application process and degree of focus on default rates.

M. Mungall: I’m just wondering if the current aspects that we’re seeing in Bill 13 — where students are not able to get a driver’s licence if a loan is in arrears — were part of these reviews, and if so, was it part of the recommendations from those reviews?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The report did address the issue of default rates, but we’re not aware whether that issue is in the report or not.

M. Mungall: Unfortunately, that report was never made public, and attempts to acquire the information from that report of both reviews — the one in 2012 and 2013 — resulted in our FOIs being 100 percent withheld.

I’m just wondering if the minister can comment at all. He mentioned that the issue of default rates was addressed. However, I’m asking specifically if he can comment on whether there were any recommendations coming out of that review that suggested that the most appropriate way — or the most inappropriate way — to deal with default rates was to withhold opportunities to get a driver’s licence if a student is in arrears.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I believe I’ve just answered that question.

B. Ralston: I want to pose a question about funding for Simon Fraser University Surrey campus. I have asked this question on previous occasions, and I expect that one of the minister’s competent staff will have a briefing note on this issue.

A commitment was made a number of years ago that by 2015 SFU Surrey would be funded to accommodate 5,000 students — that is, the equivalent of 5,000 full-time students. The commitment was there, but the reality has fallen short of that by several thousand students, and I’m sure the minister will be able to update me on the appropriate number.

[1455]

One of the motivating factors in the position that’s been taken by Simon Fraser University under successive presidents — President Petter and, before him, President Stevenson — is that within the immediate region, the South Fraser region, what’s referred to as the conversion
[ Page 6979 ]
rate — that is, the number of students who, upon graduating from high school pursue post-secondary education — is relatively low and, indeed, I believe, among the lowest of comparable regions in the province, particularly among male students.

Another metric demonstrates that if a university is close to the geographic residence of a student, the likelihood of them attending is higher, obviously, because they can sometimes continue to live with their parents or guardians and not incur the extra expense of travelling elsewhere or securing a separate residence and all of the other costs that come with that.

Of course, Surrey city centre, of which the university is an important part, is a vibrant and emerging downtown, not only of Surrey but of the region. The presence of a university — its students, its staff — adds immeasurably to the dynamism and the economic momentum of the city centre and, indeed, of the region.

It’s an important public investment that has been made. Certainly, Simon Fraser University Surrey campus has much to recommend it, and I’m sure the minister, perhaps, on one of his tours, has toured the campus there. Of course, there’s room for physical expansion, and there are other capital requests as well, which I’m sure the minister is aware of — the need for a new science building. I believe SFU is in the process of securing the land upon which to construct that building.

As an important institution that is located in my riding, I’m asking that question. Will the government follow through on its commitment to fund Simon Fraser University Surrey campus to the 5,000 full-time-equivalents that has been promised? Or, alternately, can the minister give an indication of when he expects that funding to arrive?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This issue was canvassed at some length yesterday, with a series of questions by the member for Surrey-Newton. I’ll just encapsulate that answer rather than repeat it.

Surrey, as we all know, has grown dramatically, and it has grown with a younger population profile, which is now coming to the stage where that population is ready to move on to post-secondary education. Of course, your institutions are historically placed, and we wouldn’t…. I don’t think anyone would choose to place UBC at the tip of Point Grey if it were being built today.

We do have the University of the Fraser Valley campus at Langley. We have the Surrey campus in north Surrey and the Kwantlen campus at 72nd Avenue and 128th Street in Surrey. We do realize that demand in that neighbourhood exceeds supply. There are efforts underway to start to address that.

We’re fortunate, to a degree, that parts of Surrey — parts of Surrey, I’ll emphasize — are well-served by SkyTrain, so Douglas College is readily accessible from Surrey. Simon Fraser’s main campus in Burnaby has also absorbed a significant number of students from Surrey.

This is a valid issue. We’re very much aware of it, and we’re planning to address it in the foreseeable future.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that response. Indeed, I was present here yesterday when the minister gave an answer. My impression was, and perhaps the minister can correct me if I’m wrong, that his answer repeated here today is a more general answer about a number of institutions in the immediate region.

My question is specific to SFU Surrey and its budget, and the commitment that was made specifically for SFU Surrey. This is something that President Stevenson and President Petter have, in a series of meetings over the years, made very clear — that the commitment was to fund SFU Surrey for 5,000 full-time-equivalent students.

I appreciate that the minister wants to give an overview. I understand that’s part of his job — to place these questions in context. My question is very specifically about SFU Surrey and the commitment to fund 5,000 full-time-equivalent student places on that campus.

[1500]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I said earlier, this is a very valid question. I had the benefit of visiting SFU Surrey campus for probably the fifth time in my life recently on the tour and had a great visit with the students, particularly in the mechatronics program. It’s a thriving campus. It’s ideally situated near the end of the SkyTrain line, and it services a large population. We’re fully aware of the demand and potential demand that could be satisfied on that campus, and it’s part of our planning process.

B. Ralston: I’m a bit disappointed in the minister’s answer, I must say. Previous ministers have not been quite so reluctant to discuss the previous commitment, nor to give at least some attention, even if only rhetorically, perhaps, to the commitment on the 5,000 FTEs.

Is it the minister’s position that the government has abandoned that position and it’s no longer something they’re willing to consider in future funding decisions — that the commitment, the promise made, to fund the SFU Surrey campus to the number of 5,000 full-time equivalent student places has now been abandoned? Is that the minister’s position?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I have great respect for the member for Surrey-Whalley, but in this circumstance I cannot allow him to put words in my mouth. I will simply repeat what I’ve said, which is that there is significant demand in Surrey for post-secondary education. The student body attends Kwantlen Polytechnic University. About 30 percent of the grade 12 students in Surrey head in that direction. Other utilization from Surrey includes SFU — both campuses — UBC, BCIT, Douglas College, UVic, University of the Fraser Valley, Langara and UBC Okanagan.
[ Page 6980 ]

So there is supply to meet that demand. We’re fully aware of the growing demand, and we will address it in the planning process. But I cannot accept the concept that the member expressed in his question.

K. Corrigan: We’re probably going to go for another hour and a half with both the sections. I’m going to continue on. We’re going to skip around quite a bit, but I’m sure the ministry staff will be able to handle this sort of scattergun approach that I’m going to have.

I just wanted to ask a couple more questions about a debt. I’m wondering if the ministry makes any effort to track non-student debt. In other words, it’s credit from the banks — not personal loans from family members — lines of credit, Visa and so on.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ll rephrase the member’s question because she expressed it as non-student debt. I’ll take that as non–provincial government student-loan debt.

K. Corrigan: Yes.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Presumably, that would include credit cards, car loans, parental loans and that kind of thing. This is, of course, subject to a whole bunch of privacy constraints. We do have some survey information about overall debt levels post graduation, but we do not have the ability to track other sources of student financing other than the provincial student loan program, which is utilized by about 25 percent of the eligible students.

K. Corrigan: So the surveys are done every year, and they survey a good assortment of students who are graduating? Or is it students who are in school still? I’m just trying to find out how accurate those surveys might be.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Indeed, the survey is done. The most recent one is the 2013 B.C. student outcomes survey. I believe this is publicly available.

[1505]

It records, from all sources of debt and borrowing, that the median debt incurred by or present for students two years after graduation from a diploma program is about $10,000 from all sources. From baccalaureate programs, it’s about $20,000, including government and other sources of credit.

K. Corrigan: I’m going to turn to something else now. This is not my constituent but another constituent who has expressed concern. His name is Ricardo Canovas. Mr. Canovas has expressed concern. I think his concerns have probably been brought to the Ministry of Advanced Education in the past, but I wanted to get this on the record.

Mr. Canovas was a student at Rutherford and Clearmind. The two were linked. Clearmind International Institute had credits transferred to them from Rutherford. Anyway, he was a student, and my understanding is that Rutherford was not ever registered. Mr. Canovas has expressed real concern that he ended up essentially getting burned. He’s one of those students who got burned.

What he does not understand is why there was not some responsibility by the Ministry of Advanced Education to seek compensation for those students — he never got compensation; there never was compensation — particularly given that the province had issued an injunction to, in his words, “paralyze Rutherford from further contraventions.”

I guess the main question is…. He has a lot of information, but I don’t have time to raise it all now. But I think that, on behalf of Mr. Canovas, the most important thing is, if the government felt that there was enough of a responsibility on their part to bring an injunction against Rutherford University, why was it that they didn’t go the step further to assist students in reclaiming their tuition, as written under the act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I have learned that Rutherford operated under various titles for a period since before 2001 and is no longer operating in British Columbia under that name. That was partly as a result of the actions that the member opposite referred to in terms of litigation that resulted in their ceasing operations in British Columbia.

[1510]

In terms of the specific case that she refers to, one doesn’t want to get into the details due to the privacy issues. Nonetheless, I gather there were some evidentiary issues that arose, and the matter came to an indeterminate conclusion. But we are fully aware of this case and have similar concerns to what the member opposite had.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that. I will follow up, and we may try to provide some more specific questions again — more recent ones.

I wanted to ask about the board resourcing and development office. That continues to be the same vote, right?

Can the minister please explain why the board resourcing and development office was transferred to Advanced Education from the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizen Services in December?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Although I’m not aware of the specifics, and I don’t want to say anything flattering to myself, the board resourcing and development office was previously under my ministerial title. It came with me, just as did the government communications and public engagement office.

Whether that was a matter of convenience or expertise or whatever might have been the reason, I continue to have
[ Page 6981 ]
ministerial authority over that office, although the staff here from Advanced Education don’t take a part in that office.

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying that the transfer simply took place and that there were no discussions about the reason for it. Just simply: the minister was informed that the board resourcing and development office would go with the minister when the minister was transferred to Advanced Education?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the history is somewhat lengthy in that I was familiar with and engaged with the office from 2001 to 2006 when I was deputy minister and developed some insight into their process.

When I came into government as an elected member in 2013, I was once at that point allocated responsibility for that office. That continues to this day, and I don’t have any further information than that.

K. Corrigan: In a notice of civil claim filed August 15, 2014, Athana Mentzelopoulos indicated that she held responsibility for the board resourcing and development office despite having been transferred from the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services to the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

Can the minister confirm whether Ms. Mentzelopoulos retains responsibility for BRDO following its transfer to the Ministry of Advanced Education?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Ms. Mentzelopoulos remains the deputy minister responsible for the board resourcing and development office, and I remain as the minister responsible.

K. Corrigan: Can the minister explain the reporting relationship between the board resourcing and development office and Ms. Mentzelopoulos? That may have been partially answered already.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the member opposite is correct. It has been answered to the degree that I’m able to answer it in that I’m the minister responsible and Ms. Mentzelopoulos is the deputy minister responsible.

There are a number of staff in that office who are responsible for recruiting, vetting and recommending individuals to take on the hundreds, if not thousands, of board appointments that occur in any large provincial government like ours.

K. Corrigan: Can the minister explain why the board resourcing and development officer was not transferred to the Ministry of Jobs along with Ms. Mentzelopoulos?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Whether it was a matter of experience or comfort or workload, I’m not in a position to comment.

K. Corrigan: I would assume the answer to this is yes, but does Ms. Mentzelopoulos consult or liaise with the minister with regard to the activities of the board resourcing and development office?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Like any relationship between a deputy minister, as a member of the professional civil service, and a minister who is an elected member, there is contact and liaison as issues arise. If things are running smoothly, there is less contact.

[1515]

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister can indicate the process for appointment and Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s role with regards to the appointment of, first, Alan Shuster, who was the Premier’s campaign manager in Vancouver–Point Grey, who is now on the UBC board of governors. What was the process for that appointment, and her role?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Without getting into the specifics, which I don’t monitor on a day-to-day basis, and without getting into the individual file, which I’m not familiar with, the usual process is that an agency will let it be known that they are in need of a board appointment because of an expiring board appointment, or a board member has decided to move on and doesn’t want to do it anymore, or other issues arise that lead to a vacancy.

When a vacancy arises, that comes to the attention of the board resourcing office. They look through the list of available candidates and perhaps try to recruit other candidates for specific roles, such as chairing an audit committee, which of course requires some kind of accounting designation, or for chairing a governance committee, which requires some degree of experience in board and corporate governance.

Those skills are put into some kind of matrix which then defines, by the nature of the task, the requirements for a particular board position. Then the board resourcing and development office works with, as I have mentioned, the known candidates and perhaps elicits other candidates and may put out the word that they’re looking for people with accounting designations, through the accounting profession and otherwise.

Those individuals come to the attention of the board resourcing and development office. They will then review the available candidates and sort out whether there are any issues that come to mind that might result in a conflict of interest due to things like marital relationships and what their spouse does for a living. Then that process carries on, and there’s an iterative process of dealing with the institution to make sure that there would be some kind of skills match.

Then it comes back to board resourcing, where they will then make recommendations, which infrequently will come to my attention. If necessary, I will turn my
[ Page 6982 ]
mind to it. If they’re lacking a particular skill set, such as a cardiologist or an accountant, I may make some suggestions of where they could go to find those individuals, such as talking to a medical body or an accounting body and perhaps that group or agency or college or professional body could come up with some suggestions or recommendations.

As I say, it’s an iterative process that addresses the needs based on the skills matrix.

K. Corrigan: Maybe just the process generally. We’re talking about Mr. Shuster at this point. But generally, with regard to the processes, the minister said that the minister would at some point become aware of…. Does the minister approve each and every appointment that is made before it’s made?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That would be a rare event, because it’s more a matter of the board resourcing and development office letting someone like me know that they have a vacancy that’s difficult to fill. It’s a rare occurrence, and I have trouble of thinking of one, actually, where I’m asked for an opinion on an individual.

It’s more a matter of…. In the Advanced Education sphere, with 25 institutions, there are in excess of 200 board positions that need to be filled. So if there is a vacancy that’s difficult to fill, they may approach me and ask if we could suggest someone who would be prepared to work on an audit committee in northern British Columbia, for instance.

K. Corrigan: For example, in the case of Alan Shuster, was that a case…? I’m not sure, actually, about the timing, to be honest. Maybe the minister was not…. Oh, the minister was responsible, because it came from the previous Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. For example, in that case, was the minister aware of that appointment? Did the minister have approval, or did it cross his desk? Did he put his mind to whether that was an appropriate appointment?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Given that these are functions of members of the civil service, I in no way take any role in approving or vetting candidates. That is not my role. My role is to attempt to ensure that the board resourcing office has sufficient candidates to work with to fill the necessary vacancies, and I have no familiarity with the case that the member mentions.

[1520]

K. Corrigan: Would it be then, essentially, Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s role to be the final arbiter of who it is that was recommended for approval? It would go to cabinet eventually. But would she be the person to be responsible for the approval, since you’ve said this didn’t go across your desk?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I said earlier, this is not something where I would have a role, in that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of these appointments that occur. They are administered by civil servants, and, all going smoothly, then I would have no particular contact with the individual appointment. In this one, I had no contact whatsoever.

K. Corrigan: Just to, then, finalize who does have responsibility, the responsibility for that appointment moving forward to cabinet, presumably, would be Ms. Mentzelopoulos. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As most of us in this room know, the civil service deals with a large volume of administrative detail. Deputy ministers become involved when an issue arises or where a managerial decision is required. The individual appointments…. I’m not aware of any role for the deputy minister involved in that particular appointment or any other particular appointment. Most of these appointments flow through the BRDO staff in the normal course and do not require any managerial intervention.

K. Corrigan: Perhaps the minister could check into that and let us know about what the process was in that particular case, whether or not Ms. Mentzelopoulos was involved in that particular appointment. Would that be a request that the minister could fulfil for us?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ll do my best to respond to the query from the member. Of course, Advanced Education staff may not have much of a knowledge or role in that, but I’ll pass on the request.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’d just like a confirmation. I appreciate passing on the request. But perhaps a confirmation from the minister that the minister will find the answer and let us know…. I mean, there is an answer to the question.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I can certainly make inquiries, but, at this point, I have no further information to work with.

K. Corrigan: I want to follow up on that for just a second. No further information to work with. Surely there is an answer. Somebody was the person who had final approval of the recommendation of the appointment of Mr. Shuster. What I’m asking the minister to do is to find out who that was, whether it was Ms. Mentzelopoulos or whether it was somebody else.

Can the minister not assure me that he’ll find that information for me?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I can only repeat my prior answer. The member’s queries have been clearly recorded
[ Page 6983 ]
in Hansard. They will be forwarded and inquiries will be made.

K. Corrigan: Will the minister endeavour to find the answer? Forwarding the query is one thing. Endeavouring and assuring this House that he will find the answer is a different thing. Can I have that assurance from the minister?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In the normal course of estimates inquiries, we’ll make those inquiries. But this is not an examination for discovery, so it’s a different process. We will, as I say, pursue those inquiries.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the minister is likening this to an examination for discovery. It’s very easy if we get an answer and a confirmation that what we ask will be done, particularly when it’s not something that’s all that difficult.

I wanted to go on to Ken Fung, who used a fake name to call into CKNW to attack a candidate in the 2013 election, and who is now on the UBC board of governors. Maybe I’ll mention another name, so we don’t go through the same process with each one. Michael Hillman, long-time Liberal campaign manager, most recently for the Minister of Education, is now on the board of Fraser Health.

[1525]

I would assume that the answer is the same — and the minister can let me know or not — that the minister was not involved in approving either one of those. And the minister will endeavour, commit, to asking the questions and returning the answers to us of Ms. Mentzelopoulos’ role, specifically whether or not she was involved in the approval of — I guess I’m also interested for all three of those names — in the approval or the seeking out of those people to see if they were interested in sitting on those various boards. Can I have confirmation of that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Similar to the previous inquiries, I will make those inquiries and find information that is suitable for estimates.

D. Eby: My question to the minister is relatively straightforward. University of British Columbia students are facing a 20 percent increase in their residence room fees. They’re facing an increase of hundreds of dollars in their meal fees for the meal plan which they’re obligated to buy. The student loans in British Columbia do not cover the full amount of tuition, books, meal plan fees and so on.

If he’s not willing to address this issue of the runaway rents and meal plan costs, is he at least looking at making sure that B.C. students can borrow enough money to be able to go to school?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member asked an interesting question because, as we all know, we have 430,000 students in the province, and 180,000 of them are eligible for student aid from the province. Of that 180,000 eligible students, about 25 percent actually turn to the province for zero-interest loans during the time of their studies.

The profile is that students, increasingly it seems, are finding their own means to pursue their education and are avoiding these zero-percent loans from the province, so we commend them for their resourcefulness. As we all know, not all students have the same resources to work from, and that’s why we have a student loan program and a number of grant programs that are designed to make higher education accessible for all students.

As the member knows, there are 50,000 students at UBC. It’s a thriving organization. We’re fully aware of the increases in the cost of residence, housing and food at UBC, and we defer to UBC, which is a self-governing institution, on how it manages its internal affairs.

D. Eby: Just a short follow-up. The minister may or may not be aware that B.C. students have the highest student debt, despite the low number that take advantage of government student loans. One of the reasons for that is that it’s quite difficult for students to qualify for government student loans.

Many of them put loans on private lines of credit that are underwritten by their parents or by a family friend. I spoke to students who are putting educational expenses on credit cards. The reason for this is the insufficient amounts of money available through the student loan program and the incredibly difficult time they have qualifying for student loans.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

But for the costs of ancillary expenses — we’re talking about residence, books, meal plans and so on — surely the government must be looking at expanding. If they’re not going to do needs-based grants, if they’re not going to do graduate student scholarships, at the very least lend students enough money.

The government actually makes money on student loans. They borrow the money at 4 percent; they lend it at 6 percent. Surely you’ll at least lend students enough money to go to school in British Columbia or wherever they manage to access education.

Certainly for UBC, in my constituency, the student loans are insufficient, and the fact that so few students are accessing them yet debt is so high is evidence of problems in the system and not, as the minister might suggest, of success.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, by now, after the exchanges in the House, I think most are aware that the post-graduation survey indicates that the median student debt incurred by students from all sources after a baccalaureate degree is $20,000.

What this province does is provide a zero-percent stu-
[ Page 6984 ]
dent loan program, not 6 percent as the member opposite suggests. It’s at zero percent until they’ve finished their studies. That is currently running a book of business of $2 billion that we’ve advanced to students. We spend about $80 million a year maintaining that portfolio at zero percent during the term the student studies.

We’re obviously quite impressed with the degree of enrolment, because of the 430,000 students we find in the system, and we actually have slight excess capacity in the system. We’re content that these students are finding their way into the system at the appropriate level of enrolment.

[1530]

In terms of personal lines of credit and otherwise, of course, we respect the privacy of the students and have no information on that. I suggest that if there are any anecdotes, that’s exactly what they are — anecdotes.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a couple of questions about Kwantlen, the compensation reports that were done by MNP and Harris and Company. These reports came about as a result of a determination by the Kwantlen board after the Kwantlen compensation scandals, I guess you would call them — anyway, the problems with compensation — and the involvement of the then Minister of Advanced Education in breaking the compensation rules. As a result, the Kwantlen board of governors did an internal review, and that review resulted in two reports that came back to the board on January 27 and January 28 of 2015.

I’m not going to go into the findings of the reports themselves in too much detail, although if I had time, I would love to do that. I just want to ask more questions, a process question. My first question is about if the minister has any idea why it was that there were two reports that were done for the board of governors.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this question and the answer move quickly into the fields of competence of these two professions and that the accounting firm was retained to deal with the administration process and the accounting financial issues, and the law firm being less concerned with the numbers and the governance issues arising from the accounting report. The two professions were engaged, and without getting into the specifics, as the member noted, there’s a rationale for having both on board, which is not uncommon in this kind of situation.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that. The minister was not the minister when these two reports were ordered, but I’m wondering if the minister knows in what order the reports were done or were requested or put in place by the board. Does the minister know the dates that those happened?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite is correct that I was not involved in this ministry when those reports were commissioned, and I do not have information on when the professionals were engaged. That, of course, may have been initially an oral engagement, followed up by a written retainer letter at a later date. I’m not in position to comment.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister saying that the minister has not been given briefing notes or been briefed on the order that those reports came and background on how they were engaged, and so on?

[1535]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the appropriate role for me in the ministerial role is to be aware of what is colloquially called the upshot of those reports so that the conclusions would be of managerial usage not only to Kwantlen but as a learning experience for the entire sector. I was only involved in the very latest stages when the conclusions became known.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering at what point the minister became aware that the chair of the board, Shane King, and his accounting firm of KNV was in negotiations to be merged with MNP.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I have no awareness of when that was. I presume that that would be governed by the professional standards of the accounting profession.

K. Corrigan: Has the minister not sought any briefing or any information about that process and what the timing was — given the fact that MNP produced a report, one of the two reports, for the board of directors of Kwantlen and then, within days, it was announced that MNP was merged with KNV and, therefore, there was a potential conflict? The minister hasn’t asked questions about that and been briefed on that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: After the recommendations from the law firm and the accounting firm became known, this potential issue came to my attention. The only assurance I sought was if there was any concern within the profession — apparently not the legal profession, because that was an issue there.

In the accounting profession one would presume that their professional standards were observed. Being a self-governing profession, I’m quite happy to leave it in their capable hands.

K. Corrigan: Of course, what I’m referring to is the fact that the board, when Mr. King was the chair of the board, engaged MNP to do a report on what had happened with compensation at Kwantlen and then went on to become a partner of MNP.

The minister is saying that — I wonder if the minister could explain again — the minister proactively sought
[ Page 6985 ]
some kind of assurance that there was no conflict of interest or simply assumed that everything was fine as long as nothing came before the Accounting Standards Board or the governing body?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: My understanding, on my brief inquiries after the accounting report and the legal report conclusions became available to me, was that the accounting firm involved, which is a notable national firm, was the auditor for Kwantlen Polytechnic University for some period before all of this arose.

Given that they were the auditor, it would be a reasonable step for them to take on this particular retainer. If there were any concerns or queries about it, then, being a self-governing profession, anyone with any concerns would be more than free to make a complaint to the appropriate accounting bodies, a professional conduct process, and pursue it in that way.

My level of diligence is satisfied knowing that a very capable national firm had taken it on and that they would manage their internal affairs in terms of conflict of interest.

The Chair: Member, if I might remind you if we could make sure that we’re linking the question to estimates.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair. I do appreciate that.

[1540]

I think the ongoing concerns with compensation at Kwantlen and where we are now with compensation is probably of a great deal of interest to taxpayers, considering that the compensation excesses had impacts on taxpayers of this province and broke the rules that were set by the province in terms of the appropriate compensation.

It has been my experience that it’s perfectly appropriate to ask questions. It has come up more than once while I’ve been in the official opposition and been determined that it’s perfectly appropriate to ask questions about taxpayer issues related not only to the upcoming budget but also a budget from a previous year.

I only have a couple more questions, but it does relate to taxpayers’ money at Kwantlen. I want to ask about the report, because the report is before the minister now. I believe it’s a very recent report. We couldn’t have asked about it last year. It was impossible because the report has only come out in January of 2015. So if the minister is okay with me continuing on, I would like to ask just a couple more questions about those reports.

Has the minister or his staff — the minister, I guess, as it is the ministerial responsibility — had a chance to take a look at the two reports?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I was made aware of the conclusions by the deputy minister and understand that the conclusions have been broadly implemented. That satisfied my need to learn from the reports.

K. Corrigan: Was the minister aware of the fact that there seemed to be a real difference in conclusions and comments — certainly comments — between the two reports? I’ll just give you an example.

On page 10 of the MNP report it says: “Our review did not indicate the existence of any further pre-employment contracts during the review period additional to those already publicly identified.” Never mentioned the pre-employment contracts of George Verghese or Elizabeth Worobec, whereas the Harris report mentioned specifically George Verghese and Elizabeth Worobec and says: “These pre-employment contracts, which have been reported in the media, were not consistent with KPU’s approved compensation plan, and they were not approved by PSEC.”

There is that, and there are numerous others, like 90 days of furnished housing for George Verghese. There are a whole bunch of other things. I guess I have two points to make, and I’m interested in the minister’s response.

First of all, maybe it is a different approach, but from looking at the two reports, I would characterize the MNP report as being, in many regards, in some of the areas that are most politically sensitive, what I would call a whitewash and even misleading, whereas the Harris report seems to me to be more straightforward. It mentioned names. It mentioned amounts and is very clear that there was breaking of the compensation rules. That’s one concern. Maybe I’ll get a response on that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I am not aware of the scope of the retainer of either letter or the questions asked of those two professional organizations, I simply can’t comment. I’m actually pleased to hear that the full scope of issues was canvassed between the two reports.

K. Corrigan: My point was not that the full scope of issues was canvassed through the two reports. My point was that one report seemed to whitewash. One report was obscure in the way it worded things and misleading. The other report was not. That’s why I’m asking, and perhaps the minister can endeavour to find out.

[1545]

The MNP report — I’ve talked about the connections there. Was that ordered…? Was that an earlier engagement, and was that started off? I guess, getting to the point: was the Harris report brought in at some point because there were concerns about the relationship?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I say, I’m not aware of the date or the scope of the retainers or the questions asked or the time frame. I am aware that the conclusions were broadly addressed in a prompt fashion, and the issue has been largely, if not entirely, resolved.
[ Page 6986 ]

I must object to the member opposite characterizing a leading national accounting firm as engaging in anything that could be characterized as a whitewash.

K. Corrigan: I guess if I haven’t seen the terms of reference and so on, I don’t know either. I’m telling you: I read the two reports. I compared them, in many respects, word for word. If not a whitewash, I would characterize the MNP report as certainly being a lot softer, a lot more obscure and far less pointed and informative than the Harris report was.

Given the fact that then Mr. King ended up being a partner in MNP, I think it’s a natural thing for somebody to look at it and simply answer the question.

If the minister can endeavour to find out the dates, that would be very helpful to me. If the minister could endeavour to find out the dates that the two reports were commissioned, how much work was done, first, and whether or not the Harris report was commissioned, second.

If the minister could commit to do that, I probably don’t have any more questions about the reports.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We can make those inquiries and sort out whether and how they should be disclosed. As I say, if the member opposite has concerns about the conduct of the accounting firm, she knows exactly where to write with a professional conduct complaint.

K. Corrigan: I’m partly raising that for the content of the reports itself. But I’m also raising it because I’m wondering…. This is more directly related to the ministry now, or a ministry, and I may be pointed in another direction on this. But the report from Mr. Mingay very clearly was within a mandate.

I don’t have them right in front of me today, but there were e-mails later that said, essentially, that it is not an option — my interpretation and others’ interpretation on this — to ignore, basically, a lot of the other information that was not within the mandate or not within the scope of the Mingay report.

I’m wondering, given what was in these two reports — the MNP report and, particularly, the Harris report: has the minister taken any further steps to satisfy himself that there was an appropriate scope of inquiry by Mr. Mingay? And if there were things, matters about compensation, that were not covered in the Mingay report, are they somehow being covered and looked into by the minister himself at this point?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think this is a prime example of the machinery of government and of governance at the university working satisfactorily in that between these three queries — the accounting report, the legal report and Mr. Mingay’s efforts — the issue that had arisen, that is, of board information and knowledge of executive compensation roles, has been thoroughly addressed. It has certainly been thoroughly addressed at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and the issue is now essentially complete.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister can then say it’s complete, and it would maybe be complete if all we are talking about is whether or not we have all the facts with regard to the breaking of compensation rules at Kwantlen University while the then Minister of Advanced Education was there.

But I think there’s a larger question, and that is the question of the appropriateness of reviews — whether or not reviews are constructed in such a way that they truly do get at all the information that’s appropriate and necessary and that should be made public.

[1550]

It seems to me that in the case of the Mingay report, Mr. Mingay did fulfil what was within his mandate, although it turned out that he had to amend his report because the then Minister of Advanced Education misled this House about various matters, and the report had to be amended.

The Chair: Member, if I might remind you of your last comment about someone misleading the House.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair. You can remind me. I appreciate it. I won’t use the word again. It was my understanding that the word “misled” is appropriate but the words “willfully misleading” are not. But if there’s been a change of practice in the House, I will not use the word again.

Given that Mr. Mingay had to redo his report, I think the overarching concern is the fact that the report, the work that happened in this House, did not get to the bottom of what happened. It got to part of the story but not the whole story. There was other compensation rule-breaking that happened at Kwantlen University while the then Minister of Advanced Education was there and that did not make it into that report.

I don’t agree that it’s satisfactory in terms of process and accountability and transparency to say: “Well, between what Kwantlen did and what happened here, it’s appropriate.” To me, it shows that we have a review that was not complete enough, and it’s certainly not the only review of this government that has turned out to not cover all the issues that it should have in order to have full transparency.

I don’t know if the minister wants to respond or if he wants me to ask another question.

J. Shin: I would like to continue my line of questions on the topic from where we left off last time.

While I can understand the minister’s response that the ministry has provided $295 million since 2001, I can’t ac-
[ Page 6987 ]
cept that he points to the university for falling short of tending to all the deferred maintenance when the sum works out to be just over $20 million per year for all the capital projects. That practically leaves nothing — if any, very little — for the upkeep, which alone costs about $12 million a year.

I don’t buy that the minister can provide a $4 budget for a $100 job, increase it to about $18 and expect this institution to be able to run the operation without having outstanding problems that will eventually catch up to us, like it did for the Louis Riel House.

The minister mentioned in his response that he plans to work with the university to come up with solutions for the varied cases like that of the Louis Riel House. I do have an e-mail today from the Louis Riel residence community calling for the minister’s attention to this matter, and it’s in absolute desperation. They say:

“…122 families composed of graduate and undergraduate students and their children and mothers-to-be are to evacuate the building by August 31, 2015, without any consideration or help, unfortunately, to relocate, when they were promised that they would have a roof over their heads at Louis Riel House until they complete their education.”

I’m hoping that the minister can please elaborate what he meant by his plans with SFU and when we can expect that conversation to take place with the ministry and the institution. The clock is ticking on this issue, and my constituents are expecting an answer.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think it’s a bit of a sad commentary that the member opposite, having been involved in government for less than two years, refers to a $200 million fund as leaving practically nothing. This is a serious capital investment with serious taxpayers’ money. That’s $50 per capita for British Columbians. It’s a serious commitment to capital investment and capital maintenance.

The second point I’d make is that there is a capital threshold at the institutions. Below that, it falls within their operating budgets. Above the capital threshold, it goes into the capital account and is dealt with as a capital expense rather than an operating expense.

Lastly, in terms of the particulars of this case, we have a University Act. Our universities are self-governing. They have their own board of governors. They have their own revenue-generating mechanisms. They have the ability to charge tuition. They are entirely self-governing at that level.

[1555]

If there’s an issue with SFU’s relationship with the residents of Louis Riel House, my understanding is limited to the fact that they have had six months notice and the offer of substantial assistance with relocation. That is entirely a matter that is internal to Simon Fraser University.

J. Shin: I do need to make a comment on the minister’s response. I do appreciate where he’s coming from, but I think one also needs to keep in mind that the $295 million was done over a stretch of 14 years, and we’re looking at gross underfunding across the province on public post-secondary education. With that said, I will leave it at that point.

I will move on to another question. One of the things that the Liberal government did when coming into office in 2001 was bringing universities into the government reporting entity and preventing them from, essentially, being able to borrow to build any new buildings that were not in the provincial capital plan.

Now, there was a promise, as the minister is aware, in the 2010 Liberal throne speech from the former Premier that “legislation will be introduced enabling…universities to remove themselves from the government reporting entity” so that the accounting policy wouldn’t get “in the way of our students’ interests or hold our universities back from pursuing their unique areas of excellence in partnership with others.” That’s the quote.

Unfortunately, this legislation, as we know, was never introduced, and universities continue to be bound by accounting rules against common sense. I would appreciate the minister’s comments on this.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I again have to take some surprise at the concept that the member characterizes a budget of $1.911 billion — $5.3 million a day, about $400 per capita for every human being in this province — as being gross underfunding. Universities are autonomous. They have their own funding mechanisms. If the member opposite seems to think that the universities should be raising tuition above the 2 percent cap that we’ve placed on them, she should come out and say so.

In terms of the government accounting rules, there is a very good reason why this province has been successful in having balanced budgets the last three years and has an extraordinarily good credit rating. It’s because we manage our affairs in a very businesslike fashion and we have accounting controls in place.

If the member opposite seems to think we should discard those accounting controls, that would come as a very significant surprise to everyone in this province, who would start paying major amounts of interest to international financial institutions rather than putting them into student services at the university level.

Now, the member opposite should also be fully aware that Simon Fraser University has run a very successful campaign for over a decade now in developing property on Burnaby Mountain at what is known as the UniverCity development, which has been a smashing success and has generated revenue which is available at Simon Fraser University for its ongoing operations. So it would seem that the member’s questions are perhaps misplaced on every count.

K. Corrigan: I have questions about student loan reviews. I am wondering how many reviews have been conducted of the student financial aid system or student loan system since 2009.

[1600]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The essence of the question, I think, is: is there a review process for the student aid program? I have learned that there are 35 staff who work in the Ministry of Advanced Education on student financial aid. They have ongoing administrative reviews that are managed by the assistant deputy minister.

K. Corrigan: I would say, ongoing reviews — I think that’s an appropriate thing. I’m glad to hear that.

Actually, when I hear of government talking about the fact that there is going to be yet another review, I’ve always thought: “Well, isn’t that what governments are supposed to be consistently doing?”

But I’m thinking of something a little bit more formal. Is the minister saying that there have been no more formalized reviews of the student financial aid system or student loan system since 2009?

[1605]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite made reference to a named report earlier. I gather that that is a report that was commissioned and was received by the ministry.

K. Corrigan: I’m not sure I mentioned it. It might have been one of my colleagues. Maybe I’ll ask the minister what it was that one of us was previously talking about. Maybe I’ll ask: was that the Deetken Enterprises Inc. report for $66,600?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Although we’re not able to confirm that dollar figure as the cost of the report, that is the name of the report that I was referring to.

K. Corrigan: I really wasn’t trying to lay a trap for the minister on that. To be honest, I just was given some information that that was, in fact, the name of a report, and I didn’t have that information when I asked the question.

Is that review the only review that has happened — a more formalized review, as I asked in a previous question — of the student loan or financial aid system since 2009? Then, to follow up on that, if that’s the only one, what recommendations were made, and what recommendations were adopted? Perhaps the minister can provide us with an update on that or even something in writing.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m not familiar with the report. Of course, it’s not in the room here, so I’m inclined to take the member opposite up on her suggestion that she receive a written response about the scope, tenor and content of that report.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the spokesperson for Advanced Education for giving me a couple of minutes to ask the minister a question, and congratulations to the minister on his new role. I’m going to fill him in on a situation that I have filled every minister in his position in the last few years in on. It is in regards to Northwest Community College’s School of Exploration and Mining.

This is an award-winning school. It won the Premier’s Award from then Premier Gordon Campbell. It has won an award from the Mining Association of B.C. They have been very successful in graduating students and are having success at finding them almost immediately in the workforce, in the mining exploration sector especially — and very focused on First Nations in the northwest. First Nations from around the province have also attended their program.

The unique aspect of the program is that it’s a field situation. They have tents with computers in them. The students stay, actually, in the field during the six-month program. They’ve always depended on labour market agreement funding for the last few years in order to survive. In fact, it’s oftentimes, sometimes, a week before they find themselves out of funding that they get renewed — in the past.

We know that that funding agreement is going to be coming to an end. In fact, they’re struggling now, and they’ve consistently made representations to the ministry to try to roll their programming into, for lack of a better word, core funding. It’s part of what the ministry sponsors in ongoing programming.

My question to the minister is: in this upcoming fiscal year and in this three-year budget cycle — but more particularly in this upcoming fiscal year — will there be funding to roll the Northwest Community College’s School of Exploration and Mining programming into a continuing funding situation under the Ministry of Advanced Education?

[1610]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m pleased to advise that I’ve now learned that the exploration program that the member opposite refers to has been funded for the coming year. We’re constantly reviewing these things. This is obviously a priority.

We’ll be doing what we can to work with Northwest Community College, which is a valued institution in the northwest of our province that serves a huge area of the province. We’ll be in ongoing contact with them about the long-term plans for this program.

K. Corrigan: I have a question about the Agriculture Centre of Excellence associated with the University of the Fraser Valley. It is the University of the Fraser Valley Agriculture Centre of Excellence. I just have a couple questions about who is responsible for the ongoing funding of the Centre of Excellence.

I note that the project revenue, and I would assume this is for the capital costs…. The Ministry of Advanced Education made individually the most substantial investment in the Centre of Excellence — $1 million.
[ Page 6989 ]

My understanding, though, is that operationally the resources are strapped and that the funding that is needed to keep that going is not sufficient. I’m wondering what involvement the Ministry of Advanced Education has in the ongoing operational funding of the Agriculture Centre of Excellence.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m pleased to advise the capital cost of this has been dealt with, and the facility is up and running in Chilliwack. I had the pleasure of touring it and meeting some very friendly cows and a couple of goats and some plants and a very attractive and high-tech canopied facility.

The ongoing operating cost of this is being completely absorbed into the University of the Fraser Valley budget. It’s anticipated to operate successfully for many years to come.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister aware — may or may not be aware — of other sources of funding, or is it entirely from the University of the Fraser Valley?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m advised that roughly two-thirds of the capital cost came from Western Economic Diversification and roughly a third from our Ministry of Advanced Education. The operating costs are being managed internally by the University of the Fraser Valley, and it’s a very happy and productive learning environment.

[1615]

K. Corrigan: We talked yesterday, I guess, a little bit about funding and how funding is divided among the various institutions. Did the University of the Fraser Valley, or will it in this budget, get any funding in order to pay for the operational costs that are associated with having the Agriculture Centre of Excellence? Otherwise, it would look like the university has to divert funding from other programs.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I have now learned that this new facility, which I had the privilege of visiting, is now housing, as I say, a number of animals and some very able instructors and students. They have been moved from other areas of the UFV campus. This is actually part and parcel of the ongoing operating envelope for the University of the Fraser Valley. Once the capital cost was incurred, the operating cost was readily managed by UFV from its internal budget.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask what happened to the review of the degree approval process that was undertaken in 2011. I think it was otherwise known as the Stubbs report. Can the minister tell me that and then run through which recommendations, if any, have been implemented? Does the minister anticipate bringing forward any other changes?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Although we have an extraordinarily able group of senior civil servants around me, none of them were here when those events occurred. So we are going to impose on the goodwill of the member opposite by providing a written answer.

K. Corrigan: That would be fine. That’ll actually speed things up for me because time is running out.

I wanted to ask what I referred to yesterday, probably, as a bunch of short snappers. I have a bunch of questions, one-off questions, most of them. Then we’ll go to GCPE after that.

My first question is….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Do I want to read these questions into the record? Sure, that might be a good idea, to read some of them into the record. Some of them I would like an answer for.

The first question is about Kathryn Laurin. I think I’d actually like to see if there is an answer for this one. Kathryn Laurin was appointed to a second five-year term on January 16, 2014 at Camosun College and was dismissed without cause on June 20, 2014. My question is: why?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m sure the member opposite will understand that, this being a human resources issue at Camosun College, we’re not in a position to comment.

K. Corrigan: Well, my question then is: did the ministry have any role in her dismissal?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer is no.

K. Corrigan: So just to confirm. The minister is saying there was no role. There was no communication in advance about that dismissal.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: My prior answer stands. This is an internal HR issue at Camosun College, and the ministry was not involved.

K. Corrigan: I wonder if the minister could let me know what severance amount was paid out.

[1620]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We have no information on that issue. I suspect perhaps a freedom-of-information request to Camosun might be the path to follow. Whether that would be fruitful in a human resources issue, I don’t know.

K. Corrigan: Maybe I’ll just ask the minister if it’s appropriate for the minister…. I’m not suggesting that the
[ Page 6990 ]
minister break any rules or privacy information or confidentiality requirements, but if nothing in that regard is broken, I’m wondering if the minister could save us some trouble and find out what the severance amount was.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To the extent that that’s within our bailiwick and authority and statutory authority, we’ll look into that.

K. Corrigan: Scott McAlpine left Douglas College quite suddenly also. I’m wondering the same questions. Can the minister explain why? When did the ministry know? Did the ministry have any role? And what was the severance pay to Mr. McAlpine?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope this will be seen as helpful and designed to expedite matters rather than be difficult, but the answers are identical to the previous sequence of answers.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a quick question going back to Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I wanted to ask about the Chip and Shannon Wilson School of Design.

On August 18, 2014 there was an e-mail from the vice-president of administration, Harry Gray, to colleagues, to staff, basically, at Kwantlen, saying that there were bids received — this is August 18 — for the construction of the building. This would be the Chip and Shannon Wilson School of Design. All the bids received were well over the pre-tender budget, and they were entering negotiations with the lowest bidder.

A further e-mail on December 5 says: “I’m writing to update you on this project. As you may know, bids for construction of the building were received on July 24, 2014. All bids received were significantly over the pre-tender budget. After a comprehensive review of the bids, it’s been decided that the full tender process will be cancelled.”

I’m wondering what the status is of the Chip and Shannon Wilson School of Design at Kwantlen.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The happy ending to the story is that the building is in the process of being reinitiated with a new approach. The necessary steps of approval are well underway, and we expect to have this fine concept building come to fruition in the foreseeable future.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering what that new approach is.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, in any construction project that proves not to be successful due to unanticipated high costs, the design is being reworked so that it will be more affordable, and then the plan will be to execute on that more affordable design.

K. Corrigan: Maybe this is one that we can worry about getting in writing — maybe a report back on how much money the provincial government has spent on this project to date, how much money Kwantlen has spent to date and how much money, if the information is available, Chip Wilson or Lululemon has contributed to date. It would be fine to get that back at a future date.

The minister has nodded. Let it be on the record that the minister has nodded.

[1625]

I also wanted to ask about the traditional Chinese medicine school at Kwantlen University. I would like, just perhaps, to read in a couple of questions on this one. One of the questions was: why was the copy of the parliamentary secretary’s role withheld in an FOI, and will the minister make it available? Was the report withheld because it indicated there’s no demand for the school or any feasible model for proceeding?

How many schools participated in the bidding process? Can it be confirmed that Kwantlen was the only remaining bidder? Can the minister provide an estimate of the cost to Kwantlen going forward and costs incurred to date? And can the minister give us an idea of the demand for the program?

Unless the minister would like to answer those questions now, I’ll leave it at that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In the spirit of cooperation and expediting events, both the prior question and this question will be answered in writing.

K. Corrigan: There has been a task force for several years in Maple Ridge trying to attract a post-secondary campus. My question for the minister is probably one we can just answer right now. Is the minister aware of, or has he met with, the Maple Ridge post-secondary task force? What are the options? What discussions, if there have been discussions, has he had? And has he spoken with Douglas College, which was seen as a prime candidate in a partnership that would bring a campus to Maple Ridge?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am not personally aware of this initiative and, obviously, will listen with great interest when it comes to my attention. Of course, there are many communities around the province that realize the benefits of having post-secondary institution facilities in their communities. We can see the benefits of that in places like Kamloops, where TRU has been a major salubrious influence on the development of that community. We see it with UBC Okanagan and with a variety of other institutions, so this is not surprising. We’ll work with that when we see a proposal.

K. Corrigan: Maybe this is another one that I’ll read into the lease — or read into the record. You’ll see why I said that word in just a second. Then I’ll move on to the GCPE budget. This has to do with a BCIT and VCC lease at 1608 Cliveden in Delta.
[ Page 6991 ]

The questions are: can the minister explain the long-term lease that his predecessor approved for the Motive Power Centre on Annacis Island? Can the minister provide an estimate for the cost of that lease to the schools over the length of the agreement? And can the minister provide the last purchase price of that building and its current assessment?

Can the minister confirm that the government’s accounting rules prevent the institutions from borrowing to purchase a building and that they are, therefore, forced to enter into a lease arrangement? Our information is that it’s at five times the purchase cost. Can the minister outline political donations made from the owner of the building that this lease covers? And have there been costs incurred on top of the basic lease since 2014 — costs for usage or stains on the floor — and can the minister provide that number — an estimate of costs to come over the length of the agreement?

I know that’s a lot of questions, but if we could get the report back on that, that would be appreciated.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the member opposite is correct that we’ll have to address that with a written response.

If that’s the last of the short snappers, perhaps we could take a ten-minute break and regroup.

The Chair: That sounds like a good idea. This committee stands recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I’ll just defer to the minister, who would like to make a few comments.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The most gracious member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has allowed me a moment to introduce the people here: the Deputy Minister for GCPE, Mr. John Paul Fraser; and Assistant Deputy Ministers Denise Champion and Kelly Gleeson.

K. Corrigan: I’m going to start with just a little bit of a review of the budgets and contingency budgets for government communications and public engagement over the last few years.

In the discussion — the Public Accounts meeting dealing with the Auditor General report entitled Distinguishing Between Government Program and Partisan Political Advertising — we asked some questions about the amount of the advertising budget in the estimates and then also asked some questions about the actual spending. What we found, the response that we got, was that…. I think Mr. Fraser, actually, said that….

Here are the numbers. I’ll work backwards. In 2014-15 the budget was $8.66 million, but, in addition, there was a contingency. It was described. I think it’s an internal reallocation and draws on contingencies — an additional $312,000 for 2014-15.

In 2013-14 the budgeted amount for government communications and public engagement was $8.538 million, but the contingency — in additional contingency allocation — was $3.689 million.

For 2012 and ’13, the budgeted amount was $16.3 million. I’d note that it’s almost double in the year before the election, and people can draw their own conclusions on that. So $16.3 million — that’s the amount that was budgeted, but the contingency amount of extra money that was actually spent in 2012-13 was $21.036 million.

A total of about $37.3 million was spent in the election year, with most of that money coming from contingency. I guess I’m not going to ask the minister for opinions on that. I think people can draw their own conclusions if they do have conclusions about that. But I do want to ask about why it is, generally, that so much is being spent on government communications budget that is not budgeted for. Why is there such a large expenditure on contingencies year after year?

[1650]

[M. Morris in the chair.]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: On reviewing the budgetary history, I believe the member had the numbers correct, but I just want to go over them. For fiscal ’14-15 we have a blue book budget of $8.661 million and approved contingencies of $1.642 million. Expenditures are still to be determined because we haven’t reached the end of the fiscal year. And of course, the base amount includes things like wildfire prevention and immunization and all of those things.

The fiscal 2013-14 budget — $8.538 million, and the approved contingency is $3.689 million. The total expenditures would add up to roughly $12.4 million in the actual expenditures on a revised budget of $7.432 million and actual expenditures of $7.039 million.

Now, the member referred to 2012-13, which was a blue book budget of $16.305 million and contingencies of $21.036 million. The total revised budget was $37.341 million, but the expenditures were roughly $6 million less at $31.762 million. I believe the member pointed out that a substantial component of that was the jobs plan advertising, which actually straddled a couple of fiscal years.

K. Corrigan: I’m not going to get into the fact that, as I said, it was so much higher in the year before the election.

Just looking forward, how much is the budget for advertising within GCPE — the budget this year?

[1655]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I have been able to elaborate this with the staff.
[ Page 6992 ]

Interestingly, in the 2014-15 blue book budget…. I think this is because I moved to this ministry and the GCPE followed me, if I can be so audacious as to suggest that was the sequence, rather than the other way around. Then the Advanced Education budget included $4.537 million in the current fiscal year, and $3.537 million of that was a GCPE-allocated budget that included things like wildfire prevention, domestic violence, adoption awareness, and so forth.

If we take that $4.537 million item and add on an Education-related budget of a little over $1 million, a Finance-related budget of a little over $1 million and a Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training budget of $1.672 million — much of which was funded by the federal government and dealing with labour market development — that provides the 2014-15 blue book budget of $8.661 million.

K. Corrigan: What is the approved contingency to date? I guess it’s almost the end of the year.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I mentioned before, the blue book budget for the current fiscal is $8.661 million. There was an additional pool of funds from reallocations and access to STOB 67 frozen funds of $1.642 million, of which nothing was spent. No dollars were spent out of that $1.642 million fund.

K. Corrigan: Maybe a general question. This most recent number from the minister demonstrates why I’m asking the question, I guess.

Why is it, overall, that we do have a budget allocation in the blue book, and then we have an approved contingency that is so much more than the budget? Why is this the ongoing operation of this ministry? Why does that happen in this ministry?

[1700]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The communications budget does vary from year to year. Of course, it is at times difficult to predict what’s going to happen in a year, whether it be a particularly volatile fire season or a flu epidemic.

I note in fiscal 2012-13 there were health expenditures that were quite substantial. First of all, the new CareCard program — that was over $1 million. There was a substantial health prevention improvement strategy program — about $1.4 million — and Think Health B.C., which is $4.3 million and dealing with things like salt intake and so forth. That explained a substantial chunk of the contingency budget in 2012-13.

K. Corrigan: It would be helpful, I think, to get maybe a breakdown of what that $21.03 million was, if that’s okay, in writing.

At this point, I think I have a few questions that I want to ask, but I’ll get some on the record. I’m seeing the time. I know that my colleague has been waiting patiently to start the Agriculture estimates. Maybe I’ll just fire off a bunch of things so that we could maybe get the answers in writing.

The first one is a breakdown of that $21 million in 2012-13. What is the budget for 2014 for advertising and for the B.C. jobs plan? With regard to the B.C. jobs plan for this coming year — ’15-16 is what I’m talking about — what proportion of that budget is directed at advertising internationally?

Then I wanted to ask, as well, about Fleischman Hilliard, one of the firms the government has retained. I’m wondering what kind of work the firm is doing for government and what works the firm has already completed — and the same question with regard to Kirk and Co. and Pace.

[1705]

Answers to those questions would be helpful — also an update on the firms that are part of the standing offer roster for research services and a breakdown of polling in the past fiscal year and in the next fiscal year, if that makes sense. Tell me if it doesn’t, because I can certainly look at that question again.

Then, apart from that, I do want to ask a couple more questions that are directly related to one firm, and that is Kimbo Design. For 2014-15 there were a number of contracts that went to Kimbo.

I’m wondering if I could get an explanation of the work that was done. Maybe I’ll ask a couple of these just to see and get an answer. For example, Kimbo did a project, a contract, which is described as — this is on the government website — “a Work B.C. social media blogger and LinkedIn.” I’m wondering what that exactly means and what kind of blogging. How many people were reached, if we have that information, with that particular contract?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ve learned now that Kimbo Design did work for GCPE in the past 11.8 months and that that included work related to the Work B.C. program and the temporary education support of $40 a day for parents during the school strike last fall. Virtually all of the parents signed up. One can come to one’s own conclusions, but the social media presence and other communication of that program likely assisted in the almost complete sign-up of parents for that program.

[1710]

The funds provided to Kimbo were used not only to compensate Kimbo for their efforts. In fact, the vast majority of the funds went to the media buy in social media and the advertising on web services, so the net payable to Kimbo was a small fraction of the amount of the contract.

K. Corrigan: I wasn’t going to get into it, but since the minister has raised the particular contract that had to do with the teachers…. One of the tweets that I believe was part of the work that Kimbo did was: “BCTF. Twice as much in wages and benefits, including a $5,000 signing bonus. Refusing to open schools during bargaining.”
[ Page 6993 ]

That will just bring me to a different question. Given the report by the Auditor General, which talked about the appropriateness of different types of advertising and saying that government advertising was to be non-partisan, does the minister consider that that tweet I just read was a non-partisan piece of advertising?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member points out that during the labour negotiations with the B.C. Teachers Federation, the government embarked upon and fulfilled its responsibility to communicate the position of the government with British Columbians, especially with parents.

This is an important issue that touched the families in all of our communities, and certainly my own family. That’s why social media were used. It’s a very effective tool to reach British Columbians. The bcparentinfo.ca website was launched and communicated through social media and otherwise to get information out to parents about the $40 grant.

K. Corrigan: This is nothing to do with the $40 a day for child care. The minister hasn’t really answered my question. Maybe I’ll just ask again, very specifically: “Twice as much in wages and benefits, including a $5,000 signing bonus. Refusing to open schools during bargaining.” Does the minister consider that that is a non-partisan ad or tweet?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I don’t think it’s my role to pass judgment on the intent of words expressed on social media, particularly when I’m not even sure of the attribution of those words and whether they were done on someone’s personal account or otherwise.

K. Corrigan: I certainly wouldn’t want to hold the minister if it was not something that was done with taxpayers’ money, but I would appreciate a comment from the minister on it. Certainly, if it wasn’t appropriately attributed, we would withdraw that. But that’s what the tweet was.

We understand that it was part of using taxpayers’ money for that ad. The minister may say that he doesn’t want to comment on whether it is or not, but the fact is it was money from his ministry that paid a contract to Kimbo during the teachers strike that used those very words.

To suggest that there is no reason to comment on it…. It’s money that the minister was responsible for. Once again, does the minister think that that’s a non-partisan ad?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the only appropriate response is that I’d be happy to see the document that that arises from and perhaps the source and provide a response in writing, because I am just not familiar with it at all.

[1715]

K. Corrigan: I’ve read it twice, so I think the minister could probably understand what the meaning of it is. I’ve already said that we wouldn’t attribute it if it wasn’t appropriately sourced. I just was asking the minister’s opinion.

If this was in fact something that was produced with government dollars, does the minister think that that is an appropriately non-partisan wording for an ad paid for by taxpayers?

If the minister is not willing to ask because of attribution, then that’s fine. The minister can tell me that again, and I will put it in writing. We will seek the attribution, and my understanding is that the minister will then respond back in writing as to whether or not he confirms that this, in his opinion, is a non-partisan ad. Is that fair enough?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the member opposite has encapsulated my view with reasonable accuracy. I’m not in a position to express my subjective opinions on these things, estimates being an objective process to determine the contents of the budget. We’ll be more than happy to receive the documents that the member is referring to and respond in writing.

K. Corrigan: I would certainly agree that sometimes the estimates process is objective.

Maybe the last thing that I’ll do is…. I just want to mention a few of the contracts with KIMBO and perhaps can get back in writing later about what the contracts were for, what kind of work was done. Then that’ll be the end of my questions.

So maybe I’ll take this opportunity to thank the minister and to thank the staff — and the other staff that were here earlier that spent the bulk of the time here.

My questions are about…. Well, I can give the list to the minister. I would imagine that it’s on the open government website. But I can certainly…. It’s a list of all the KIMBO contracts, and I’d just be interested in what kind of work was done for each of those contracts. For example, the Welcome B.C. ad words, the Work B.C. social media blogger, and so on — just some information about what kind of work was performed in each of those contracts.

Would that be okay? If you need this, you can have it. Otherwise….

Okay. Thank you very much.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member has indicated that she’ll provide us with written queries on a number of issues, and we’ll be happy to respond in due course.

I believe that brings our estimates debate to a close, and we’ll now be in a position to read the resolutions and hold the vote.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,923,282,000 — approved.

Vote 14: government communications and public engagement, $37,324,000 — approved.
[ Page 6994 ]

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess, and Agriculture will be up next.

The committee recessed from 5:18 p.m. to 5:22 p.m.

[M. Morris in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $64,823,000.

The Chair: Minister, did you want to make some opening comments?

Hon. N. Letnick: Sure. It would be my pleasure and privilege.

Actually, I would first say that in the two times that I’ve been given the privilege of this office of Minister of Agriculture, this is the first time that I’ve had the privilege of doing an estimates from start to finish. I look forward to being here with the opposition critic and her colleagues to answer any questions that they may have, with the great team that I have here, serving all of British Columbia.

In particular, we have, from the ministry, Derek Sturko, the deputy minister, on my right; on my left, James Mack, assistant deputy minister, agriculture science and policy division. We have Grant Parnell, assistant deputy minister of business development division behind me; and Michael Lord, CSNR executive director and CFO, who is also behind us.

Additional staff will come and go as we work through these estimates. I’ll probably introduce them again, but specifically, we have Brian Underhill from the land commission. We also have Shaundehl Runka from the land commission and Jim Collins from the B.C. Farm Industry Review Board.

I’d like to thank each of the ministry’s employees for their hard work and commitment — we have over 300 employees working in Agriculture, and they work hard, of course, all year round — and in particular, for their work last year. Collectively, their contribution has helped to improve the lives of over 60,000 British Columbians working in the agrifood sector. It’s quite a diverse group of people out there in British Columbia, producing the food that we consume, and also doing value-added to that food.

[1725]

It’s been a year of success for B.C. farmers and food producers. The feeling I’m hearing from farmers around B.C., including the value-added people, is one of pride for their accomplishments over the last year and a great sense of optimism going forward.

The government has expanded some programs. In particular, our B.C. Buy Local program has seen an additional $4 million to help British Columbians buy local products from our farmers and food processors — in particular, to help them promote their products and support food security in British Columbia.

I’m sure we’ll talk about it some more, but the nice thing about the Buy Local program is it’s like co-op dollars in business. I’m sure everyone out there who’s watching — all 100,000 of you — who has business experience understands the principle of a co-op. For those that don’t, it’s where the advertiser usually puts in 50-cent dollars and somebody else puts in the 50 cents. That way we leverage it up. In this case it’s taxpayers that are putting in 50-cent dollars and the local proponents that are putting in 50 cents. So we get a lot bigger bang for our $4 million.

The Buy Local program has seen huge success throughout British Columbia promoting local foods. And to every purchase, of course, you will see a contribution to jobs in British Columbia.

The government also recently announced our $8.4 million, seven-year fruit tree replant program in December. The new replant program builds on the recent success of growers who replanted low-value orchards with high-demand, high-quality varieties like Ambrosia, Honeycrisp — both of which are some of my favourites, of course — and late-season cherries. We’ve had some great success with cherries in Asia, which I’ll touch on in a few minutes as well.

The replant program will continue to help B.C. fruit producers be more competitive and earn new dollars, not only domestically but also abroad in international markets.

Another way that ministry programs are helping B.C. producers succeed is by helping them access those expanding markets, those new markets. As we all know, the United States is a market that’s immediately south of us and has been traditionally our top market. It still continues to be our number one market in terms of dollars, but in terms of growth we see our market opportunities happening around the world, in particular with our Asian brothers and sisters in China, Japan, South Korea and India, as well as other markets.

We have to continue to not only look south and try to get those small percentage increases — a 4 percent or 5 percent increase in the American market is worth a big increase in those other markets because they’re starting at a smaller base number — but also continue to work with the newer markets overseas.

[J. Martin in the chair.]

Specifically, in that case we as a ministry led a B.C. delegation on a trade mission to China back in June of last year. It was my first visit to China. It was a privilege to go along with our federal minister, Minister Ritz, and a team of industry people — in particular, those that wanted to see cherries have access to the Chinese market and
[ Page 6995 ]
blueberries have access to the Chinese market, and also pork products. We had three industry representatives in those areas.

Thanks to great collaboration between the industry, provincial and federal governments, we were able to secure open access for cherries, and we should see somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million to $25 million fairly soon — increase in exports to China in terms of cherries. And of course, we’re continuing to work hard to see access for blueberries into the Chinese market, which I hope, and we all hope, will come sooner rather than later.

“Building markets for B.C. foods,” a themed trade mission, included several deals that could increase B.C. agrifoods exports by about $100 million in a few years — in particular, the cherries and the blueberries, as I’ve discussed before.

In total, B.C. agrifood exports to China reached $264 million in 2014, the highest that we’ve ever seen, the fifth record-setting year in a row. That’s extremely powerful for our farmers. They get the clear message as to what is hot and maybe what is not as they decide what they want to grow on their land.

[1730]

In fact, in 2014 we in British Columbia exported a record $3 billion of agrifood products to more than 150 countries. That’s an increase of about $200 million from the year before. Again, that’s the highest-ever that we’ve seen. That helps us, of course, not only in the primary food sector but has huge implications for our value-added sector, which I’ll touch on in a few minutes.

The government continues to build on that through our trade missions and representatives abroad, our attendance at key trade shows and our efforts in B.C. with workshops and seminars helping local companies prepare and access new customers overseas.

I had the privilege of attending one of those workshops over the last few months and actually saw what people were doing on the ground, not only trying to help our folks right here in British Columbia export — understand what export means — but also, in another workshop, bringing in people that are buying locally from our biggest and smallest retail chains, matching them up with value-added farmers and primary producers and helping them build those relationships and those connections. That was key also, not only for them but for the expansion of agrifoods here in British Columbia.

So $4.3 million — the B.C. agrifoods export program provides matching funds to support industry participation at international trade shows, promotional events and incoming and outgoing trade missions and to develop marketing materials for international audiences. The export program is just one of the many results of our partnership and very good relationship with our federal government partners in Ottawa.

We make sure our industry voices are heard in Ottawa. We do so in a collaborative way. Part of my responsibility is to make sure that Minister Ritz understands our priorities here in British Columbia and that we understand their priorities so that we can work together to expand our agrifood sector. Also, working with Gail Shea on the side of aquaculture — it’s extremely important that we continue that good working relationship.

Having the opportunity of actually going to China with Minister Ritz was, I believe, value-added for us in British Columbia. Not only do we talk to each other over the year, of course, when we have issues like avian influenza that come up, but also, in addition to the FPT meetings — the federal-provincial-territorial meetings — for agriculture and aquaculture ministers, having that opportunity to actually have a cup of coffee with the ministers as you’re trying to expand sales in a foreign market and discuss issues in a more informal way is, I believe, value-added for taxpayers in British Columbia.

The governments of Canada and British Columbia, to that end, have committed $13.4 million through 2018 to support innovation in B.C. products and processes. So far in 2013-2014, 63 projects have shared more than $5.8 million in funding.

We’ve also worked with our federal partners to provide over $600,000 for increased surveillance and preventative measures to stop livestock diseases from spreading to British Columbia. The funding provided to the B.C. Food Processors Association and Pork Producers Association resulted in immediate action to reduce the risk of porcine epidemic diarrhea, or PED for short, arriving in British Columbia.

We continue to work with the government of Canada and other stakeholders in response to the December 2014 avian influenza outbreak in the Fraser Valley, including processing claims for compensation — I’m sure we’ll be talking about those — and support to get the impacted farms up and running again. Some good-news stories are coming from that process that we experienced together — federally, provincially and, of course, industry being at the front end of that over the last few months.

On the legislative side, it’s been a very busy year for our ministry. B.C.’s new Animal Health Act came into effect recently, giving the province the ability to limit the spread of current and emerging diseases and better respond to outbreaks quicker. I look forward to discussing that as well. We’ve also made improvements to the Agricultural Land Commission, the ALC, that will protect farmland in British Columbia and maintain the ALC’s independence, while also increasing opportunities for farmers to earn a living and continue farming their land.

Other notable highlights include the agreement with the government of Saskatchewan that will allow consumers in both provinces to be able to order B.C. or Saskatchewan wines and craft spirits directly from producers and have them delivered to their doorstep.

[1735]

Also, today I introduced a bill to bring in a new Fish and Seafood Act. I look forward to, at some point, debating
[ Page 6996 ]
second reading and going through the committee stage with the hon. members across the way.

In an ongoing support of our greenhouse and vegetable and horticultural growers, with about $7 million annually in carbon tax relief…. It’s another highlight financially that we talk about through this process. The best way, I believe, government can help farmers and ranchers and those in the seafood and processing business succeed is to focus on developing policies and programs that support economic growth, just like the many that I’ve introduced so far.

In conclusion, to help further grow markets for B.C. food, we brought together our ministry’s advisory committee, with membership from across the sector, to find new ways to work collectively to grow our industry. We have been working with industry and listening to industry to build an environment that supports growth and success, and I’m proud to say the numbers show that we’re succeeding.

I’d like to leave as much time as possible for the questions from the hon. critics, so I will leave my introductory comments there and welcome any questions from members at this time. Again, thank you to the great working relationship that we’ve had between the critics and the government on agriculture.

If you eat, then you’re part of aquaculture and agriculture. Therefore, that means all 4.4 million people have a say and a stake — no pun intended — in what we do here today.

With that, thank you, hon. Chair, for allowing me a few minutes to give a brief outline of where the ministry is at today.

L. Popham: It’s a pleasure to begin Agriculture estimates for 2015. Thank you for the minister’s opening comments. It’s great to hear about all of the things we’re doing and growing and exporting, but we can’t do any of that without having the land base to do it on.

Why don’t we start with the dirt of the matter and get right into questions about the Agricultural Land Commission. In the minister’s mandate letter, in the list of achievements, I noticed that the first bullet says: “Worked to strengthen and modernize the agricultural land reserve and Agricultural Land Commission, including the consultation with the B.C. Agriculture Council to pass an improved Bill 24.”

Can the minister expand on that, please?

[1740]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. If I understand the question correctly, based on Bill 24, the member would like to know what consultations I did with the B.C. Ag Council.

Yes, I consulted with the B.C. Ag Council. I consulted with many people when I was given the privilege of this position. In particular, if I remember correctly — because it was a long time ago now, it seems, in world politics; about a year — I called Stan Vander Waal, the chair of the B.C. Ag Council. I invited the public, through a consultation process, to give me some input, as well as the B.C. Ag Council. I then proposed some amendments to Bill 24 because of that consultation, which were introduced into the Legislature and debated at an appropriate time after I finished with that consultation.

L. Popham: What part of the Agricultural Land Reserve and ALC was modernized with this method?

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

Over the past few years government has undertaken a series of comprehensive reforms to the ALR and to the ALC to ensure that we continue to protect agricultural land for the purposes of keeping agriculture as a priority on that land and also to provide new economic opportunities for farming families and to improve accountability and service standards for the ALC.

When you ask about the modernization, I think the best way to describe Bill 24 modernization would be with the following six items: to establish the two ALR zones, to define the panel regions in British Columbia, to establish decision-making panels for each panel region, to provide additional decision-making criteria in zone 2 only, to establish an accountability framework for ALC operations and to expand regulation-making opportunities and abilities.

I’ll stop there because that’s probably the answer to your question.

L. Popham: Can the minister confirm, then, that creating two zones of agricultural land in the province and, in essence, creating two classes of farmers — farmers who have different rights than other farmers — is a way of modernizing agriculture in B.C.?

[1745]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question. In Bill 24 we came up with two zones. The ALC right now is responsible for the ALR.

The ALR is split into two zones: zone 1, which is predominantly the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan; and zone 2, the other areas — the Cariboo, the Peace region, Prince George, Vanderhoof and the Kootenays.

I think everyone will recognize that zone 1 contains about 90 percent, roughly, of the agrifood receipts for the province coming out of the more fertile lands, the lands where the water is available.

Bill 24 and now the ALCA, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, basically keep zone 1 as status quo, where approximately 90 percent of the agrifood receipts are generated. Zone 2 is the area where we’ve allowed for
[ Page 6997 ]
more flexibility to recognize the different demands on the land, which are not as intense as the demands on the land in zone 1. So modernizing includes that.

It also includes bringing in local decision-making panels so that they can have an opportunity to reflect upon the demands and the needs of the local area in their decision-making — always subservient to the primary purpose of the act, section 6 of the act, which is to maintain agricultural land for farming and to see more agriculture done in that land.

Under the two zones…. In zone 1, just to recapitulate, we have status quo for the vast majority of the producing lands. In zone 2, we have a little more flexibility for local decision-making panels to have a few more tools that they must look at.

[1750]

The last thing I’d like to say on the two zones is that we do have an accountability framework for the land commission that is part of this process. I firmly believe that it’s a great piece of the modernization of the ALC. So even though they are completely independent when they are making their decisions on a case-by-case basis for land decisions from applicants, landowners, they are still accountable to taxpayers — as you can see today by their presence in estimates — to make sure that they expend their dollars wisely for the best interests of taxpayers provincially.

As such, they will be accountable to taxpayers through that accountability framework in the near future.

L. Popham: I would like the minister to revisit the previous question that I asked. I really believe he should acknowledge the fact that we have farmers with different rights in the province now. Before the bill passed, we had farmers with the same rights. Now we have farmers with different opportunities in different areas of the province. We’ve defined farmers differently depending on their geography. I’m just wondering if the minister thinks that’s fair.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to that member opposite for the question. In zone 1, landowners who are applying to the land commission for whatever purposes they want — whether it is subdivision or extraction or non-farm use; and the list of other things, of course — would, basically, have the same rights as they did before, the same obligations as they did before. Basically status quo in 90 percent of the agrifood receipts in the province.

In zone 2, under section 6 of the act, we made some changes. Section 6 of the act continues to say that in zone 2 you must consider, as a priority, the preservation of agricultural land. After that, it says — and I can see it nice and clear in my mind — to also see more agriculture done on that land. But in zone 2 the act now says that the local panels in zone 2 must consider some other things — things like social, economic and cultural values.

There is a difference for applicants, landowners, that applies in zone 2 than zone 1 given the different realities on the land in zone 2 than in zone 1. There are different pressures on the land.

Again, most of the agrifood sales per production are done in zone 1, and we recognize that. Therefore, we’ve said as a government that it should stay status quo. The commission may still decide to do things as according to section 6 of the act, but in zone 2 we are asking the local panels to look at other factors that the landowner might bring to the table, all the while remembering that it’s the local panels, the ALC panels, that will be making the decisions on each application, on a case-by-case basis.

Just on top of that, something that overarches both zones and overarches all six sets of panels is the chair and the committee of vice-chairs. Each local panel has a vice-chair. You have six committees, so six vice-chairs. Those six vice-chairs, along with the chair of the ALC, have the opportunity, if they believe a decision has been made in error, to take a decision from a local panel and bring it up to the executive committee, if you will. That would be something that they would apply equally to all areas of the province when they have an opportunity to see those applications.

L. Popham: I’ve noticed that the minister is using a different description about the potential of the agricultural land reserve than I have heard in the past. Basically, zone 1 is all about agrifood receipts and it having the highest agrifood receipts.

Previously we used to talk about the agricultural land reserve as having growing capability, soil capacity for agriculture. Of course we have more agrifood receipts in zone 1, because that’s where the Fraser Valley is and where there is high consolidation of agriculture. That has nothing to do with the actual capability or capacity or potential that our agricultural land, which is within the agricultural land reserve, could bring us. That’s very concerning to me.

[1755]

To me, it seems like the Minister of Agriculture has given up on zone 2. The opportunities have grown to something that doesn’t really have agriculture as a priority.

The lens which decisions are made through now — I’d like the minister to review those with me. I think he said social, economic. He can list them. But maybe I’d like to hear the first priority when those applications are looked at. What’s the first part of that lens? While I’m up, I may as well ask him to add…. I don’t believe I heard anything about a First Nations lens.

Hon. N. Letnick: As a preamble, I just want to reiterate that farming is different in different parts of British Columbia. I think that’s the premise that really encapsulates Bill 24. It’s to understand those differences in different parts of the province.
[ Page 6998 ]

To your question as to first priority. The first priority is outlined in section 6 of the act. Section 6 of the act actually applies to the whole province. I’ll just read it, again, for the 100,000 viewers at home that are watching now.

[1800]

Section 6 of the act says:

“The following are the purposes of the commission: (a) to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c)” — which also includes the First Nations piece that you’ve asked for; I’ll read it — “to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies.”

That is the first priority of the decision-makers in the independent ALC. In particular, the panelists in zone 2, the local panels, have also now been charged to look at other factors of a lesser importance to section 6 of the act. They must consider other things in lower levels of priority, and it specifically says exercising a power in zone 2.

So 4.3: “When exercising a power under this Act in relation to land located in Zone 2, the commission must consider all of the following, in descending order of priority….”

Before I even read what they are — and there are four of them — again, I want to repeat that this is of a lesser order of importance than section 6 of the act, which is to preserve agriculture land, etc., and which I read. They are: “(a) the purposes of the commission set out in section 6;” — so basically, repeating what I just said, the number one priority is section 6 — “(b) economic, cultural and social values; (c) regional and community planning objectives; (d) other prescribed considerations.”

That, I believe, answers your question.

L. Popham: When applications come in and those…. When we take a look at what’s a priority in decision-making, is that priority based on the individual putting in the application, or is it based on the province as a whole?

Hon. N. Letnick: When someone makes an application, that priority will be based on the individual putting in the application as reflected upon by the local panels. The province has not told the local panels anything else in Bill 24, other than they must consider in zone 2 these other considerations in lesser order of priority. Then it’s up to the local panels to make their final decision independent of government.

L. Popham: I wasn’t very clear with my question. When an application comes in and the considerations are looked at, are the considerations weighed as a good of the province or just of that individual putting in that application?

[1805]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite
[ Page 6999 ]
for making the question clearer for me to understand and respond to. Maybe the best thing to do is just give a scenario. The scenario is: a local landowner makes an application to the land commission. It actually goes first to the chair of the land commission.

It’s the chair and the administration of the land commission that decides, through the chair, whether or not the application should go to a local panel at that point. Unless there’s some provincial interest involved, the chair would usually send an application by a landowner to the local panel.

The local panel, depending on where they are…. In zone 1 they would look at section 6 of the act, and in zone 2 they will look at section 6 of the act but also consider some other considerations, and then make an independent decision as to whether or not to approve of the subdivision, extraction, non-farm use or whatever the case is.

After the local panel has made a decision, then that decision could be referred back to the chair. The chair could look at it and say, “I think there’s a mistake made here,” under certain conditions, and then take it to the executive committee of vice-chairs, with the chair, to readjudicate that decision.

Or they could actually, if they think there’s an error in fact or some new information that’s come forward, send it back to the local panel with that new information and ask them to reconsider their decision based on the new information.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what the budget for the Agricultural Land Commission is for this budget compared to the last budget?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ve been advised by staff to read the right line. Thank you. I’ll put my reading glasses on. It happens when you get to 57 years of age.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m getting heckled by my own colleagues. [Laughter.] Soon to be a grandpa for the first time too. Let’s hear more moans and groans. That’s right.

A Voice: Congratulations.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you. Well, don’t thank me. Thank Jennifer. Thanks to Joanna and J.P. I did mess up the first time I said that one. Anyway, enough jocularity.

Agricultural Land Commission — 2014-2015 was $3.516 million; 2015-2016 is $3.406 million; planned for next year is $3.415 million; and planned for the year after is $3.435 million.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me why the budget has been decreased?

[1810]

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

If we look at the history, what we find is that this was a planned reduction. In 2013-2014 we had $2.9 million. That was an increase of almost $1 million from the year before. Then in 2014-2015 we went up to $3.5 million. We’ve gone down just over $100,000 for this year, and then, of course, we’re going back up again.

The reason why we knew ahead of time that we would have a decrease in the total budget is because we actually provided extra funds a couple of years ago to accommodate projects that the ALC were undertaking — projects like new computer systems, mapping, GIS, historic data and capture, a new website, a new portal for applications. All of these projects we had provided extra funds for are now done or are coming to completion very soon. Therefore, the extra money that we’d given to the commission — most of it is actually still staying in the commission to do other, more regular activities.

While on the face of it, it might seem, through the budget, that they’ve actually achieved a reduction, over the long term we actually see a lot more money going to the commission, because these projects are now mostly completed, and the temporary money is still staying with the commission to continue its work over the long term.

L. Popham: I think everybody is quite well aware that the Agriculture Land Commission is underfunded. In fact, the Auditor General weighed in really strongly, mentioning the areas within the ALC that are, such as enforcement, things like that, that I know the minister is very well aware of.

I don’t think taking any money away from the commission is very smart, if we’re going to have an effective commission. But I think the minister is also well aware that the new regional panel system is going to cost more to operate. The minister knew that this would be happening, that the panel system would be operating this budget year. Why was there nothing in the budget to specifically address that increase?

[1815]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I guess, just as a preamble, I would first like to say that I haven’t met a minister or a ministry that would not say that they could use more dollars. I’m sure I can talk to the Health Minister and talk to the Education Minister. I can talk to Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I can talk to every ministry. We have to use the dollars we get from taxpayers very carefully.

I believe the land commission has done that. I believe they have a great case to make on using the extra money that taxpayers have given them over the last few years. And now, with the particular projects coming to an end and those dollars, for the most part, staying in the commission, that will give them the opportunity to do some of the things that the member opposite, I’m sure, would like to see done, as well as us. I have some examples here that I’ll talk about in just a moment.

In particular, just to give a recap, a picture of what’s happened in the commission’s budget over the last few years, for the record: in November of 2011 the ministry announced approval of up to $625,000 in 2011-2012 as an increase and $975,000 in 2012-2013, another increase, which came from the contingency funding for the ALC. In Budget 2013, the ALC was provided with an additional $931,000, in 2013-2014; an additional $1.5 million in 2014-2015; and $1.4 million in 2015-2016.

In fact, the ALC’s base budget has been increasing in stages, from $1.97 million in 2012-2013 to $3.41 million in 2014-2015. That’s a great increase in taxpayer dollars that were available to the ALC over the last few years, and that’s part of the increase in the Agriculture budget.

I’m not too sure if the 20 percent increase that we’ve received over the last two years includes that or not. I’ll have to check. Both in terms of money going to the ALC and money coming to the Agriculture Ministry, I think we’ve seen a good increase, a fair increase, given that we want to continue to balance our budgets, continue to achieve our triple-A credit rating and continue to focus on jobs through all the ministries throughout British Columbia.

In particular, where is the money going to go now that these projects have ended or are coming to an end? They’ll go to increase staffing. They’ll go to C and E, to compliance and enforcement officers. They’ll go to, yes, fund the panels. The panels require a little more money because there are more people involved.

They’ll work with the local governments, because that’s part of their mandate, just to continue working with local governments, and to continue the process of boundary reviews. We started the boundary review in the Kootenays, and once they’re finished in the Kootenays, the plan, of course, is to continue through other parts of the province to review the boundaries, and that, of course, will take some resources as well.

My argument is that the ALC has received a lot of funds and support over the last few years, and this dip, this small dip, from last year to this year was totally planned. We’ll continue to see increases in the ALC budget, as we’ve indicated in our estimates binder, for the next couple of years.

[1820]

L. Popham: Could the minister tell me what the budget for the ALC was for the two years before 2012?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. In 2011-2012 it was $1.974 million. In 2012-2013 it was $1.974 million. In 2013-2014 it was $2.9 million. We’re not 100 percent sure what it was before 2011-2012. We think it was $1.974 million as well.

L. Popham: I think the minister is committed to agricul-
[ Page 7000 ]
ture, but I don’t think that the current government is. I think that’s quite clear from the list of priorities in the mandate letter, the first one being controlling spending — not ensuring that agriculture is as strong as it could be in this province. Obviously, we have different priorities.

Let’s get back to the regional panel system. I’d like to know exactly how much the regional panel system is going to cost this year.

[1825]

Hon. N. Letnick: I do appreciate the member’s passion for agriculture. Actually, I believe I can, without any mental reservation, say that we share the same passion for agriculture. Having said that, I can’t leave a statement that the member made go without some reaction.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

I would like to point out to the member opposite that government does value agriculture, does believe agriculture is a priority. It is part of the eight pillars of the jobs plan, one very important pillar along with mining and forestry and the other pillars of the jobs plan.

Therefore, it’s a key part of not only growing our economy and providing jobs for British Columbians; it’s also a key part of the government’s vision for the future of British Columbia and making sure that we have a sustainable province for its citizens as the citizens continue to grow and come from around the world to be here in this wonderful part of the world — and wonderful part of Canada.

The member opposite knows that we’ve contributed millions of taxpayer dollars to agriculture. We’ve seen in the last three years a 20 percent increase in the budget for agriculture. We’ve seen a Speech from the Throne just recently proclaimed where there was reference to agriculture and aquaculture, something that I think the members opposite did not lose track of, that was mentioned.

We have dollars going for replant programs, dollars going for the SPCA — $5 million to help them with their capital fund. We’ve got, as a government, money for fruit, veggie and milk programs. We have millions of dollars for Buy Local.

We continue to have some of the best scientists employed by the ministry here. I’m sure the member opposite understands the importance of bees in this province, and we have one of the best apiarists in the country right here in British Columbia. We have some of the best marine biologists in the country — I would say in North America — right here in British Columbia because of this government’s extreme importance of putting agriculture at the top.

[1830]

While I appreciate that the member opposite believes that the government might take a different view of agriculture than she does, I would say to her and to all her colleagues and to all British Columbians and reinforce the message that the minister is passionate about agriculture and so is this government, and so are all of the staff and all the 300 people that work in this ministry, the 60,000 people that work in agriculture and 20,000 family farms.

We believe in the future of agriculture and agrifoods and aquaculture in this country and this province. We’ll continue to make sure that it continues to grow.

With that, hon. Chair, I would like to welcome you to the chair. It’s great to see you with your robe, and it puts a smile on my face to see you here making sure that you keep us both in line. Thank you for taking over the meeting.

Specifically to answer the question of the cost of regional panels for this upcoming year: $620,000.

L. Popham: You know, it’s nice see the minister express his passion about agriculture, and I think that he is. But we don’t have enough hours today or tomorrow for him to convince me that it’s a priority of this government, because actions speak louder than words, and if you were passionate about the future of agriculture, the government wouldn’t have taken the steps it did this spring to start the slow and sad demise of the agricultural land reserve.

With that on record, I’ll ask a couple more questions about the regional panels. We don’t have that much time today. I’ll just say that I apologize to the Agricultural Land Commission that, unfortunately, we will have to go into tomorrow with the questions.

As far as the regional panels are going in zone 2, can the minister report out on how the success is so far?

[1835]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Clearly, we again take a different perspective on the ALR.

We believe our work from last year was to modernize the land reserve and to help it be more effective. Clearly, I could spend a lot of time on articulating that, as I did supporting Bill 24 last year. Given that we have already canvassed that subject, I’ll leave it go for now and respect the time that we do have.

He did ask about success of regional panels in zone 2. Actually, right now all panels, including the chair and staff, are in Burnaby attending some meetings and workshops. I understand that we have two experts here, of course, from the ALC with us who much prefer to be with us than back in Burnaby, but they are all meeting there right now.

In particular, you wanted to know the success where we’re at. The government appointed the new panel members in October 2014. We have 19 members throughout the province: one chair, six vice-chairs and 12 regular members.
[ Page 7001 ]

A commissioner training and orientation session was held October 28 to the 30th. A second part of commissioner training orientation was held in early December. The ALC executive committee met in December and in January.

The ALC panels have begun meeting and making decisions in their regions. The first panel met in January 2015. They’ve all met; they’ve all made decisions. Those decisions now are going through a process. Then they’ll be written up and then informed to the applicants who made those applications and then become public.

They’ll become public in such a way where the language, reasons for the decisions, will become known to the public in an open and transparent manner.

You and all the public will have an opportunity to see what decisions have been made by the six panels and the reasons for those decisions.

I move the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Advanced Education and report progress on the Ministry of Agriculture and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:38 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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