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, April 15, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 3

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

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I wanted to mention to the House that I was pleased today to welcome 37 students, two grade 5 classes, from Southpointe Academy, which is an independent school in Delta South, led by Ms. Cristina Leo and accompanied by eight parents. The students were here earlier today but did want to be mentioned and welcomed to the precinct.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House here a couple of constituents from Monte Creek, which is a small community on the eastern edge of my constituency. Alan and his wife, Ansley, Armstrong actually just got back from a three-month trip to Australia. They’re avid cyclists. I believe that this is their first time here in the House. Alan started a family-run dentist practice in Kamloops almost 50 years ago, and he has since passed that practice on to his son and daughter. I would ask that the House please make Dr. Alan and Ansley Armstrong welcome today.

N. Macdonald: I just want to introduce Brittany Newman, who is visiting. She’s a Goldenite who was actually raised in the same block that we lived on. She’s now living in White Rock. That happens, I guess, but she still thinks fondly of Golden. It’s lovely to see her here.

Welcome.

Tributes

LESLIE PETERSON

Hon. M. de Jong: The passage of years in no way diminishes the relevance, the importance or the value of the contribution those who serve in this chamber have made. Leslie Peterson served in this chamber for 16 years. He was born in Viking, Alberta, and moved to British Columbia in 1949, where he set up a practice in Vancouver.

He was first elected to the chamber in 1956 for Vancouver Centre and served for 16 consecutive years. He was a long-serving Minister of Education and Minister of Labour, and he served for four years, from 1968 to 1972, as the Attorney General for the province of British Columbia. Following his departure from political life, he became a member of the board of governors for the University of British Columbia. He was appointed to the Order of British Columbia in 1990 and received the Order of Canada in the year 2000.

Although it has been many years since Mr. Peterson served in this chamber, I know that all members will want to convey to his family our profound sense of loss and condolences, and thank them for sharing him with a grateful province and a grateful nation.

Introductions by Members

D. Eby: There are probably few members in this chamber that haven’t had the chance to experience camping in British Columbia. There are a number of people in the gallery here who make that experience possible for families across the province and internationally. We have representatives of the B.C. Lodging and Campgrounds Association — Jim Humphrey, Patrick Gramiak, Jeff Kirkman and Joss Penny. I would hope the House would make them feel welcome and thank them for their work exposing people all over the world to B.C. wilderness.

[1340]

G. Kyllo: It’s a great pleasure that I introduce my eldest daughter, Sarah Kyllo, her first visit to the chamber, with her partner, Gerry Martselos. And a very special introduction to my newest constituent, my second granddaughter, Siddhalee. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us today off-Broadway, I would say, are the B.C. NDP constituency assistants, who are here for a training session. They normally watch us on the big screen, but now they’re here with the orchestra pits filled, ready to watch the play begin.

I know members on both sides of the House could not do their work were it not for constituency assistants. I want to thank you all from the bottom of my heart, and I think I speak for everyone. Whether you be on our side of the House or the other side of the House, the work we do is critical, and it’s because you’re where you are doing what you do that it makes it all go.

Thank you all very much from the bottom of my heart and, I believe, from every member in this place. Thank you very much for what you do, either on our side, their side or even in independent-land down the way there.

J. Shin: I’m happy to introduce to the House a group of 35 members from the Taiwanese-Canadian community visiting us today. Many Taiwanese immigrated to Canada in the late ’80s, and today the greater Vancouver area is home to the largest Taiwanese community in all of Canada. So it’s not just their pineapple cakes and bubble tea that I love, but I also appreciate their entrepreneurism and social spirit which enrich our multicultural society that we celebrate in B.C.
[ Page 7216 ]

My constituents Rex Hua, Kat Chang, Renee Hua and May Liu are also in the gallery with the group. I do have to mention — although the member from Deer Lake would likewise mention her — the third-time-elected, my very good friend and Burnaby’s sweetheart, Coun. Anne Kang is also joining us in the gallery.

Would the House please welcome our Taiwanese-Canadian friends feel very welcome.

B. Ralston: I, too, would like to introduce some of the members of the same Taiwanese group. I’d like to begin with Reverend Colin Kang, who is the United Church minister at Tai Kong United Church on Elgin Street in East Vancouver. He’s about to retire, and I’d like to thank him on behalf of the entire assembly, I’m sure, for his years of service.

Let me also introduce Suzane Kang, Chee-Eong Lin, Hsi-Tsang Wang, Shih-Ying Gloria Lee, Hui-Mei Mandy Chen, Meng-Hui Wang, Michelle Chen, Marin Kuo and Hsiu-Chu Nancy Chen.

R. Chouhan: I also would like to welcome some of my wonderful constituents from the Taiwanese community. They are Ibi Soqluman, May Lee, Sophia Soqluman, Murray Soqluman, Harvey Lai, Sandra Lai, Mike Lai, Ya-Chi Chen, Fiona Lai, Paul Lai, Sophia Lai, Mei-Chu Tai, Sheng Hsiang Chuang and Yen Hui Su. Please join me in welcoming all of them.

K. Corrigan: I’d also like to welcome some of my constituents who are part of the Taiwanese delegation that are here today. Coun. Anne Kang, who is also a good friend, has already been mentioned. With Anne today are two very young constituents who are her two children, Elizabeth and Teddy Lin.

Peter Lu is here, as well, as part of the delegation, and Andres Yeh and Yao-Sheng Wu. Would the House please make those guests very welcome.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I’d like to make an introduction. Please welcome DeBeck Elementary students, the grade 7 class and their teacher Don Allison, accompanied by Principal Larry Hurst; and the grade 6 classes with teachers Ms. Poonawala and Mrs. Yamasaki and accompanying parents. Please make them very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M215 — BUSINESS PRACTICES
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (MONEY
TRANSFERS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

J. Shin presented a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Money Transfers) Amendment Act, 2015.

J. Shin: I move introduction of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act for its first reading.

Motion approved.

J. Shin: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce this bill to regulate foreign money transfer fees and improve the standards of business practices by the vendors. This bill will protect British Columbians from predatory fees applied to international money transfers, also known as remittances.

[1345]

In Canada remittances amount to more than five times the international aid that the country as a whole provides, and many British Columbians send money overseas to help support their family members. These money transfers are also the means for sending emergency cash to family and friends travelling abroad, for providing regular support for children studying in other countries and for individuals wanting to transfer money for international aid during times of natural disasters or for other charitable causes.

With globalization and technological advances, it is now easier than ever before to send money abroad. However, some money transfer companies are charging large and often hidden fees to British Columbians for handling their remittances, and there are no regulations in place in B.C. on the rates and the disclosure standards.

Many senders remit small sums often, as opposed to a big, one-time amount. British Columbians looking to transfer money are paying a flat fee of $12 to $20 each time, or even more, be it $100 or $200 that they’re sending, and this does not include the additional and often undisclosed conversion fees for currency exchange.

Currently in B.C. the fees being charged average 15 percent of the total amount transferred and can go as high as 20 percent, far higher than the fees that we see in other countries.

This bill proposes to align British Columbia with the international standards recommended by the World Bank, which state that a maximum of 5 percent of the total moneys transferred be charged for providing the service. By regulating fees and increasing transparency, this bill will protect British Columbians from fee gouging and help them to see more funds make it into the hands of their loved ones.

I ask that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 7217 ]

Bill M215, Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Money Transfers) Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

VOLUNTEERISM IN CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: We happen to be right in the middle of National Volunteer Week in Canada right now. As we all know, non-profit organizations and volunteerism play a huge role in each and every one of our communities — caring for those less fortunate, promoting the arts, culture, sports and encouraging healthier and better connected neighbourhoods.

Cari Moore coordinates a program called Volunteer Chilliwack, through Chilliwack Community Services. Her role is to support volunteerism in Chilliwack and help organizations find those volunteers best suited for their needs. She also volunteers her time in various capacities, including as president of the Soroptimists International club of Chilliwack.

Harold Zinke is a well known face on the streets of downtown Chilliwack. Harold has been a street ambassador to the downtown Chilliwack BIA for 14 years, keeping the streets of downtown Chilliwack clean and green. He is a friendly help to many of the downtown merchants, always ready with a smile and a handshake.

As MLA in Chilliwack, I have the pleasure of attending numerous community events, and somebody I get a chance to see often is Marilyn Vik, who leads many of Prospera Credit Union’s community engagement initiatives. She and her team volunteer much of their time out in the community and help to run these events smoothly.

In promoting sports in Chilliwack, there is no one more recognizable than Jack Covey, an avid supporter of the Valley Huskers football team and a board member of the Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame, Jack continues to focus on the idea that sports is much more than a game. Rather, it is a pathway to the development of an athlete as a better person and a better citizen.

These are just a few of the outstanding volunteers in Chilliwack, and I know that each and every member on both sides of the House have story after story to tell about the stellar volunteers in their own communities who make such a difference.

I would ask the House to join me in celebrating the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who dedicate so much of their time and their effort to make British Columbia the best place on earth. Thank you so much.

PREVENTION OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

M. Karagianis: This is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. It’s a sad truth that we live in an often violent society. Fifteen years into the 21st century ours is a society where women and girls are not always safe. The tragedy of missing and murdered women in British Columbia and across Canada is a vivid example — and, of course, the disturbingly high rates of domestic violence that we see in our society.

Violence against women affects us all. It affects children. It shapes the future of girls and boys. It shatters lives. It costs us dearly in many ways.

[1350]

Twenty years ago, in 1995, B.C.’s government of the day proclaimed one week in April as Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. This annual campaign helps raise awareness of incidents in our community that impact the safety and well-being of our mothers, our grandmothers, our daughters, our sisters, our aunts, our partners and our friends.

This week we must commit to increase our efforts to raise awareness for the rights of all girls and women to live free from violence. We need to encourage a paradigm shift in how society treats girls and women here in B.C., in our country and right across the world.

Education and awareness are key components and so are early intervention, supports for women at risk and resources for front-line programs and for workers. We must involve everyone — women and girls, men and boys — to change our attitudes and to teach healthier ways of conduct.

South African archbishop Desmond Tutu said: “It is by standing up for the rights of girls and women that we truly measure up as men.” And as Maya Angelou said: “When I know better, I do better.” So we must all do better. The safety of women and girls depends on it.

MIKE BUDAY

M. Morris: Thirty years ago on March 19, 1985, I was a member of the RCMP emergency response team, boarding an aircraft to travel to Teslin Lake in northern B.C. My team was tasked with relieving the northwest B.C. RCMP emergency response team, who were engaged in tracking and apprehending an armed murder suspect on this remote and isolated lake. The suspect had shot at the RCMP aircraft the day prior.

As we were boarding the aircraft, we received the news that the suspect had been shot by police, but not before the suspect had shot and killed Const. Mike Buday with a single bullet to the back of his neck. The suspect had also pointed his rifle at a second RCMP member, who shot and killed the suspect. It was later revealed that the suspect’s weapon had misfired. The bullet in the chamber of the rifle had failed to go off when struck by the firing pin. The second RCMP officer’s life was spared by this misfire.

Mike Buday was a friend and a colleague, well respected by fellow officers and members of the communities he policed during his short service. He joined the RCMP in 1976 and served in the communities of Fort Nelson, Prince George and Terrace.
[ Page 7218 ]

Last month on March 19 a municipal park was dedicated to the memory of Const. Mike Buday in the community of Terrace. A cairn marks the spot near Teslin Lake where Mike was killed. Constable Buday’s name appears on the peace officers’ memorial on the grounds of this Legislature, along with the names of many other peace officers who have given their lives in serving the people of British Columbia. I commend this Legislature and communities throughout British Columbia for recognizing these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice to keep our province safe.

PROGRESSIVE INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNITY SERVICES SOCIETY

H. Bains: It’s always an honour to stand here and thank organizations that help so many in so many different ways, especially helping new immigrants make transition easier to settle in their new country, Canada.

Today I would like to thank an organization called Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, also known as PICS, for organizing an appreciation event to mark the beginning of National Volunteer Week and to acknowledge the efforts of the more than 100 volunteers. On Monday volunteers were recognized by Raghbir Singh Bains, who was recently honoured by the Prime Minister with a Community Leader Award.

My good friend Charan Gill founded PICS many years ago — 20 years ago, in fact. In the beginning PICS was run solely by volunteers. Today it has developed into a major community organization, and PICS’s name is synonymous with helping people.

Each year more than 100 volunteers donate thousands of hours of their time to PICS, working diligently on services such as employment and settlement programs, senior housing, adult daycare, transition homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence, and currently, the tax clinic. I might add that my colleague from Surrey-Whalley has accompanied me many times to the facility of PICS, and we saw those services in action.

National Volunteer Week began in 1943 to draw attention to the vital contributions women made to the war effort on the home front. Today it has become the largest celebration of civic participation in Canada. During National Volunteer Week, PICS, as well as many other organizations here and around the world, try to find ways to recognize the countless hours donated by volunteers in every way.

[1355]

I ask this House to join with me. Let’s join with these organizations in expressing extreme gratitude for all the work done by indispensable volunteers and thank service providers such as PICS, who continue to find ways to help people in need.

BEES AND BEEKEEPING PROGRAM

S. Hamilton: I rise today to speak about the importance of bees and other pollinators to our province. Bees play an essential role in the agricultural sector in British Columbia. Crops which depend on pollination account for an increasing percentage of the province’s agricultural outputs. This year an estimated $200 million of agricultural products are dependent on honeybee pollination.

Currently, there are not enough honeybee colonies in B.C. to support the production of many crops, including blueberries, which are so central to farming in my community of Delta. But thanks to the continued effort of organizations like Delta’s Earthwise Society, who provide classes and instruction on beekeeping, we are gradually addressing this issue locally.

An estimated 60,000 bee colonies are needed to sufficiently pollinate our province’s 20,000 acres of blueberry farms. With a total of 45,000 commercial bee colonies in B.C., our local farmers actually need to import bee colonies to support their crops.

Bees also contribute to the health of British Columbians, as honey, beeswax and pollen are used in a variety of products and therapies used to treat seasonal allergies, skin conditions and other ailments.

In recognition of the importance of bees, Kwantlen Polytechnic University has recently announced B.C.’s first commercial beekeeping program. This program will support small-scale family beekeeping businesses, providing B.C. farmers with access to pollinators and providing beekeepers with a stable, in-demand source of employment.

The program will begin in January 2016 and will have the space for 16 graduates initially, but that number is forecast to grow to 24 spots after three years. KPU estimates the first batch of graduates could boost the province’s economy by up to $250,000 per year. I’m sorry, but I can’t resist. Would-bee students will gain knowledge and firsthand experience on beehive care, bee disease management, bee botany, integrated pest management, as well as packaging and marketing and bee business planning.

I encourage all members to support beekeepers in their region and recognize the importance of bees to British Columbia.

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY PROJECTS
FOR WOMEN IN LOWER COLUMBIA AREA

K. Conroy: Women Creating Change is a partnership between the Greater Trail Community Skills Centre and the Trail Family and Individual Resource Society. In May of 2012 three years of funding was awarded by Status of Women Canada to determine and address barriers to women achieving economic security and stability in the Lower Columbia.
[ Page 7219 ]

A number of projects were completed, but fundamental to the overall project was the research conducted through the gender-based analysis. This showed statistics like: 51 percent of the local population is female. More than half of the women in the region earn less than $24,000 a year, as compared to one-quarter of the men, and one-third of the working women work in lower-wage occupations.

This led to the development of a community plan, their “20/20 vision for 2020,” which guided a community accord. The hope is that by the year 2020 there will be equitable economic opportunities available for all women in the region. To accomplish this, they had individuals, organizations and businesses across the region sign on to the community accord.

All agreed to support, encourage and value policies, decisions and actions which will increase women’s access to affordable education, career planning and skills training, living-wage employment opportunities and family-friendly workplaces, affordable child care, housing, public transportation and other community services. So far, those to sign on include every municipality in the area; the school board; Selkirk College; our MP, Alex Atamanenko; myself; and numerous organizations and businesses.

Another project was PhotoVoice, an on-line video of eight women living below the living wage in the community. It gave them an opportunity to share their stories while putting a face on what it means to be poor in the Lower Columbia region. Also just completed was the first round of bursary awards to women who are in the process of stepping out of their current situation and wanting to upgrade their education but may not be able to attend school on a full-time basis.

This is a progressive group, led by Jan Morton, Michele Cherot and Ann Godderis and staffed by Tara Howse, with an active, dynamic advisory committee of women throughout the region. I know we can look forward to more exciting work from this group on behalf of women in the region.

[1400]

Oral Questions

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND
IN BURKE MOUNTAIN AREA

J. Horgan: Yesterday the public learned that in the haste to balance a budget in 2013-2014, the B.C. Liberals held a fire sale of public assets. They had a fire sale when they disposed of 14 parcels of public land, appraised by an independent appraiser, valued at $128 million. They sold it for $85 million.

Just so I can get the Premier up to speed on what happened yesterday, we talked about this in some detail with her minister of community services.

Interjections.

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

J. Horgan: We asked some questions of the Minister of Citizens’ Services. We didn’t ask him why it was that he’s responsible for the Freedom of Information Act and denied access to the evaluation for over a year. I suppose that he didn’t get the memo that I got from the Premier that said this was going to be the most open government in North America.

However, I digress. The point today for the Premier is this. We had a private evaluation paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, a professional who knows his business, who told the people of B.C. through their government that they had assets worth $128 million. And in their haste to balance the budget, the Premier and her ministers sold it for 33 percent less than it was worth.

My question to the Premier is this: what were you thinking? You said that you were a good manager of the economy.

Madame Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

J. Horgan: Clearly, leaving $43 million on the table is no example of that.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to commend the amount of change we see over there in the NDP these days. Three weeks ago they expressed an interest, for just about the first time, in what’s going on around the treaty table, last week they expressed an interest in economic growth, and this week the Leader of the Opposition has the temerity to express an interest in balancing the budget. Well done. It’s something that on this side of the House we have long known almost all British Columbians are very interested in doing.

That’s why in the budget he refers to there was a $350 million surplus. The numbers that he’s talking about wouldn’t have changed that materially, particularly given the fact that about 40 percent of the closing dates on those agreements happened after the budget year had ended. His argument that this was part of an effort to balance the budget is very clearly wrong, as is, I think, his view that no government, has any business, really, in trying to make sure that we’re getting rid of surplus assets.

We on this side of the House are very different from the NDP. We believe that when there are surplus assets in government that the taxpayer owns and that could be put to economic use, we will dispose of them. We will sell them, put them to use, create jobs, create economic activity. That’s what we were elected to do, and that’s what we’re going to keep doing.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
[ Page 7220 ]

J. Horgan: I can see that the passage of time hasn’t helped the Premier hear the question and then try and cobble together an answer that comes remotely close to what was asked of her.

I believe I heard it’s okay for the Premier to tell other levels of government how to manage their affairs, whether it be through the now infamous Auditor General for Local Government or whether it be saying to school boards to find some low-hanging fruit. I’ve got a message for the Premier. I went by my school board, and the tree that had the fruit on it has been cut down, and they’ve sold the wood for firewood because they can’t afford their hydro rates.

Now, let’s see if we can have a groundbreaking moment here in the province of British Columbia under the watch of the B.C. Liberals. I was going to ask — through you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier: why would you leave $53 million to school boards to find when you had $43 million in value that you gave away to Liberal backers? Why would that happen? Can the Premier answer that question?

[1405]

Hon. C. Clark: If they did, indeed, chop down trees on a school site in his riding, it would be so that they could make space for the new $40 million school that is being built there.

I think I’ve already pretty clearly illustrated why the member’s argument that this money would have been, could have been, was being used to try and balance the budget is just wrong. With a $350 million surplus on the books, with 40 percent of the closing dates on these land sales happening after the budget books had closed, I think it’s pretty clear that his argument is wrong.

This was a set of deals that was done and administered by Colliers, which is a very well-respected real estate company in Canada. It was a six-way bidding process. We certainly believe that we got best value for that land based on the real assessment of the land after assessors had actually gone and had a look at it.

We’ve most importantly, though, gone out and freed up that land in a really important part of the province, a really important part of the Lower Mainland, for economic growth. I know that the mayor of Coquitlam, that the mayors in the Tri-Cities and that all of the mayors in the Lower Mainland will be delighted to know that economic activity is going to be happening on land that before and certainly under the NDP would never have happened.

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

J. Horgan: The Auditor General said that the balanced budget….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Oh, I’m sorry. Is it your question? I didn’t know that the minister of gas was up today. I didn’t know that. I’ll continue if he has finished his intervention.

The Auditor General said, about the budget in question, that were it not for the gain from real estate sales, it may well not have been balanced. Now, we’ve opened up one can of worms here, and we have many, many more cans to open over the next six weeks. I’m looking forward to every single day, and I’m certain that when the Premier is here, she’ll enjoy it as well.

Let’s look at some of the waste. The Auditor General for Local Government — money in a pile, burned. We had yesterday the admission that we couldn’t work with IBM. This is one of the larger companies in the world, and the people of B.C. would have expected value for money — $72 million, gone. We’ve told school boards that they have to find money. We’ve told ferry users that they have to pay more. We’ve told hydro users that their rates are going to go up, up, up and up.

The so-called good managers on that side of the House had a precious asset in the heart of the Lower Mainland — one of the most desirable places in the known universe to live, real estate values going up, bidding wars going up. And despite expert advice to spend six to nine months marketing it, over Christmas they said: “I’ve got a Liberal friend who will buy that. Let’s do it now. What’s $43 million among friends?”

My question to the Premier is this. Let’s try and focus on $43 million wasted instead of talking about things that might interest the Premier for the moments that she’s here. Why did you leave $43 million on the table?

Hon. C. Clark: The member gets up and expresses this interest in a balanced budget and in careful, disciplined spending. I have to say it is the very first time I have heard that member or any member express such passion about balancing the budget or looking after people’s money. In the budget that….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. C. Clark: These members would repeal balanced budget laws. They would go out there, and they won’t even…. In the last election they wouldn’t even promise to balance the budget. Every day they promise to spend billions more of taxpayers’ dollars, and they have no way to pay for it. They have no interest not only in balancing the budget, but they also have no interest in making sure that we’re spending taxpayers’ money well.

We will not take lessons from the New Democrats in how to manage the economy. After seven successive credit downgrades, here we sit on this side of the House, after 13, 14 years in government now, with a triple-A credit
[ Page 7221 ]
rating that has just been confirmed. We are very proud of that. That is the product of years of hard work, careful management of people’s money and real fiscal discipline.

[1410]

The members opposite wouldn’t know what that looked like if it dropped on their heads. On this side of the House we understand it, we work at it every day, and we’ve been recognized for it around the world.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS

C. James: Yesterday the Minister of Citizens’ Services flatly dismissed any suggestion that he was rushing land sales in order to prop up the government’s bottom line. We heard the Premier repeat that again today. Once again, it appears very clear that the government can’t get its story straight.

I have an e-mail from Mr. Jim Baker, the strategic properties lead in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. He wrote to his colleagues and said: “To be part of the sale and development of over eight hectares in Victoria’s beautiful Inner Harbour area is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, an opportunity that normally would warrant years of planning and preparation. Unfortunately, we don’t have unlimited time. Our goal is to have for-sale signs up on October 31, with the sales in the bank by March 31, 2014.”

My question is to the Premier. Why were government staff told to have “money in the bank” by the end of the fiscal year, even if it shortchanged taxpayers?

Hon. M. de Jong: The difficulty with the theory being advanced by the member and her colleagues is that it simply isn’t borne out by the facts, and it simply isn’t borne out by the manner in which these transactions occurred.

We were talking about the transactions at Burke Mountain, where in one fiscal year, 2013-14, proceeds from this sale were booked — a portion of the proceeds in a year where the government recorded a surplus in excess of $350 million and the balance recorded in a year where the government anticipates recording a surplus between $900 million and $1 billion. The suggestion that the timing on these transactions was motivated by a fiscal imperative is not borne out by those numbers — nor, by the way, is it borne out by the fact that a number of the parcels involved are still on the market.

The government is committed to the principle and understands, accepts and will be motivated and guided by the principle that the taxpayers of British Columbia deserve the very best market value for assets that are sold on their behalf.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Money in the bank by March 31. An opportunity of a lifetime. “Unfortunately, we don’t have unlimited time.” That’s a direct quote from ministry staff. It sure sounds to me like the government gave direction to rush these sales.

The sad part of all of this is that rushing these sales meant the taxpayers lost out — in the case of Burke Mountain, losing out on millions. At a time when government is telling families to tighten their belts, they’re squandering scarce resources that we will never get back.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Why did the government direct that a year-end fire sale should override ensuring taxpayers get fair value for public lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: In January of 2013 I heard virtually every then member of the opposition cry out that the government could not balance the budget. When the budget was introduced in February of 2013, the same members of the opposition cried out: “The budget isn’t balanced.” Later….

Interjection.

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: Now I hear the member making an assertion. It’s not new math. It’s NDP math, and it doesn’t work on this side of the House. The fact is….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand that having staked all of their credibility on the fact….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have an interesting theory about NDP credibility, but they don’t want to hear it, Madame Speaker.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Having staked all of their credibility on the fact that a budget in British Columbia in 2013 and 2014 and 2015 couldn’t be balanced, I understand how embarrassed they are, confronted by the fact that it could.

In the release and sale of surplus assets, the process is clear. It is fair. It employs reputable firms in a transparent way, and it invites and receives a robust response from the market — in the case of Burke Mountain, six offers. And for members of the NDP, which may be unfamiliar with the workings of the market, that ultimately is the most accurate reflection of market value — that which the market is prepared to assign to it.
[ Page 7222 ]

S. Robinson: It’s this government that should be embarrassed for giving away a British Columbian asset.

The Minister of Citizens’ Services was extensively briefed by staff yesterday after question period. So perhaps he had a chance to speak to his deputy minister, Sarf Ahmed. On May 17, 2013, Mr. Ahmed wrote to his colleagues and said: “I am writing to you as ADM responsible for asset sales. As you are aware, asset sales is a key initiative for the government to balance the budget in fiscal 2013-14. The fiscal plan includes a net gain of $350 million from this initiative this year, which we are collectively committed to achieve.”

My question to the Minister of Citizens’ Services: why did he insist that government was not rushing land sales to make government’s budget targets when his own deputy minister says something else?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member who has pursued the issue further, I’m going to — if she will allow me or if she would like — provide her with copies of the ’13-14 budget, where the government quietly and secretly hid our plans around surplus asset sales by setting out in detail what the objectives were, setting out in detail what the rationale was. If that’s coming as news to the member now, then I really don’t have any explanation for that.

I do know this. The opposition, particularly over the last number of years…. When they were in government, of course, they had a different take on this, having sold many assets. But the opposition would have us believe today that they are opposed. They were opposed in 2013; they were opposed in 2014; they are opposed in 2015 to the sale of assets that are generating no activity.

In fact, if the opposition had its way, there would be $83 million less available today for health care, for public safety, for education, because they are philosophically opposed to the notion of taking that asset, selling it at market value to the private sector and generating jobs and economic opportunities in communities across British Columbia. And we are for that.

[1420]

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND
IN BURKE MOUNTAIN AREA

M. Farnworth: I’d like to inform the Minister of Finance that what this side of the House wants to see is a fair and equitable return on the assets that the people of the province of British Columbia own — not giveaways. And when it comes to lands on Burke Mountain, that is exactly….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Ministers.

M. Farnworth: We want a fair and equitable return on those parcels of land. And what the minister has failed to mention is that a number of those parcels have had significant work done on them by the city of Coquitlam. Planning and development. All the planning has taken place. On those particular parcels we can get market value. That’s what we should be getting.

But on parcels that this government has sold, that work has not taken place. There has been no planning appropriately done. In fact, their recommendations from the appraiser were to hold those parcels for the medium and longer term. That’s why, by not doing that, we’ve seen a piece of property assessed at over $5 million sold for $100,000.

If the Minister of Finance wants to ensure a fair and equitable return to the people of the province of British Columbia, can he please explain why you would give away now a piece of land for $100,000 when your own appraiser said: “Hold on to it, and guess what. You’ll get almost $6 million”?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to repeat for the hon. member and the House the process that was followed.

First of all, the lands in question were identified in 2012 as being available for marketing. The active marketing took place, I believe, starting in November 2013. And ultimately the transactions occurred. Now, I’m not sure what part of a process wherein there is an active marketing process by a reputable firm that elicits six offers from the market, from which the decision-maker, distinct from any political involvement, selected the unconditional offer that was received from the ultimate purchaser, which generated the income. Now, if that isn’t by definition, the mechanism for determining market value, then I’m not sure what is.

With respect to the parcel that the member has referred to, I concede he lives closer to it than I. I am advised that the topography on this land, coupled with the stream and the other setbacks and the other challenges in its location, had a significant impact on the ultimate valuation. If the member is saying that he, if he could, would pay the assigned amount, millions of dollars, for that lot, then I’m going to suggest he won’t be joining that former NDP premier at the other firm that he referred to yesterday, because the market has spoken here and the lot in question was clearly not valued accurately.

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

M. Farnworth: And yes, I do live very close to that particular mountain. I’ve watched that mountain for 40 years. I’ve watched the development take place on that mountain. Every member of the Tri-Cities who lives there has — including the Premier three ridings ago, before she left because she got tired of the people who lived there. She knows exactly the kind of development that’s taking place too.
[ Page 7223 ]

[1425]

Guess what. The planning has been taking place to develop that land, and fair market value has been arrived at for all the parcels that have been sold, except for this one. And the minister wants to stand up and say: “Topography. It’s too steep, and there are stream problems.”

Well, let me quote and read from his own appraiser’s valuation report. “As illustrated by the topography images, lot 8’s terrain generally slopes at a gradual to moderate rate with no pockets with slope ratings exceeding 30 percent. As there are no significant portions of land and no….”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members. Hon. Members, this House will come to order.

M. Farnworth: I guess the heckler over there has obviously never been out to West Vancouver and seen what view property goes for out there and what they build out in West Vancouver. But I can tell you. People are eager to live on Burke Mountain because of the incredible views that you get.

Let me continue down what the appraiser writes. He says: “After analyzing the information regarding the subject lot, its highest and best use, due to topography, it is determined to be held for its current state for the medium term until access and services can be provided at an economically viable rate to allow for development.”

Their own appraiser is saying this land is suitable for development. It doesn’t have any stream issues. It doesn’t have any out-of-the-way slope gradient issues. It’s suitable for development. And in the longer term it will get $6 million.

So the question is: why on earth do you still stand there and say that giving away a piece of land for $100,000 that your own appraiser says is worth closer to $6 million…? How on earth does that make good sense?

Hon. M. de Jong: On the one hand, the opposition says what they are interested in — and by the way, what they are entitled to be interested in and all British Columbians are entitled to be interested in — is whether or not British Columbians received a fair return, fair market value, for the lands — and any lands, not just the lands on Burke Mountain.

On the other hand, the member and his colleagues seem to take issue with a process that relied upon a respected marketing agency that went to the market, engaged in extensive marketing activities, solicited and received a robust response from the market and selected the best offer. Now the member and his colleagues want to sit here and suggest that somehow there was a flaw or somehow people were shortchanged.

By the way, I understand that the NDP have difficulty with this concept of market value. It was only a few elections ago that a member of the opposition party suggested that property values should be legislated. It was a member of the NDP who thought this chamber should legislate property values in British Columbia. We reject that assertion. We believe that people are entitled to receive fair market value, and that is what happened in this case.

REVIEW OF CHILD DEATH CASE

D. Donaldson: In the death of a child in care, the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s practice standards require that a designated director be notified immediately and a case review is initiated within 30 days, based on factors like the nature of the incident.

In the case of Isabella Wiens the nature of the incident is a 21-month-old who died in care, with the coroner listing unexplained broken bones and multiple bruises. To quote from the coroner’s report: “Autopsy revealed healing injuries including bruises on the chin, forehead and face and arms and legs, as well as healing fractures in the bones of the left arm. Where and how the fractures occurred could not be explained.”

[1430]

There’s no statute prohibiting the minister from answering if a director’s case review took place. As a matter of fact, we’ve been informed that a director’s case review was not done.

To the minister, why didn’t an unexplained death of a child in care, combined with unexplained injuries, trigger the highest level of review by her ministry? Why did you not ensure a director’s case review was conducted?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, a tragic circumstance and, certainly, a heartbreaking one for the family.

As I’ve said before, I’m not going to comment on details of cases in this House, for reasons of privacy law. That remains the case today.

I have outlined in this House and in the media the number of processes that occur any time there is an injury or a death of a child in care. That has not changed. Those things occurred.

The member may be confused on some aspects of this, and that I would be happy to assist in correcting, if the member would bother to contact my office.

[End of question period.]

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

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I would like to introduce a friend and former constituent, when I represented the Lake Cowichan
[ Page 7224 ]
area. He’s been introduced already in this House in a different context. He’s a constituent of my friend from Cowichan Valley. His name is Jim Humphrey. He’s the owner of a campground in Lake Cowichan, but I’d like the House to recognize his contributions as the leader of the Vancouver Island minor hockey association, which is experiencing a number of challenges right now.

As we know, sometimes people become far too involved in the emotion of sports around children. On Vancouver Island there have been a number of very unfortunate cases where parents have in fact come to blows in the stands. They are repeatedly harassing young people who serve as referees and linespersons — one of them the daughter of a friend of mine, who can barely stay in the service that she gives to minor hockey.

I want the House to commend Jim Humphrey for the leadership he’s showing in trying to control this problem and bring resolution to it. And I give him my personal thanks, as a step-parent of a rep hockey player and a person who has witnessed all this. For the great service that you do, Jim: thank you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, and in this chamber, beginning with committee stage on Bill 15.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On section 16.

C. Trevena: Section 16 of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act — this is just fixing numbering, as I understand. I would just like the minister to clarify that, please.

Hon. T. Stone: This is purely a housekeeping item. I think the legislation as it currently reads provides for (b) and (c) and it really should be (a) and (b). It’s just cleaning that up. It was a mistake from the past.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

C. Trevena: To the minister, I just wondered if he could give a little bit of an explanation about the need to amend this section, which will now allow a municipality to allow cycles and/or motorcycles to park near a beacon, a stop sign or a traffic control signal. I would just like a little bit of information about why he got this and how it’s going to work.

Hon. T. Stone: This particular section, while it may appear to be quite a minor amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act in the grand scheme of things, is one that is of high interest to those who have and use motorcycles.

For a good number of years now these motorcycle coalitions have been asking government to make this change. To this point municipalities have been enabled, through this legislation, to allow motorcycle parking within six metres of crosswalks, but not stop signs and traffic signals.

The true intent of this amendment here is to expand that, such that municipalities will be able to facilitate motorcycle parking or allow motorcycle parking, should they choose to do so…. The decision will still rest with the municipality. Should the municipality wish to do that, they will be able to do so not just six metres from a crosswalk but also within six metres of a stop sign and a traffic signal.

The benefits of this… I should point out that in addition to the motorcycle coalitions, we’ve had an increasing number of municipalities that have been asking us for this. There were quite a few, actually, at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention last year. What this will do is allow for the more efficient use of some of this space for the parking of motorcycles.

[1440]

Again, the caveat is safety and that the allowance for this type of parking
[ Page 7225 ]
cannot in any way infringe upon the driver’s ability to actually see the traffic signal or the stop sign.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could just explain a little bit about how we’re going to ensure the safety. It seems to be, just from thinking about certain traffic signals that you know in your own communities….

How are you going to ensure that that safety aspect is kept there, that the vision isn’t going to be blocked and that you’re not going to suddenly get a whole raft of motorbikes there? I just wanted a little bit more explanation, please.

Hon. T. Stone: The key requirement for a municipality to be able to enable this, via bylaw in their respective community, is that allowing such parking cannot in any manner obstruct a motorist’s view of the crosswalk or the intersection.

That actually is the case today with respect to the allowance that municipalities have for this type of parking within six metres of a crosswalk. We’re simply expanding that to allow similar parking six metres within stop signs and traffic signals.

It will continue to be up to the municipalities that choose to enable this, or choose to allow this at specific intersections, to ensure that it meets the safety test. I should again point out a good example of a municipality that is doing this today — insofar as the current provision, which is the six metres within crosswalks: the city of Vancouver.

I understand, on good authority from those in Vancouver, that the city of Vancouver has not encountered any significant challenges from a safety perspective with the allowance that they’ve had up to this point. We wouldn’t anticipate there would be any significant safety challenges by expanding this to allow for similar parking within six metres of signals and stop signs.

C. Trevena: The minister, obviously, is very concerned about safety, as we all are. And mentioning the city of Vancouver, is there any way to track this? I’m thinking that, more than anything, you’re going have it be like pedestrian-vehicle accidents that could occur — where somebody’s just not seeing, and they come out from between the bikes, behind the bikes or something? Has this been tracked? Is ICBC looking at this?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, and I know that the member for North Island shares our concern, my concern for safety.

With any incidents involving vehicles, whether they be cars, trucks or motorcycles, and as well, incidents involving pedestrians, those details would show up in the accident reports of law enforcement — so in the case of Vancouver, the Vancouver police department. Those details would show up in ICBC data, from the perspective of any claims that result from these kinds of accidents.

The way I understand that it works within a municipality is that it’s very similar to the way it works with the province on our provincial highways. You’re constantly assessing, taking a look at where accidents are taking place. Again from a municipal perspective, if there is a trend developing at a particular intersection where this type of parking was allowed for motorcycles, that would presumably trigger some action on the part of the municipality to take a look at that and, potentially, remove the lawful ability of motorcyclists to continue to park at that particular — if I can call it that — high-incident location.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

C. Trevena: I’ve got a number of questions about this section — a little concerned about the changing definition, changing regulations about winter tires.

[1445]

I wondered if, first, the minister could explain what the new definition of “winter tire” is and where it is going to be applied, just to start things off.

Hon. T. Stone: Just to take a step back here. Generally speaking, what we’re trying to do here with this changed or improved definition for winter tires really is in response to…. It came out of our rural and safety speed review that we did last year.

Certainly, as a new minister a couple of years ago, going into the fall season…. This whole question of what actually constitutes a winter tire — which apparently is an annual discussion, an annual debate that had been taking place for a good number of years — frankly, was confusing to British Columbians.

We have a definition today that’s in the Motor Vehicle Act. It’s hard-coded there. We also had law enforcement in different parts of the province indicating a slightly different definition of a winter tire. There was conflicting information within the Ministry of Transportation’s own collaterals.

I determined to put this on the table for discussion as part of the rural safety and speed review which, again, took place last year, to really extract from British Columbians their thoughts on this. Where we landed was that, fundamentally, tire technology has dramatically improved over the years, and it’s continuing to improve. It evolves almost on an annual basis — the technology that’s used in tires.

The approach that we had employed to this point — i.e., having the definition hard-coded in the Motor Vehicle Act — made it very, very difficult to change and amend. The member knows well the legislative process required for amending a piece of legislation.

What, fundamentally, we are doing here is…. This section, section 18, is about removing from the Motor Vehicle Act the hard-coded definition that we have today for winter tires and replacing that with the requirement to provide for a “winter tire” definition via regulation, which will then enable us to, on a much more frequent basis — frankly, as needed — update that definition from time to time as the technology in tires evolves.

I know we’ll get to the next section in a moment, but very quickly, section 19, the next section, is the section that actually provides some framework for the types of considerations that can be put on the table when we define or develop a regulation for winter tires.

That all being said, I believe that part of the member’s question was also: what is the definition going to be? Again, we’ll talk a bit more about that in the next section, section 19. I can say, as the member is well aware, that we did erect new signs around the province before this last winter season and indicated on those signs that for the purposes of defining a winter tire — i.e., a tire that is lawful to use in a defined period of time on our high mountain passes — that the preferred option would be the mountain-snowflake tire.
[ Page 7226 ]

[1450]

That is the best winter tire available. It’s the one that I use, that I put on my truck every winter. Most folks in the Interior, who live through winter and icy and snowy roads — that’s the tire most people use. We also believe that because the tire technology has evolved as much as it has, mud and snow, or M-and-S, tires also qualify as winter tires.

Again, the ministry’s recommendation, my recommendation as the minister, is that if people are travelling over high mountain passes, the snowflake-in-a-mountain tire is the better tire.

But 60 percent of British Columbians, those who live in the Lower Mainland, don’t travel in snow that often. We believe that because the technology in tires has evolved as well as it has, particularly with M-and-S tires, the most balanced approach — and the approach that first and foremost respects safety but also recognizes the realities of who in British Columbia actually really needs mountain-snowflake tires on a regular basis — is the ability to have either. The mountain-snowflake or the M-and-S tire is an appropriate winter tire for use on high mountain passes.

The last thing I’ll say about this is that there is still a requirement in the Motor Vehicle Act, which will still be there after we complete these amendments, that provides for a requirement for a minimum tread depth of 3.5 millimetres. That’s really important too, because you can have the best mountain-snowflake tire, but if it’s bald, it’s not going to do you any good. So motorists are still reminded to make sure that their tread depth is no less than that 3.5 millimetres.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for his overview. I apologize if we end up crossing a little in section 18 and section 19 in the definitions, if we can have a bit of latitude here. We are defining winter tire in section 18, the new section 208, saying that “‘winter tire’ means a tire that meets the standards and specifications prescribed for winter tires.” It’s only in section 19 that we specify what that might be.

The minister made an interesting comment that he and his ministry would recommend that in the high mountain passes and other areas of the interior of B.C. you be driving with the mountain-snowflake but that people obviously coming from the Lower Mainland, who don’t see much snow, may just have M-and-S, the mud and snow tire.

I’m wondering why it is purely a recommendation. If people are driving in areas where there are severe winter conditions and they are only driving with an M-and-S tire, which is effectively an all-seasons tire…. We’re talking about tire technology. It isn’t designed to deal with the severe cold and the snow in a way that a real winter tire, the mountain-snowflake tire, is. I mean, mountain-snowflake tires are engineered to deal with colder conditions and to be able to deal with the impact of colder conditions in a way that M-and-S tires aren’t.

I’m wondering why it is only a recommendation to have the M-and-S or mountain-snowflake tire.

Hon. T. Stone: Obviously, the number one consideration as we work our way through nailing this definition of winter tires is safety. I’ve said that many times. Again, I want to highlight — as with the changes to speed limits in the province, as with the changes to the “Slow down and move over” — that when we look at the myriad policy changes we have made just in the last couple of years that impact drivers, we only make these decisions if we are absolutely convinced they’re safe for the drivers of British Columbia.

[1455]

We have some of the most talented traffic and safety engineers in the Ministry of Transportation, who have spent their entire careers…. Their professional reputations are on the line in terms of what they sign off and what they don’t sign off. There isn’t a person in the ministry that would have signed off on the change in definition for winter tires if he or she did not believe that it was safe to do so.

Now, I say all of that. Certainly, the technical conclusions that ministry staff have come to with respect to tires is really this. Without question, the snowflake-in-a-mountain tire is an ideal tire, particularly for terrain that’s frozen. They’re not necessarily dramatically better than M-and-S tires in snow, but they certainly provide more traction on ice.

The M-and-S tires, and the member knows well that the M and S stands for mud and snow, are tires that consumers, if they’re in good working condition, can use year-round. I mentioned earlier in a previous response that we’re confident that because the technology in those M-and-S, those mud and snow tires has evolved and evolved quite significantly, they are safe. They are very safe to use in winter conditions.

The types of technical considerations that come into play involve a number of things — for example, the rubber composites that actually make up the tire. The composites in and of themselves have improved dramatically over a number of years. When we consider the tread pattern on mud and snow tires, there have been significant advancements there. When we consider sipes or the cuts that are actually in the rubber tire, these add to the traction that the tires provide.

Again, safety was the overriding consideration, and we approached this with an abundance of caution from the perspective of safety. That being considered, I will go one bit further and simply say this. I mentioned earlier that about 60 percent of British Columbians live in the Lower Mainland and don’t travel on winter roads very often. Many people in the Lower Mainland might make one trip up to Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George on an annual basis.
[ Page 7227 ]

Because the technology in these mud and snow tires has evolved so much in recent years and our technical engineers in the ministry believe that they’re safe, we’re not interested in imposing an economic hardship which would come as a result of a requirement to have a mountain-snowflake tire for those folks that would only be really needing them once or twice a year.

Those folks still need to drive with an abundance of caution. They need to still check the Drive B.C. website and understand what weather conditions they may entail and, obviously, drive to the conditions. But we believe, fundamentally, that this revised definition will strike that balance between safety first and foremost and recognizing the realities of who drives in winter conditions predominantly across the province of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: While recognizing that, and the minister talks about the evolution of M-and-S tires and the evolution of tire technology, a lot of people are driving on tires that have been around for a few years, that haven’t evolved. You’re still driving on tires that may not be the most contemporary design, and you’re driving into high mountain passes.

Particularly if you’re not used to driving in severe winter conditions, I think it is allowing people a bit of a false sense of security by saying, “It’s okay. You can use your all-season tires,” because M and S, as the minister well knows, was just a brand name, I believe, for Michelin at one time, and that’s what has become the common refrain for all-season tires.

Unlike some jurisdictions where they have distinct summer tires and winter tires, we have this hybrid all-season tires and winter tires, without the necessity to have everybody carry winter tires.

[1500]

I’ve got a couple more questions about this and the minister’s thinking on it. First off, because I just wanted to work through a logical chain here, we have individuals who are driving on all-season tires, M-and-S tires, into mountain passes. We also have people who are renting cars across B.C. and going out skiing. They may fly into Kamloops or Kelowna and go out skiing — again, driving into mountainous areas where they have never driven before.

Does the minister expect that rental car companies are going to be having M-and-S tires — because that is acceptable, according to this government’s legislation — or go for the high safety standard and have winter tires?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I think an overriding consideration here which is important to keep in mind is the tread depth itself. The average tire, whether it’s M and S or mountain-snowflake, depending on how much a person drives on an annual basis, would usually be replaced at about 100,000 to 120,000 kilometres, if not sooner. I do mine a bit sooner than that. That’s governed or dictated predominantly by the tread depth, the amount of wear and tear that’s still available on the tires.

An individual who lives in the Lower Mainland who has a pair of M-and-S tires might drive those tires for 100,000 kilometres and end up wearing the tread depth down to one millimetre. They would be breaking the law by using those tires on any mountain pass in this province over the winter, over the defined period of time, because they would not have the required tread depth.

Again, fundamentally, we believe that the technology in mud-and-snow tires has evolved. Subject to that tread depth, assuming you have the 3.5 millimetres or more of tread depth, they are abundantly safe for use on winter roads.

Now, with respect to the question about rental car companies, we certainly expect — and it’s the law — that rental companies will also ensure that their tires have that minimum 3.5 millimetres of tread depth. We also know that many rental car companies provide an option to customers. I know I have rented vehicles in the past, and I specifically have requested mountain-snowflake tires because I was driving over a high mountain pass in the winter, and I was provided with a vehicle with those types of tires.

It is incumbent upon the consumer to make sure that he or she is comfortable with the vehicle and the tires that he or she feels that they need. It’s incumbent upon a rental car company to make sure that the tread depth is there on whatever tire it is that the vehicle has.

C. Trevena: Simply put, in this instance, when we’re talking about rental car companies, it is up to the individual renter to ask the rental company to make sure there are mountain-snowflake tires on, rather than saying: “This is the standard, that we have defined ‘winter tire’ in legislation under section 208 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and we want to ensure that you are providing that for your customers.” It’s up to the renter.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

C. Trevena: I just wanted the minister to…. Again, I don’t want to belabour the point, but this is a very diverse province. I was just talking to my colleague from Kootenay-Boundary, who was talking about going through Salmo-Creston pass or, I believe, Blueberry pass. We were talking about tires, and she was quite shocked at the thought that anybody could consider going through these passes in winter on an M-and-S tire — that this could even be conceived of, even with the depth.

[1505]

When you are driving — as the minister well knows; he lives in the Interior — with winter tires, you do get a better sense of grip. You do feel more confident driving. The fact that you are still allowing this…. The onus is on a driver to make that decision, when we have the ability
[ Page 7228 ]
to legislate a little bit of extra safety here. I’m wondering why the minister is just saying that it’s okay to fix it, possibly in regulation — change the signs a little — but you’re going to be okay if you keep checking the depth, putting a quarter in your tire treads to make sure they’re deep enough.

Hon. T. Stone: British Columbia is actually one of the few provinces that even requires the use of a defined tire for winter use. There are a number of other provinces that do none of this and that, I would argue, are covered in snow and ice pretty much their entire province compared to our province, where the vast majority, or 60 percent plus, live in the Lower Mainland.

That all being said, the fundamental point here is that it is incumbent upon drivers to not drive on high mountain passes if they have tires that do not have the appropriate tread depth, regardless of what type of tire it is. The Motor Vehicle Act is rife with requirements that drivers have. Drivers also have a requirement not to speed, not to drive beyond the posted speed limits, or to dial back their speeds if the conditions warrant. There’s a tremendous amount of driver judgment that still fundamentally comes into play when it comes to striking out on any highways and roads in British Columbia.

Again, we believe that we’ve struck the appropriate balance here, recognizing that the predominant consideration is safety, but there is allowance or recognition here that in light of the fact that the vast majority of residents actually very seldom drive on winter roads, we are allowing for M-and-S and mountain-snowflake tires here — again, assuming the tread depth is, at minimum, the 3.5 millimetres.

C. Trevena: If the RCMP were on a winter road and doing just general road checks and they came across a driver who had M-and-S tires and it was…. Basically, if the situation was that you really had to have snow tires to get through this area, would the RCMP be in a position to turn back those drivers whose tires were not adequate? Forget the depth of the tread. Both tires have got the right tread. One’s using snow tires. One’s using M and S. But the RCMP, as the traffic officers, believe that the road is impassable with all-season tires. Would the RCMP have the right to stop people proceeding?

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows well, law enforcement reserves the right to turn any vehicle back should they feel that that vehicle is in some fashion ill-equipped to continue to drive a particular road, whether it’s a high mountain pass or elsewhere in the province. I think, practically speaking, if a law enforcement officer — and that could be the police, it could be CVSE — was to determine that a particular vehicle did not have the appropriate tread depth, as one example, then he or she would be fully within their right to turn that driver back and tell them they can’t continue driving over the path that perhaps they had in mind.

In fact, that has been the case up to this point on a very regular basis. The RCMP and other law enforcement agencies are out there doing routine mechanical inspections of vehicles, including checking the tires that are on a vehicle, particularly in winter, and particularly looking at the tread depth.

[1510]

C. Trevena: We’ve now got these big signs since the minister has taken over, very big signs on the side of the road. I notice them very clearly. We have these new big winter signs — they went up last fall — with the graphics of the car or the trailer and then a separate one with the trucks. The ones for the cars and the campers say: “must use winter tires — M and S or mountain-snowflake.” The ones for the trucks say: “must carry tire chains.” Now, these replaced the much smaller signs that used to read — same period, I think it was — “must have good winter tires or carry chains.”

I’m wondering why there is now no longer the demand or the fact that cars should have chains, that it’s just good enough to have…. I’m thinking we could get around this if you get your M-and-S tires, your all-season tires, but you’re carrying chains and using chains. I’m wondering why we’ve taken off the onus for drivers to have chains except for truck drivers.

Hon. T. Stone: The member is quite correct. It has been, to this point, possible for motorists to carry chains. The old signs, which were a bit smaller, did allow for the provision to use winter tires or carry chains. The challenge with that in terms of the chains was that far too often motorists were finding themselves in a very terrible situation — i.e., in a ditch — after spinning out of control because they had their bald tires with a pile of chains in the back of the trunk. People were simply not putting the chains on.

It was the strong advice of law enforcement to eliminate that as an option and to simply require the use of a good tire, which again is either mud and snow or mountain-snowflake with 3.5 millimetres of tread depth. Again, that’s for cars and light trucks. But as the member rightfully pointed out, the use of chains is still acceptable for the larger commercial vehicles.

C. Trevena: I’m assuming that the use of chains isn’t prohibited for cars. If you do see yourself getting into a tricky situation and you’ve got your chains in your trunk, rather than weigh down the trunk and give you extra weight in the trunk, you put them on the car. That’s still acceptable.

Hon. T. Stone: The use of chains is not prohibited. Nothing that we’re doing here with this legislation ac-
[ Page 7229 ]
tually prohibits the use of chains on cars and light trucks. The requirement moving forward will be that the motorist must have winter tires — either M-and-S or the mountain-snowflake tire — on top of which they can put chains if they would choose to do so. Some motorists are continuing to do that. They have the right chains, they’re installing them correctly, and it’s providing them with that much more traction, which is going to be to their benefit from a safety perspective.

C. Trevena: Are there any highways…? I’m just reading section (2). It’s part (2) of section 208. I’m not sure if I’m reading correctly, but I’m wondering if there are any highways where it is prohibited to drive without winter tires — if there is anywhere in the province where it says you must only have winter tires.

[1515]

Hon. T. Stone: If the member is referring to whether or not there are any corridors in the province that require just mountain-snowflake tires and mud and snow tires are not allowed, then the answer is no. But again, the definition of winter tire in British Columbia, as a result of the changes we’re making here today and then the regulation that we will bring in subsequently, will define a winter tire in British Columbia as a tire that is either mountain-snowflake or M and S, along with 3.5 millimetres minimum tread depth.

C. Trevena: I feel like we are completing a circle here. Then I will move on, I think, to the next section. Maybe some of my other questions can be answered under the next section.

Under this we are going to get a regulation that says a winter tire effectively means M and S, which is all-season — which we can use all the time — or a winter tire. There seems to be…. While I respect the engineers in the ministry, and I respect the fact that there has been a lot of work done on this, even linguistically — semantically — it just doesn’t seem to make sense that you can have an all-season tire as a winter tire and a winter tire as a winter tire.

It will cause, I believe, confusion for people who are looking for clarity when they are wanting the safest possible tires for their vehicle.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the decision that we are moving forward with here, which is entirely based on the technical and the safety analysis of our engineers in the ministry, is to update the definition of a winter tire such that that definition provides for tires that have been designated as mud and snow, or tires that have the mountain-snowflake symbol on them — assuming there’s the 3.5 millimetres of minimum tread depth.

That’s the definition. Should this legislation pass this House, that’s what our intention would be for the definition of winter tire to become.

I can’t speak to the specific wording of the regulation yet because we don’t have it. That’s a process that will take place once this legislation is dealt with here in the chamber. But as I’ve said, the intention, which I think is displayed on the signs now, is to provide for both the mud and snow tire and the mountain-snowflake tire with that minimum tread depth.

C. Trevena: The minister has just acknowledged something that I actually wasn’t going to bring up, but I will do since he’s acknowledged it.

This legislation is coming after the fact. The signs went up just around the beginning of October, end of September of 2014. Now we’ve got this legislation, and yet we’re not going to get the full definition until it’s done through regulation, which is outside this place. So we won’t know exactly what’s in the regulation, but it sounds like…. I think the minister is being pretty clear on what is going to be there. It’s going to be all-seasons. Winter tire means winter tire. I’m wondering about, literally, the process. The timings that have gone into this, that we’re getting…. If you might use a very old analogy, putting the cart before the horse.

Hon. T. Stone: The bottom line here is you can’t write the regulation until you actually have a law to which the regulation will refer. So this is not putting the cart before the horse. This is doing things in the proper order.

We are saying that we want to take the current definition of winter tire…. That is hard-coded in the Motor Vehicle Act and, therefore, very difficult and time-consuming to amend as and when required as technology develops. We’re going to take the definition out of the Motor Vehicle Act and replace the provision in the Motor Vehicle Act with the ability for the government, via regulation, to update the definition of winter tire as required and as technology changes. That’s fundamentally what’s happening.

[1520]

That regulation has not been developed yet and won’t be developed until we’ve actually got the legal basis to do so, which will come if the chamber passes this legislation.

C. Trevena: The cart before the horse was the fact that we’ve been advertising this since the end of September, beginning of October as law, although we haven’t actually passed the law until sometime, I imagine, in the next few hours.

That being said, the minister mentioned something that I wanted to refer to. I’ll briefly move on to one section, section (4), while I try and recapture what it was.

Section (4) of 208 — I’m wondering why there is a change. It was: “For the purposes of a prosecution under this section, the onus is on the defendant to prove that a tire alleged not to be a winter tire is in fact a winter tire.” That was reverse onus. Now it’s changed to, “A person
[ Page 7230 ]
who drives or operates a vehicle in contravention of a prohibition made under subsection (2),” which is prohibiting “any vehicle or a class of vehicles from being driven or operated on a highway” unless equipped with chains, winter tires or traction devices.

I’m wondering why this has been changed around.

Hon. T. Stone: A very good question. The prior requirement in the Motor Vehicle Act was that the driver had to prove that the tire was essentially sold to them and advertised — I believe the exact words were “advertised or represented by its manufacturer” — as a winter tire. The onus was on…. It was a reverse onus. It was on the driver to prove that the tire had been sold to them as a winter tire.

That made it very difficult for law enforcement, in the moment of checking someone’s tire, to determine, based on that requirement in the Motor Vehicle Act, if the tire was actually represented and marketed as a winter tire — very clunky.

Where we want to go with this is to actually provide a very clear definition of what constitutes a winter tire. In section 19 we actually indicate that in doing that, we will be able to incorporate, by reference, a standard or specification, certification or designation published by a national or international industry association. This essentially means we’d be able to select a designation that tire manufacturers and the tire industry have deemed for different types of tires. In this case, what’s most relevant is mud and snow, and mountain-snowflake. We can define a winter tire based on the certification of the industry.

That’s going to make it much, much simpler for law enforcement to determine whether or not an individual is actually in contravention of that definition, because the law enforcement officer in question will simply be able to look at the tire, check the designation that’s on the tire and match that against the required designations for winter travel. The person will be abiding by the law or will be in contravention of the law.

C. Trevena: The minister has made reference, obviously, to the industry standard, and we’ll talk a little bit more about that.

[1525]

I know that there was consultation with the industry before this went ahead, and the industry talked to me as well as talked to ministry staff. A number of tire dealerships were involved in this. They are very concerned about this change in the regulation and change in the definition. They had hoped that some of the suggestions they had brought forward to clarify — not necessarily to change but at least to clarify — the position, once the government had made up its mind to the way it wanted to go, would be accepted.

They had been led to believe that there would be changes to the flyer that went out to all the body shops, the places where you get your tires done — the mechanics, and so on. They very disappointed that wasn’t taken into account, and I’m wondering if the minister can just clarify why that was.

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the member’s question about the level of engagement and the manner of engagement with the tire manufacturing industry, I can say quite clearly that the tire industry has been very much engaged with staff in the Ministry of Transportation throughout this entire process. Indeed, the industry and different representatives from within the industry have offered their perspectives and their professional opinions on the definition of winter tires.

With respect to where we are landing on this, there are some in the tire industry that perhaps would have preferred a different solution. Again, we made the decisions based on the complete view of technical analysis that we had both within the ministry and that was provided to us from outside the ministry and have determined the definition based on the fact that tire technology has evolved so much — which, by the way, the tire manufacturers acknowledge.

They certainly acknowledge that a mud and snow tire, which the industry also doesn’t refer to as an all-season tire anymore…. The old notion of summer tires, which were more the all-season tire, are not tires that are sold that often anymore. Most drivers have either the snowflake-in-a-mountain-tire or they have the mud and snow tire. Manufacturers will tell you that those mud and snow tires provide much better traction today in snow and on ice than they did in years past.

I think we should also acknowledge that it would very much be in the interests of the tire industry if there was a requirement for British Columbians to go out there and have to purchase a second set of tires. I think tire manufacturers have acknowledged that point as well.

What I can say is that we’re going to continue to engage with the tire industry as we move forward. They certainly understand our position. I think they respect our position. But we’ll continue to work with them, and we will need to, frankly, as the regulation is developed. We’re going to be relying more heavily, in terms of defining a winter tire, on the standards and the specifications that tire manufacturers actually develop in tires themselves.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

[1530]

C. Trevena: I think we’re into some of the same areas here in section 19, but I didn’t want to carry them all over into section 18. We’re talking in section 19 about amending section 209, which are the regulations that will refer to what you need to ensure that you are using the right
[ Page 7231 ]
sort of tires. The minister did say that this is going be defined in the regulation.

I’m just wondering if the minister can explain why we are adding the two sub-paragraphs of (b.1) “prescribing standards and specification for winter tires” — I think we’ve gone through that — and (b.2) “regulating types of chains and other traction devices.” If the minister could explain what that terminology means, and then we’ll go on to the other section.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, what we’re doing here in this particular section, specific to the member’s question…. First, we’re adding in the concept of studs as well as other traction devices. To the member’s point — what does “other traction devices” mean? If I’m correct — I’m assuming that’s where she was going with her question.

There is actually quite a bit of evolution taking place with respect to the other types of traction devices. There’s an evolving product called AutoSock. This is a device that is actually kind of a material. It’s not made from chain, but it’s a type of traction material that can be wrapped onto the exterior of the tire, which provides additional traction for those tires. Who knew?

There are other types of traction devices being developed. We wanted to provide ourselves with the flexibility here, when we go to define the regulation, to accommodate the potential for those other types of traction devices that may be developed by the tire industry.

Again, we’re adding in the concept of other traction devices. We’re adding in the word “studs” here, and then we’re also adding in the (b.1) and (b.2), which is providing the ability for us to incorporate by reference “a standard or specification…certification or designation…published by a national or international industry association.” That goes back to the different certifications that tire manufacturers come up with — mud and snow versus mountain-snowflake.

I will point out one other point of interest that I just thought of after my last response to the member’s previous question. As part of our engagement with the tire industry, as well, we suggested to them that if there’s really, truly a tremendous amount of angst in the tire industry about the use of mud and snow tires on snow, then why don’t they, as an industry, take the word “snow” off the tire?

[1535]

They didn’t like the suggestion, but I think it cut back to where the discussion really should be. That is, from a technology perspective, are these tires — the composites that are in them, the sipes, the tread design, and assuming you have the minimum tread depth of 3.5 millimetres — safe for use in snow conditions?

C. Trevena: I’ve saved one bit for this section, rather than the previous section. It might be not appropriate. However, I still wondered if the minister could give me an answer. This is when we get to the chains. The use of chains is mainly now for the trucking industry. From the graphic that we see on the roadside, it’s small trucks and large trucks need to have chains.

I’ve heard quite a lot from people who live in mountainous areas who are concerned about, particularly, cross-country truckers not being able to get chains on, just not knowing how to chain up. I’m wondering if the minister….

I mean, it’s great having the regulation, and we know we’ve got enforcement people out there. But still, is the minister looking at doing any serious enforcement on chaining up, training on chaining up and other ways of ensuring that trucks are chaining up through the mountains?

Hon. T. Stone: I hear the same concern expressed from time to time from British Columbians in different parts of the province who, at least anecdotally, indicate they have come across instances where a commercial vehicle operator was having difficulty putting chains on their truck.

This is a multifaceted challenge, and it will require a multifaceted solution. I can say for the member’s benefit that we have a number of strategies that we employ in the ministry to help commercial truckers know how to properly install chains. At all of our chain-up areas in the province, there are big signs which actually will provide instructions for a commercial trucker as to how to properly put chains on their truck. We have lots of other material, like pamphlets and brochures and things. We have a YouTube video on the ministry’s website which shows you how to do it properly.

We are also in regular contact with industry associations and with trucking companies — the B.C. Trucking Association, for example. The education, awareness and training that associations like the BCTA provide are also very important and are part of the solution.

The last point I’ll make is that we are committed in our B.C. on the Move, our ten-year transportation plan, to actually constructing more pullouts and chain-up, chain-off areas in the province, so that truckers have more opportunities, as well, where it makes real sense to have the opportunity to safely put chains on their vehicles. Obviously, at those locations we will ensure that the appropriate signage is in place to assist truckers who may need some additional help in knowing how to do it properly.

C. Trevena: While we’re obviously working on regulations and legislation for here in B.C., many of the truckers are coming from across Canada and coming along, usually, Highway 1. Are we in sync with the regulations in other areas where we have severe winter?

[1540]

I mean, obviously different terrain — whether we’re talking about northern Quebec, Ontario coming up
[ Page 7232 ]
through north of Superior or into the Alberta mountains. Are our regulations the same, so truckers aren’t having to think that they have to change their approach in each place?

Hon. T. Stone: We strive on an ongoing basis, largely through the new west partnership with Alberta and Saskatchewan, to ensure that wherever possible we can harmonize as many regulations respecting trucking, as one industry, as much as we possibly can. So whether you’re in Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, there is a requirement that is the same, very similar, with respect to the requirement for chains on commercial vehicles.

I would point out, however, that out of those three western provinces, British Columbia is the only jurisdiction that actually has a date range wrapped around that requirement for the use of chains. It’s much more general or nebulous in Alberta and Saskatchewan in terms of the requirement — the time frame during which the requirement for chains actually is required.

Section 19 approved.

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess and wait for the Attorney.

The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

On section 20.

M. Farnworth: Section 20 is adding regulation powers related to the new mandatory driver programs. At the same time, it’s repealing broad regulatory-making powers dealing with remedial programs and ignition interlock programs.

Can the minister explain the difference between what’s being added and what’s being taken away and also the comment that some of the powers were, in fact, never exercised?

[1545]

Hon. S. Anton: The pieces that are taken out, under (2.1) and (2.2), were not used except for the prescribing fees section. That has been now added in as (k.5). The others — (k.1), (k.2), (k.3) and (k.4) — relate to the criteria for mandatory remedial programs.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

M. Farnworth: This particular section clarifies the period of a driving prohibition under section 215.43, how it is to be calculated. Can the minister explain the clarification, what it is obviously trying to correct, why the clarification is necessary and what will be the new procedure and calculation process?

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of this section is to clarify exactly how you count the days of a prohibition. It wasn’t crystal-clear in the legislation before.

[1550]

This has been the practice, which is that no matter what time of day you get your prohibition, the counting of days actually starts at midnight on the next day, so it’s always three full days plus whatever portion of the day was remaining when you got your prohibition, if it was a three-day prohibition. The intention was always to count it in this way, and the goal here is to clarify that that, indeed, is the right way of counting it.

M. Farnworth: Okay. It is Saturday morning, let’s say three o’clock, which is probably a typical time that people would get pulled over and get a prohibition. The calculation would then take place from midnight that Saturday evening, and it would be all day Sunday, all day Monday, all day Tuesday, and it would end on Wednesday morning at one minute after midnight. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: For a three-day prohibition that is correct.

M. Farnworth: Just to my colleagues whom I can hear conspiring to my left, no, I am not talking from personal experience.

The Chair: I’m glad that you have set the record straight, Member.

M. Farnworth: Exactly, just to set the record straight.

I thank the minister for that explanation. Does it still need to become…? Will it be by regulation, or will it be, in fact, through a specific…? So in the legislation it will clarify that?

Hon. S. Anton: No regulation. This is the section right here.

Section 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

M. Farnworth: This adds that statements and evidence submitted by an applicant must meet the requirements of the regulations. Are the regulations still to be developed, or are the regulations going to be those regulations that are existing, or is there anticipation of any changes in the regulations that are currently used?
[ Page 7233 ]

Hon. S. Anton: This is the section that says that the applicant’s application for review must meet the requirements of the regulations, but it’s actually not the regulation-making authority.

M. Farnworth: I just want to be clear. Statements and evidence submitted by an applicant must meet the requirements of the regulations. If I understood the minister correctly…. If she could just explain what the regulations entail, that would be helpful.

[1555]

Hon. S. Anton: The regulation-making authority is in section 33 — the addition of paragraph (e), which refers back to this section. In the regulation-making authority it talks about…. The two pieces are: “(i) establishing requirements for written statements and evidence and their submission, and (ii) respecting the circumstances in or reasons for which the superintendent is required to waive a requirement.”

One of the things which is being considered, as I said in the second reading statement, is that there is a consideration of limiting the number of pages that a person can bring with their application for review. It is the case that some of the submissions are very lengthy. In some courts the length of your submission is limited, and there’s a proposal that we consider that. One of the things in mind is that we would consider making that regulation change attached to these reviews.

M. Farnworth: I understand how and why the minister would want to see that change made. What’s the process the minister intends to go through in making a determination of that option?

Hon. S. Anton: The process will take into consideration such things as what the courts do now. For example, the British Columbia Court of Appeal limits the length of an argument to 30 pages. The Supreme Court of Canada limits the argument to 40 pages. Those seem to be numbers that work for those two courts. Sometimes the IRP adjudicators are receiving extremely lengthy applications for review, so it’s that which is being considered in this provision here and in the later provision for regulation.

M. Farnworth: The simpler the disputes, the longer and more complex the argument is. I think that is something that sometimes happens. So 30 pages or 40 pages for the Supreme Court. Can the minister tell us when she expects to have a decision made on this particular proposal?

Hon. S. Anton: If this act is to pass and the authority is granted, then our goal would be to have it done in six months to a year.

M. Farnworth: I’ll resist the temptation to say six months to a year to decide on 30 pages or 40 pages.

One final question. Will the decision-making process…? I mean, I am a little surprised it would take six months to a year.

[1600]

Will it require a legislative change, or will it just be strictly a regulatory change? Will there be public input? It does seem to be a fairly lengthy period of time.

Hon. S. Anton: There will be other regulations, not extensive. But there will be others that will be coming in, in that time. So it’s not only the number of pages.

I think the second part of the question was: what else would we be considering? We’d be considering, as I said, the practice in courts and other tribunals.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

M. Farnworth: This section “requires the superintendent to revoke a driving prohibition that results from notice under section 215.41 of the act and take related actions if a sworn or solemnly affirmed report under section 215…of the act is not forwarded by a certain time.” This obviously relates to one of the earlier sections that we dealt with. My question would be: what are the related actions?

Hon. S. Anton: This is the matching section to section 7 that we dealt with yesterday. This is the section which says that if the officer has not sent in the sworn report, then the superintendent must revoke the driving prohibition, cancel the mandatory penalty, release the vehicle…. Those are the kinds of things that are the related actions. And of course, when I say “send in the sworn report,” within the seven days.

Sections 28 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

M. Farnworth: “Section 32…provides that the burden of proof in a driving prohibition review under section 215.48 of the act is on the applicant.” I think that has been a standard in terms of the prohibition and of the changes that have been made that allow that to take place.

[1605]

My question on this particular section: are there issues around this section that are here because of court challenges? Following on that, is the minister confident that this particular section will, in fact, survive a court challenge, and is she anticipating or prepared for the likelihood of a court challenge on this particular section?
[ Page 7234 ]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, I am confident in this provision. It is a reflection of a principle of administrative law, which is that in administrative matters whoever asserts a proposition bears the burden of proving it. Of course, we’re talking about a civil burden of proof here, not the criminal burden of proof.

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

M. Farnworth: Section 33 — one of the parts of this section is “to require the superintendent to waive a requirement respecting the timing of submissions in certain circumstances or for certain reasons.” Can the minister outline what those circumstances are and what those reasons would be?

Hon. S. Anton: This gives the superintendent the ability to waive a requirement. Generally, it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance of one kind or another. For example, it could relate to a timeline. I don’t want to limit it to that, though, because there may be a number of ways in which the superintendent would like to have the kind of discretion which is offered in this section.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister said, but if she could be a little bit more definitive. It’s kind of like okay, yeah, I agree, the discretion and the ability, because there are always exceptional circumstances. But I’m just sort of wondering — a little bit more fulsome in what that might entail. Clearly, the ministry must have thought what that might be when putting together this particular section.

[1610]

Hon. S. Anton: Remembering that this is a regulation-making authority, so these things will be laid out in the regulations, an example might be — and, again, I don’t want to limit it because there may be any number of examples — that the superintendent found that the person was in a coma, was too ill to attend. He would then be required to waive the timeline requirement — that kind of circumstance.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for the clarification. I think it is important that there is at least some example on the record, because who knows in the future what was meant by this particular section. I think that is a legitimate example that the minister uses. I’ll be interested to see when the regulations come out, but that’s fine for this section.

Sections 33 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

M. Farnworth: This particular section, section 38, “exempts emergency vehicles and ambulances from impoundment under certain provisions of the act.” Does that apply to provincial emergency vehicles and municipal…? What is the definition of “emergency vehicle?” Is it, for example, only provincial emergency vehicles? Or does it, in fact, cover federal emergency vehicles — vehicles that might have a federal licence plate, for example?

Hon. S. Anton: The act defines “emergency vehicle” as “a motor vehicle, or cycle as defined in Part 3, carrying rescue or first aid equipment…driven by a member of a fire department…driven by a peace officer, constable or member of the police branch of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.” There you are. Fortunately, federal emergency vehicles will not be impounded.

Sections 38 to 60 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[1615]

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:16 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 26, in second reading.

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I do move that Bill 26, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015, be read a second time now.

I think there are a couple of things that one can say about Bill 26. It is, first of all, an example of complexity, to be sure, in legislative drafting. That might be something of an understatement.
[ Page 7235 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

It’s probably one of those bills for which, in addition to the general comments that will be presented during the course of this second reading discussion, much of the analysis, criticism, critique will take place when we are in second reading.

I will make these general comments, however. The government made a commitment that it would introduce a new tax on income from liquefaction activities in British Columbia. Last fall we introduced the first piece of legislation relating to that, which represented the conceptual structure of what that tax was intended to look like and how it was intended to operate. I think it’s fair to say that that legislation and that structure was much anticipated, and the government was anxious to satisfy that interest by presenting in legislative form our approach to the issue of taxation.

At the same time, in the course of the discussions that took place in the House, I think it became clear — and I tried to make it clear from the outset — that there were aspects, administrative components, enforcement components, of the taxation legislation that were not included within that bill and that were continuing to be worked on. This Bill 26 represents the completion of that work and does, as I mentioned, include many of the technical and administrative provisions that are necessary to ensure proper enforcement with respect to legislation of this sort.

[1620]

Both, but particularly the legislation we tabled last fall in this House, debated and ultimately passed, are necessary for the industry to advance the process of making final investment decisions. We remain at that stage where work is being continued. Proponents are engaged in negotiations on a variety of fronts, and an analysis. Ensuring that they have a clear sense of the legislative package, in its entirety, is something that the government is ever resolved to ensure occurs.

This act does complete the tax framework by setting out the administration and enforcement provisions for the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. It contains many of the elements that are common to all tax statutes, such as filing requirements, requirements with respect to paying taxes, instalments, assessments, appeals, audits, collections, penalties, offences and anti-avoidance provisions. For those lucky souls who deal with taxation legislation on a regular basis, none of this will strike them as unusual.

One of the questions that did arise with respect to the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act is: how are you going to collect the tax? How does the government, the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia, intend to collect the tax from LNG taxpayers who may have no presence in British Columbia other than to own natural gas.

This bill is intended to answer that question. As well, it requires LNG income tax taxpayers to register with the province and to post a bond at the time of registration. The government then will be in a position to collect the amount owing from the bond if the taxpayer does not pay its taxes.

On the flipside, if an LNG taxpayer were not to register and, therefore, not post a bond, the act includes a mechanism to ensure that the amount that taxpayer owes will be collected from other taxpayers at the LNG facility, thereby ensuring that British Columbians receive a fair return for this shared resource. That being enshrined within the notions of joint and several liability will, I’m sure, be the subject of some discussion when we move to the committee stage.

The bill makes a number of other amendments to the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. It clarifies a number of definitions in the act, including the definitions of an LNG plant, an LNG facility, capital investment property, feedstock, spur pipeline, feedstock pipeline and liquefaction activities. All of these being defined terms, and as we reviewed last fall, relevant, pertinent and determining what activities are taxable and at what rate and when taxation begins.

This Bill 26 also clarifies that self-dealing and transfer pricing rules apply to deemed sales of LNG natural gas liquids and natural gas.

The bill also introduces a number of technical provisions for the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. These provisions, I think it’s fair to say, aren’t necessarily key components of the tax, but they do provide rules for situations that might arise from time to time. They include rules for debt forgiveness, bankruptcy, the rules for prorating exempt income if an entity becomes exempt or ceases to be exempt, and the exemption of trust income where the beneficiaries of the trust are exempt. Again, very technical provisions that we can review in greater detail in committee relating to circumstances that may not occur frequently, but it is necessary to contemplate the possibility of them arising and have rules in place to deal with them if and when they do.

The bill also provides transitional rules for partnerships in their first taxation year. These rules, again, are very technical in nature and as with the clarifications that were referred to earlier are consistent with the intent of the act that we debated and ultimately passed in the chamber last fall.

Bill 26 also amends the Income Tax Act for the purposes of the natural gas income tax credit. The natural gas tax credit is currently calculated as 0.5 percent of the cost of natural gas owned by the corporation at the inlet to an LNG facility, but the amount of the credit cannot reduce a corporation’s effective income tax rate below 8 percent.

[1625]

The bill proposes to amend the credit inclusion rate to allow it to be 0.5 percent plus an amount prescribed by regulation. This amendment provides the government
[ Page 7236 ]
with the flexibility to ensure that the credit inclusion rate can respond to changes in the natural gas market, while maintaining the original intent of the credit.

Only from a brief conversation, I think I understand that there will be interest expressed in those provisions, and I think that’s appropriate. I’m hopeful that in the discussion that will take place, I am able to make a compelling case to members of the House for why that is an appropriate provision to include in this legislation.

The other thing I might say at this point is that the agreements and the investment contemplated here, if and when — we remain cautiously optimistic that it is when — these decisions are made, are of a magnitude that I think it is appropriate, and I’m happy to advise the House that it would be the government’s intention, to provide the House with an opportunity to examine in detail certainly the first of those agreements.

To the extent that I think…. I’m not critical. It’s the job of the opposition to be suspicious in circumstances like this. The….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is the appropriate role of the opposition. But I’m hopeful members will derive some measure of comfort from the knowledge that I actually…. Given the magnitude of what is being considered here — the extent of the investment and the need to properly balance the principles of certainty for a proponent or an investor with the ability and the constitutional authority of this assembly — in my view it would be appropriate for the House to have an opportunity to examine the government’s proposed answer to where that balance lies.

I’m sure we’ll have more opportunity to discuss that and how that aspect of the bill is intended to operate and facilitate the rationale behind it in the first place, but I did want to say at the outset that I’m alive to the interest. Hopefully, we can pursue that — and I’m sure we will — at the committee stage.

In summation, this represents part 2, albeit perhaps a less compelling part than the first in terms of the structure of the tax, which was laid out in the fall legislation. But taxation legislation of this variety needs and requires a clear set of rules relating to the administration of the tax, the obligations that are imposed on a taxpayer — the operational obligations that are imposed — and the mechanisms by which the state, or the Crown in this case, are able to enforce those provisions. It is my belief that this legislation, in all its voluminous grandeur, will accomplish that task.

I will listen with interest to the comments of members of the House.

B. Ralston: I rise to address second reading on Bill 26. I want to thank the minister for arranging a briefing with his staff. Myself and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill were there this morning. Indeed, much of the bill, in terms of the framework of enforcement and administration, was explained.

[1630]

But I do want to set a bit broader context than simply viewing this bill as an administrative one which fleshes out some of the tax mechanisms to register and to collect the tax and to wrongfully avoid payment of tax.

Bill 6 was a bill that this bill amends. Bill 6 has not yet been proclaimed in force. The position that the government took was that it was important to have a tax framework for those proponents who were making or on the verge of making significant final investment decisions.

We accepted that argument. We agreed that given the abundance of natural gas, given the prospect of creating a new industry here and given certain conditions that the Leader of the Opposition set down — one of those was a fair return for the citizens of British Columbia — we were prepared to support that legislation.

Indeed, those who followed that debate…. The context in which it took place was the government had set out in the budget in the spring a hypothetical scenario about what the likely tax would be in terms of the LNG tax itself. When the legislation arrived in the fall, that framework had changed, and the total tax take and the specifics of the LNG tax had diminished. Nonetheless, in the interests of recognizing some of the market realities, we were prepared to accept that.

What is now clear is that the context in which we are operating has changed. I would suggest that that context is the political context in which the Premier is operating.

The significant part, really — aside from the administrative apparatus of this bill and the change and clarification of some of the definitions — is section 56, which amends the natural gas tax credit. This is a credit which was to be computed as 0.5 percent of the cost of natural gas acquired or notionally acquired at an LNG facility for tax purposes. The section that is in this bill….

It was set at 0.5 percent in the statute — very clear, very straightforward. Just as much as one would pay sales tax, or you and I might pay our income tax, we know what the percentage is. It’s there, it’s transparent, and everyone knows what it is.

What is now proposed is to take this particular provision and give the government and the cabinet the power to amend that provision in the privacy of the cabinet room, where there will be no public discussion of it. Ultimately, it will be announced — although, I’m sure, probably on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.

The rules in terms of public disclosure have changed. This is in the context of other legislation that is before the House and is going to come forward. In section 46 of Bill 23 it’s now proposed that the government would give itself the power to enter into long-term royalty agreements. One can imagine…. This is part of the total package, I’m sure, that’s being offered to proponents. Long-term roy-
[ Page 7237 ]
alty agreements which will be, and therefore directly relate to, the bill before the House….

In that provision, in a long-term royalty agreement, one can well imagine a proponent saying: “I’m investing in a project that will be amortized over 30 years. I want to fix the royalty rate for the entire life of the project. I don’t want to be subject to the vagaries of government, the fluctuations of the market. I want to know at the outset, before I invest, what my royalty will be for 30 years or 35 years or 40 years out.” That gives the government the power to do that.

[1635]

On top of that, what it also says in that piece of legislation is that the minister “must, as soon as practicable, publish an agreement entered into under subsection (1) but may withhold from publication anything in the agreement that could be refused to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, if a request were made under that Act for disclosure of the agreement.”

A long-term agreement, a decision behind closed doors to raise the natural gas tax credit and the way in which the minister phrased…. That’s the first thing. The second thing is long-term agreements where the details will not be disclosed publicly.

Then finally, under the veil of secrecy and non-disclosure that the government seems to want to envelop these projects in, are the project development agreements.

I was here in the House, and the minister was, I believe, here as well — I’m certain he was here — when the Minister of Natural Gas said that under no circumstances could these project development agreements be disclosed. The Minister of Finance disagreed, but we have, in the interim, asked through freedom of information whether any project development agreements have been signed. If so, what is the deal? What are the contents of those agreements?

The request has come back with blank pieces of paper. In other words, everything has been…. The jargon term is “redacted,” that it’s blanked out — nothing. Why is this so? If the deals that are being struck are good deals for British Columbia, surely the government would be proclaiming from the rooftops the details of the return for the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

When one looks back at the debate that took place in the fall of 2014, in the material there was a chart which showed the total tax take of each of these individual projects — in other words, all the tax that was going to be paid by an individual project.

Some of the smaller accumulated taxes would be the motor fuel tax, property tax. PST would bump up during the development phase, when the companies are purchasing material and supplies to build a project. But the bulwark of the total tax take was corporate income tax and natural gas royalties.

Yet now before the House, in Bill 23 and Bill 26, this bill, is a mechanism to lower, dramatically, corporate income tax returns from these projects and natural gas royalties. The total tax return, the return from the publicly owned resource to the citizens of British Columbia is diminishing once again, and the mechanisms by which that’s done, the agreements by which this is entered into are not going to be disclosed publicly.

Project development agreements — I spoke about this in the fall — are more typically a mechanism that one encounters in the Third World, where companies investing typically in mining but also in oil and gas will enter into an agreement with the sovereign state that sometimes has various components. If they get a stabilized royalty rate, sometimes they will pay a premium above the existing rate in return for getting the assurance of the government that that rate will remain constant through the life of the project.

There are a number of variations, obviously, but these are widely known in the global mining world. Of course, because Vancouver is a mining hub, there are many people who are quite familiar with these kinds of project development agreements. But the approach that has been taken by the Minister of Natural Gas is that these are not going to be disclosed, under no circumstances. That’s what he said in Hansard, on the record.

I appreciate that the Minister of Finance’s view is different. But it would seem to me at this point, given our experience in going through freedom of information, that the Premier has clearly overruled the Minister of Finance and said: “It doesn’t matter what you say in the House. These agreements are not going to be made public.”

[1640]

For the public to have any confidence and to be able to judge the agreements, the project development agreements have to be and should be disclosed. There’s been some discussion in the media. Not a great deal of attention has been paid to this issue. But it seems to me that it is crucial, in a public evaluation of return to the public for a public resource, that the terms on which the taking of the resource from the province is done ought to be public.

One does not know what assurances have been given in that project development agreement. Have future governments been bound? Are there penalties if the agreement is broken that would make it financially impossible for another government to vary it in any way? Do the companies get the protection of a rate set at a certain level but they get the benefit if the rate drops? If there’s tax relief brought by a subsequent government, future tax relief, is that something that the government gets as well?

It’s clear that in the desperation — and I have spoken of this previously — the government is prepared to go to any measure, including secret agreements that they’re not prepared to disclose publicly in order to get a deal.

Now, I’ve been up to Prince Rupert and to Kitimat just recently, in the last couple of weeks. I’ve met with the proponents of the Shell project and the Chevron project. I met with the Petronas proponents. I had a look at some of
[ Page 7238 ]
the land where the Aurora project is proposed on Digby Island. I had a look at the site where Exxon Mobil has acquired land down at the end of the harbour in Prince Rupert. So I would say I am not….

I’m sure the Minister of Natural Gas will heap scorn on…. Any qualification that in any way suggests anything other than completely agreeing with the government’s position on these things means opposition to the establishment of an LNG industry here in British Columbia. That seems to be his rhetorical shtick. That seems to be the way he likes to structure his speeches. But I think it is a reasonable question to ask. It is a reasonable position to take on behalf of the people of British Columbia. What is the return on the resource, and why shouldn’t this be known to us?

Now, you know, the Premier had promised a number of things. Of course, her promises are as variable as the weather. But in this particular case, in this particular industry, she promised one LNG project up and running by 2015. The revised version of that was three projects up and running by 2020.

There well may be a final investment decision. Many people have pointed to Petronas. Because it’s a state-owned enterprise, it’s somewhat immune to the economic cycle in a way that a market-driven firm is driven more by quarterly results. Although the recent Moody’s report is from a very reputable investment house, which I know the minister is familiar with…. He visits there in order to talk about the government’s credit rating and is quite happy to cite them as an authoritative source on finance here in British Columbia.

I’m not sure whether he agrees with the qualifications that they’ve put upon and the analysis that they’ve undertaken in their recent report on LNG. What they say about Petronas is that Petronas, because it’s a state-owned enterprise and has certain national obligations…. The decline in the price of oil has led to a decline in the amount of cash flow available to the company, and they have been forced to focus more locally, on the Malaysian market, rather than make a kind of long-term investment decision.

[1645]

In addition, I think everyone knows — it’s a matter of public record — that in the federal environmental assessment, the clock has been stopped because there is a major difficulty in getting environmental approval in that process from the federal Environmental Assessment Agency. It’s a unified process in the sense that there the provincial has been done, so it’s simply to wait on the federal process.

Whether that takes place or not…. Depending on who you talk to, and I’ve talked to some people who are quite well informed on the environmental challenges of this particular site, it may not go ahead. That’s something that’s out of the control of the government. It’s out of the control of the opposition. It’s out of the control of many people. Nonetheless, it may go ahead.

The position we’re taking is not in the context of a position that doesn’t understand some of the broader context and some of the subtleties of resource pricing and the global situation in which the LNG industry finds itself. One of the principles that was enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition on this issue was a fair return for British Columbians.

The previous Bill 6, with warts and all, was something that we were prepared to support. But the next steps, which seem to have been taken in the increasing and frantic political desperation of the Premier to get some kind of a deal, are steps that we’re not prepared to support.

The way in which the minister expressed the explanation of the natural gas tax credit was in the context — and I am looking at the Hansard record of his speech — was that the natural gas tax credit was designed to entice offshore companies to perhaps establish an office in British Columbia in order that they be eligible for the credit. It was set at 0.5 percent because the company would be able to…. Because it’s on the volume of gas passing through, a high volume of gas would enable the company to earn its way, through volume, ultimately to the 8 percent.

What the change now contemplates is the government just saying: “We need a further sweetener to get you here. We’re going to go to the 8 percent right away. We’ll give you 8 percent right off the bat, no matter what volume you start off at and what fluctuations there are in supply. You won’t have to earn your way through that over a period of time.” That is something that we’re not prepared to support.

The mechanism is there to — and this was clear in the briefing — offer a further tool to entice investors by reducing their tax and reducing the return to British Columbia to get them to come here. That’s the significant challenge with this part of the legislation, and that’s really the most critical part in this particular bill.

The context in which this take place is clear. The rest of the bill is relatively straightforward. The way in which some of the definitions were clarified, I think, are defensible and understandable and really minor changes in language in order to clarify the meaning. I think that’s helpful to those who administer the act and to those who may ultimately be governed by the act that the act and the legislation be as clear as possible.

[1650]

If we had known that this was the direction that the government was heading with the provisions of Bill 23, the long-term royalty agreements with project development agreements that will not be made public and with changing the natural gas credit to reduce corporate income tax — do that in the cabinet rather than leave it in a statute — our position might very well have been different.

We’re here now. We’re dealing with this particular bill. That is why we are going to vote against this particular bill. Notwithstanding that most of it is technical, the main
[ Page 7239 ]
basis on which we’re voting against it is, as I’ve said now I hope a few times, just to make sure the message is clear….

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Well, good, good. Well, I’m not sure. Sometimes a little repetition is necessary, I think. So that’s the reason that we’re going to vote against the bill. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Victoria–Oak Bay.

C. James: Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Deputy Speaker: Beacon Hill, yes, sorry.

C. James: I also rise to speak to Bill 26, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015. Just for the public who may be watching…. There may be someone out there who is interested in tax bills or certainly interested in the direction that the government takes around LNG. They may be wondering why we’re having an amendment bill come forward when, in fact, the LNG tax bill was introduced in the fall.

That is correct. This bill actually just comes forward, as the minister said in his opening as well, to add to and amend Bill 6 that was introduced in the fall. I think it’s important to talk about it in the context of Bill 26.

The bill that was introduced in the fall was a bill that, again, as the minister has said, set out the tax credit rates for the LNG industry and set them out in statutes, set them out in a bill, just as tax rates are for other businesses, for individuals, for families — clear and there for everyone to see, which is an important principle. It’s a very important principle. It’s an even more important principle with this industry, given the Premier’s promises on how we got here to be discussing LNG.

We’ve certainly seen the Premier’s promises with LNG stretch and change with the wind or with the daily changes whenever the Premier was talking about LNG. I think we started off with laser focus. LNG was going to resolve absolutely everything, every ill in our province — everything from getting rid of sales tax to addressing the province’s debt to addressing all kinds of challenges.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs. I think the numbers grew and shrunk and grew and shrunk depending on where the Premier was talking about, and a promise that the final investment decisions would be made by now — a promise that the tax regime was going to be introduced a year ago.

Given all of that, given all of the grandiose commitments, given all of the changes that the Premier has gone through with the LNG industry, I think it’s even more critical that there’s transparency around what the government is introducing on LNG. The public is owed transparency on all issues, but particularly on an issue like this, given the Premier’s rhetoric, given what we’ve heard over the last while around LNG. I think it’s critical that we see that kind of transparency.

Given all of that, as my colleague has said, when the government brought forward Bill 6 in the fall, we were at least glad to see that some kind of tax rate was introduced in law for the public to see and to have that public debate.

Now, that doesn’t take away from all the challenges related to this government when it comes to LNG. As my colleague has talked about, we’ve set some principles in place that need to be there around resources coming back to British Columbians, around jobs for British Columbia, around a fair deal and a true partnership for First Nations, around the environmental issues being addressed.

[1655]

Any of this discussion, having the tax rate in a bill, does not take away from any of those issues and any of those concerns. In fact, we raised those concerns quite vigorously in the House and voted against the government’s direction when it came to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

That doesn’t take away from any of that. I think it is, again ironic, when you go back to look at the Premier’s promises about having the greenest LNG industry. It’s certainly easier when you cut off all of the upstream emissions and don’t even include them. That’s really the direction we’ve seen this Premier take.

Given all of those challenges, as I said, I think having a tax rate, whether you agreed or disagreed with it, certainly provided that beginning transparency for the public to see. Here was a tax rate. We could have the debate. We could have the discussion. We could talk with the public about whether that really was a number that provided a resource back to British Columbia. It gave the opportunity to be able to have that happen.

Then I think it was surprising when we saw in this bill today…. As my colleague has said, we received a briefing. I thank the minister and thank the staff for the briefing that we were given today on this issue. But when you take a look at what we see in Bill 26, it’s concerning.

I think the majority of the bill, as has been said, is mainly procedural. No question. It’s mainly administrative. There are clarifications. There are technical provisions that add clarity to Bill 6. That’s the majority of the bill.

Those changes — and I think the minister ran through some of those in his comments — include everything from timing on tax returns to the payment of tax. They talk about anti-avoidance rules, making sure that the tax truly comes back to British Columbia, confidentiality, offences — very routine kinds of pieces of clauses to put in a bill that would involve tax reform. They are clauses, in fact, that are in many other bills that have been moved over.

There is a section on registration, as the minister talked about, that talks about who must register for the purpose of their involvement in the LNG industry — so making
[ Page 7240 ]
sure that we see the proponents registering but not catching in, for example, the janitorial service that cleans the LNG plant through that process.

There is a technical section that talks about the collection of bonds, which again is critical for many LNG companies that have, in fact, offices overseas, are not based in British Columbia or are not based in Canada — many of them. So ensuring that that bond is there and that the ability to be able to collect those resources and collect those taxes if something was to occur is pretty critical.

There are some technical pieces and some interesting pieces to learn about through the briefing around when the tax takes impact — when the LNG actually hits the plant, when the meter starts — and making sure that you’re not including the LNG that’s travelling through the pipeline to the plant. There are some technical pieces there.

The concerning clause — and this is the issue that I just want to spend a couple of minutes on — section 56, for those who want to take a look in Bill 26, is the provision that allows the LNG tax credit to be adjusted. It allows the tax credit to be adjusted above the 0.5 percent rate by regulation. I just want to emphasize that.

In the discussion that I talked about earlier, where we heard the Finance Minister talk about his government’s commitment to bring the LNG tax to the Legislature, which happened through Bill 6…. We had that discussion in public. Whether you agree with it or disagree with it, the commitment was there to bring it to the Legislature. It did come to the Legislature — late, but it did come.

What you see with this clause, with section 56, is, in fact, that it completely reverses that work that was done in the fall. It completely reverses the ability for the public to be able to see that rate. It takes away the ability for the public to see what direction the government’s going to take until after the fact.

Given this government’s direction and this government’s record around LNG and LNG commitments, I have to say that this is an incredibly troubling direction. To think that you could take a tax credit and decide that we’ll just up it…. We want to give industry a little bit bigger tax credit. We won’t take that to the Legislature to be debated. We won’t let the public know ahead of time that that’s a direction we’re looking at. We’ll just do that by regulation. We’ll sit in the cabinet room, we’ll decide that by regulation, and then we’ll publish that regulation later.

[1700]

I think my colleague joked about that being a Friday afternoon release. I wish that was a joke. Sadly, that’s often when you see this kind of information come forward.

To say on the one hand, as the minister did, that he was proud of bringing forward the tax rate to the Legislature and then introduce a clause in a mainly technical bill that actually takes that back and says, “No, sorry. We’re not going to do that. We’re actually going to set the tax credit in secret, in cabinet, in regulation,” I think is incredibly troubling. It’s even more troubling when you take it with the other pieces that have occurred around LNG.

It really sets the wrong direction and shows the level that this government will go to keep information away from the public. I think this is a pattern that we’ve seen. Whether it’s land sales, as we’ve been talking about today and in the last few days, or whether it’s the restricting of information through freedom of information, this is a direction that this government seems to take.

What are the other pieces that go along with this clause? This clause is troubling in itself, but when you add it together with a couple of other pieces that I just want to touch on, it really shows the desperation — I don’t know what other word to use — that this Premier has with trying to convince people that LNG is going to happen and is going to solve all of the challenges that our province faces.

The first one I just wanted to talk about is the project development agreements. These are agreements that are signed with LNG proponents — signed between the government and between the proponents. While I heard the minister say that he would hope that he could bring one of those agreements forward, that there could be an opportunity for discussion and for the opposition and for the public to be able to see those agreements, he’s actually been contradicted by his colleagues.

He’s been contradicted by his colleague in charge of natural gas, who in fact has said that those agreements are not going to be public. In no way are they going to be public. That would violate the private business industries. Therefore, they won’t go public.

Again, that’s a worrisome direction because these agreements could lock in all kinds of things. They can lock in tax agreements. They can lock in the length of time for tax credits. These agreements are obligations for taxpayers. They’re not just a contract between a minister and a proponent; they’re actually long-term tax obligations for the public, for taxpayers.

If you take a look through the proposed Bill 26, we now have the tax credit rate being set by regulation away from the public, away from the opportunity for the public to have that true debate. You have project development agreements being developed and being kept secret as part of this. Then you add onto that the third piece, which are royalty agreements, which again, can be long term, can give benefits and will be kept secret.

You know, I heard the minister when he introduced the second reading of the bill today that the ability to set the LNG tax credit and regulation was there to address changes in the natural gas market. Well, that’s even more concerning. That doesn’t provide reassurance, from my perspective, for the public. That provides, in fact, even more concern about the direction that the government has taken, because we have seen huge changes in the natural gas market over this past year.
[ Page 7241 ]

Never mind the price of gas and the impact that that has on the industry. We’ve seen amalgamations. We’ve seen companies leave. We’ve seen companies say that they’re going to put their major investments in other jurisdictions, not in British Columbia. We’ve had major changes in the natural gas market.

If the government’s direction is to say, “We’ll just provide more. Don’t worry. It’ll be fine, but by the way, we’ll do that in secret so the public doesn’t know about it, and we’ll tell them about it later….” That really, as I said before and as my colleague has said, smacks of desperation and smacks of a worrisome trend for a resource that belongs to British Columbians. I think that’s, again, a critical piece here for us all, for the public, to acknowledge.

[1705]

I recognize that this is a very technical bill. It’s not a bill that most of the public are going to pick up and read when it comes to income tax and changes to the income tax law. But I think there’s a very important principle here, which we see in other areas of government under this government, where there’s a direction to sell off our resources without recognizing that those resources belong to all of us. The issue of forestry and raw logs is another sad example of that. You know, “Let’s cut the logs. Let’s send them overseas. Let’s sell them off quick” and not look at building that secondary manufacturing, those value-added jobs that could be right here in British Columbia and instead are being lost.

I worry that this is exactly what we’re seeing with this government in this bill and in their direction around LNG — is in fact a sell-off of an asset in hopes of seeing some part of industry come forward to be able to invest in our province. It’s not a direction that I support. It’s not a direction that we on this side of the House support. And it’s not a direction that the public supports, most importantly.

The public understands, and this isn’t an issue of urban versus rural. This isn’t an issue of: people don’t get it. People particularly in northern communities, in communities that are struggling and that are looking for employment and certainly have hopes for employment, would say the same thing. They would also say that these resources belong to British Columbians. To give them away without fair value back for British Columbians, to give them away without jobs for British Columbians, and to do all of that with a cone of secrecy is the wrong direction for our province to go. It’s the wrong direction for a government to go.

I think it’s troubling. It’s disappointing. It takes a completely opposite direction than we’ve heard in the fall, when the government introduced a bill to say they wanted certainty and they wanted the public to have the debate. They introduced a tax rate that, as I said, you could agree or disagree, but it was there on the table. Now that will be gone if this bill passes, if this clause passes.

It will now let that be done in regulation. It will take that away from public scrutiny. It will take the ability from the public — so not to be involved in that. I think it’s a troubling direction, and certainly, I can’t support the direction that’s in that bill. With that, I will take my seat.

A. Weaver: I find it, frankly, deeply troubling that we’re here debating Bill 26, LNG Income Tax Amendment Act. This is a 109-page act which is designed to amend an 87-page act — that is, Bill 6, which was introduced back in the fall. Bill 6, as you will recall, was the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act.

You will recall that in third reading of Bill 6, I moved a motion. I moved a motion to send the LNG Income Tax Act to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for further review. The reason why I did that was because Bill 6 was incomplete. It was full of loopholes so big you could drive a bus through.

Let me read some of the concerns I had. The reason why I would like to do that is to point out that quite a number of these concerns have been addressed in this, the amendment act, this 109-page act — bigger than the original act.

In the fall, when I moved an amendment at third reading to send this to committee, I stated the following.

“There have been questions that would benefit exploration at committee stage. In particular, there are questions on revenue projections, the modelling, the assumptions into the modelling that have not been forthcoming and transparent in terms of us as a Legislature being able to assess this legislation.

“There’s section 32(c)” of Bill 6. “There are issues that came up…with respect to a loophole for earned credits that could be sold by a company, the income from that not being claimed as taxable, yet the person purchasing it can claim the income as a deduction.”

[1710]

There were questions about section 46, with respect to the rate being left out. We never got guidance as to what the rate in the formula there was.

There were questions on section 47 regarding “a potential LNG loophole for tax avoidance through capital acquisitions and leaving the 1.5 percent net LNG tax rate for significant times.”

There were questions on section 122 with respect to the polluter-gets-paid instead of a polluter-pays model.

There were questions on section 172 that we did not have as much time as I would have liked to explore, in particular that one-half percent natural gas tax credit. Let me reiterate that. Back in the fall, when I put an amendment to send this to committee, I specifically stated in speaking to that amendment that one of the reasons this had to go to committee was because “I would have wished to explore, in particular, the one-half percent natural gas tax credit.” Well, as we will discuss later in my speech here, we do have more details about that one-half percent tax credit.

I would have thought in the fall that this was such an important piece of legislation that government would have wanted to send this to committee to actually gain the insight of British Columbians, of First Nations, of
[ Page 7242 ]
industry from across the province. Instead, with the exception of the member for Delta South, every member in this Legislature stood and voted against sending this to committee, to rush this bill through when it wasn’t ready.

Today we stand here to debate Bill 26, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, a full 109 pages, compared to the 87-page act which was incomplete and introduced in the fall. This is troubling. This is very troubling. It, frankly, disturbs me that we have to be in this position here today.

Let me emphasize that the changes made in this bill are important. They’re important, and I’m in a quandary. They’re important because I stood passionately and spoke against the introduction of Bill 6 in the fall. But I recognize that we have passed Bill 6. Bill 6 has now received royal assent and is a matter of law within British Columbia. Bill 6 is incomplete. We cannot conduct business in the province of British Columbia with Bill 6 standing before us now. We either need to repeal it, or we need to pass some form of legislation to fill those loopholes.

Let me address some of that. In essence, my own view is that this bill closes quite a number of those massive loopholes that I referred to earlier. In particular, if I could read the…. Let me say it provides greater clarity on the administrative requirements, bankruptcy and insolvency issues and debt forgiveness rules. It sets requirements for registration, for filing tax returns and for paying and refunding taxes. It establishes penalties for failing to meet the requirements of the act.

Most importantly, it introduces section 124.412, which is the anti-avoidance rule, which was so critical in my criticism back in the fall, that there were so many loopholes that companies could avoid paying taxes even though they were hardly paying any taxes in the first place. This anti-avoidance rule introduction is critical legislation that needs to have been in place and should have been in place in the fall and should have been discussed and raised in committee, had we passed this legislation and sent it to committee. Instead, here it is now in the 109-page liquefied natural gas amendment act.

There are essential aspects in this bill for the tax regime. Without them, LNG income tax payers could avoid paying a significant amount of the tax because of the massive loopholes and others that I discussed earlier.

The real question is how the LNG Income Tax Act got passed last fall without any of these very basic provisions laid out for us to discuss, number one. Two, not sending this to committee so that we could have an opportunity to discuss it is deeply, deeply troubling.

[1715]

Frankly, in my view, this has been an abdication of the responsibility on behalf of this Legislature to do due diligence on the legislation that was tabled and brought to us. But it doesn’t end there. Here I do agree entirely with the official opposition — that is, with the concern they raised, which I agree with, concerning the problematic natural gas tax credit.

Before I come to that, I think it’s important to set the context. What is the context? Why is it now that in section 56 we essentially allow the minister, through regulation and in perpetuity, to allow corporations involved in the LNG industry to use this natural gas tax credit to pay 8 percent instead of 11 percent?

Let me tell you a little bit why we’re where we are. And this isn’t new. For two years now I’ve been saying the same thing. British Columbia’s hype of hope and wealth and prosperity for one and all from a hypothetical LNG industry was nothing more than a message of hope wrapped in hyperbole. The promises of 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion increase to GDP, debt-free B.C., no PST, thriving schools and hospitals and on and on were nothing more than a pipe dream.

The global markets, the economics, did not support these statements in the fall of 2012. They do not support these statements now. This is the reason why we’re seeing this natural gas tax credit — essentially, yet another generational sellout on top of the existing generational sellout — being brought to us for approval today.

What has happened since 2012 was entirely predictable — entirely predictable — given the fact that we are not the only ones in the world who have discovered horizontal fracking technology. Our shale gas reserves pale in comparison to others. We have massive reserves in Australia, in Russia, even in China, in the United States, in Iran, in Qatar. I could go on and on. There is shale gas all over the world. Yet somehow B.C. thinks that it, and it alone, is going to fill Asian markets with natural gas.

This is what happened. I’m reading here from a Reuters piece published on December 11, 2014. The title of that says this: “Asian LNG Prices Seen Falling by up to 30 Percent in 2015.” Well, they’re talking about LNG prices falling 30 percent in 2014. But in fact, they talk here about things like — if brent crude trades at $85 next year, the price could be $12.60 per million Btu. It continues on that it could drop still further and further. If brent trades at $70 a barrel — $70 a barrel; hmm, lot of oil companies out there right now are looking for $70 a barrel — the price of low-sulphur oil will cap LNG spot prices at — guess what — $10.50 per million Btu.

I’ll repeat that. If brent trades at $70 a barrel — it doesn’t really matter that we’re trading at $50 a barrel now — this Reuters article is quoting Wood Mackenzie’s Thompson as saying that LNG spot prices will be capped at $10.50 per million Btu. That makes sense.

Russia has just entered into long-term 30-year contracts at below that price. Yet British Columbia thinks that somehow companies will invest tens of billions of dollars to transport liquefied natural gas from our coast across the ocean, when it costs $7 to $8 per million Btu to do that. They’re going to have to pull this out of the ground at negative prices.
[ Page 7243 ]

That is why we have this LNG tax legislation before us, because it introduces so many giveaways that, essentially, we avoid paying tax to British Columbians, and we give away a natural resource. Well, we try to. This is still not coming.

I reiterate, and I say it one last time. If brent trades at $70 a barrel, the price of low-sulphur oil will cap LNG spot prices at about $10.50 per million Btu.

[1720]

It doesn’t end there. What other things have happened to cause this desperate Hail Mary pass of hope after the previous Hail Mary pass of hope was caught? They didn’t win the game. We thought they did, but they didn’t, because they can’t land this.

Let’s see what else has happened. I’ll read to you from a Toronto Star article entitled “Shell-BG Deal Could Dampen B.C. LNG Projects.” Well, that’s a surprise. I thought we were going to have Shell and BG and three others up and running by…. Well, one of them should have been this year, maybe a couple by next year.

The Shell and BG amalgamation is troubling. Why is that? Let me read here. British Gas, BG, “has liquefication plants in Australia, Egypt, and Trinidad and Tobago, and another being developed in Louisiana.” Shell has LNG operations under construction — not planned, under construction — in Russia, Qatar and Australia.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We now have dropping demand. We have the amalgamation of two major players in the liquefied natural gas world with projects under construction. B.C. is not a player here. We can say goodbye to those companies.

Why would anyone invest in British Columbia right now? Why would anyone invest? Because they would need a supply gap. These companies don’t buy to fill spot prices. They buy to make long-term investments to fill supply gaps down the road.

Petronas had a supply gap — 2018-2019. They’ve deferred their investment decision, deferred it again and deferred it again. Do we really think Petronas is going to make a final investment decision to go ahead to meet a 2018-2019 supply gap? I don’t think so. They may be back in the mid-2020s, where another supply gap emerges there. But for the short term this is nothing but hope.

Frankly, it’s irresponsible to put our entire provincial economy…. To retool our education systems, to essentially send to business a message, a singular message: “If you want to come to British Columbia to do business in our province, you’ve got to hang your hat on LNG, an industry that doesn’t exist now but we hope maybe someday will exist.”

“What we’ll do for you, hypothetically, is retrain our education system. We’ll do whatever you want. We’ll create a natural gas tax credit, which is one-half percent plus some random number, to bring it down to 8 percent — your corporate income tax that you pay.”

Here’s another article, published on April 5. This one is important, because this government has pointed out for us many, many times how proud they are to get the triple-A credit rating from Moody’s. Well, low and behold, here’s the title: “Moody’s Puts a Damper on B.C.’s LNG Dreams.” I’ll say it again. “Moody’s Puts a Damper on B.C.’s LNG Dreams” — published in the Canadian Press and syndicated across our beautiful country.

Meanwhile, what’s actually happening in the world? Well, we don’t have to go very far. Let’s go to Bloomberg Business today — not tomorrow, not yesterday but today’s Bloomberg Business newspaper. Let me quote the title of the article. It says this: “Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables.”

Why is that the case? Because around the world people recognize that there are stranded carbon assets in the ground that cannot be extracted. The existing plans and development to extract those resources that are there are already meeting existing demand down the road, so there are no supply gaps.

Instead, places like China, Russia, Europe, Australia and America, whose emissions dropped last year, are going all in to the renewable clean tech sector, a sector that British Columbia used to be a leader in. Now this government is saying to British Columbians: “If you want to be a leader in an economy in B.C., forget everything else. Let’s go LNG.”

This article, which I recommend that all read, entitled “Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables,” is published today in Bloomberg Business. There are actually some lovely charts and graphs in there too. It’s not just some person writing their opinion; it’s actually an analysis with graphs, bar charts. It’s quite interesting to read, because they’re saying what I’ve been saying for two years — that this is nothing but hyperbole.

[1725]

This brings me to the most serious aspect of this bill again, and that is the natural gas tax credit. Under this tax credit, an LNG taxpayer can decrease their corporate income tax from 11 percent to 8 percent by claiming credits for the cost of natural gas. Under the old version from last fall they could only claim 0.5 percent of their natural gas costs.

I agree with the opposition. This is simply unacceptable. This should’ve been brought in, in the fall. However, my approach to deal with this is to amend this at third reading and offer this Legislature an amendment to refer us back to the fall legislation, which had this fixed value of 0.5 percent — as opposed to voting against this at second reading.

Under the new version an LNG taxpayer can claim that amount as well as an additional prescribed amount that is to be set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It could be 0.5 percent. Given that that brent crude drop is going to cap LNG prices, you might as well make it 0.5
[ Page 7244 ]
percent plus the minister’s 2½ percent to make it 3 percent and to drop the corporate tax down to 8 percent.

We weren’t told that in the fall, and it behooves us in this House to amend this, to take it back to what was given us in the fall with a straight face by this government that this number would be a half-percent.

What’s worse here is that if is a taxpayer claims more credits than they can use in one year, those additional tax credits will carry over to future years, which means that if the prescribed rate is high enough, a company could end up paying 8 percent corporate income tax in perpetuity. Yet another loophole is brought in here, and based on the changes that are being made, it’s hard to imagine any other intention.

Clearly, the government did not think that 0.5 percent of a taxpayer’s natural gas costs was sufficient enough to lower their corporate income tax rate to 8 percent. It was not a sufficient enough gift, piece of candy, to give to the LNG industry that they introduced greater cuts because the industry is not coming here.

What is next? Are we going to have to promise them a free workforce? Are we going to promise them that they pay no tax? They’re not coming, even as we introduce this generational sellout of Bill 6, amended through Bill 26.

Let me discuss now the quandary we find ourselves in, because this is important. This bill puts us, all of the members in this Legislature, in a quandary, in a very difficult position. Last fall the government and the official opposition together passed the LNG Income Tax Act prematurely.

At second reading I was the only member of this Legislature to stand in opposition to the generational sellout embodied in Bill 6. I would have argued that this should never have happened. But now we are debating an amendment that is longer than the actual act, and this amendment actually dramatically changes the original act.

The problem here we face is…. I tried in the fall to put this to committee, because it was clear that there were so many loopholes in this bill — loopholes, as I described, that you could drive a bus through. I was voted down by every member in this House except my dear friend from the riding of Delta South, who also recognized that while her position was that it was important to move forward with an LNG tax regime, we could not do so at this time in light of lacking information before us, so sending this to committee was critical.

The problem now is that we’re not really able to debate the merits of the original act. We are debating the amendment act, with the original act now standing as a matter of law before all British Columbians, so I am in a quandary, as I’m sure others are. I very clearly — I say it again — believe that the LNG Income Tax Act, Bill 6, should be repealed. It should never have passed.

Here we are today with a government not willing to do so, a government instead amending — amendments that I support — many of the loopholes in the previous act but introducing section 56, which, to me, is critically flawed in actually giving regulation to the minister to allow him or her to, essentially, grant 3 percent income tax cuts to LNG corporations in perpetuity.

[1730]

As I said, the actions taken by this Legislature in the fall, I believe firmly, were an abdication of our duty, a dereliction of duty. As MLAs, we should have explored that in greater detail.

I am grateful to the minister for allowing me to be briefed by his staff, a briefing that I was able to probe many of the loopholes that I raised earlier and find that many of them have been addressed. I was satisfied with the answers I got, and I was pleased by the level of detail provided.

Clearly, I’m unhappy with section 56. While I support the amendments, I will not support section 56. But I will do that at the committee stage through the introduction of an amendment if the official opposition does not.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: To the members of the assembly who have offered their remarks and observations about the bill, I will offer in return these observations.

It would appear that with respect to one particular provision of the bill, I have my work cut out for me in terms of convincing members of the assembly of the intention and the operation. But fair enough. That’s why we have these discussions. I hope I can provide some additional information that will be of assistance to members. So at the end of the day they will come to the conclusion, and that’s as it should be.

May I say, also, to the member from Oak Bay that I am, as he might expect, drawn to his logic, if not the entire rationale, around the need to advance this bill and to address issues that were left unfinished in the fall. I candidly am less enthusiastic about the member’s characterization of the two-step process we have taken, as he might expect. I would describe that as being less of an abdication and more of a purposeful attempt to provide the Legislature at the earliest opportunity with the fundamentals of what is being proposed.

However, he is correct. We are here today dealing with a statute that has been passed and that is in need of all of the administrative and regulatory provisions that we are endeavouring to attach to it via the bill before the House. We will have a more detailed conversation, discussion, on the individual sections of the bill.

With my thanks to members, I move second reading.

[1735]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Would members please take their seats.
[ Page 7245 ]

[1740]

Second reading of Bill 26 approved on the following division:

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

Bill 26, Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Next, second reading on Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015.

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 9 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to provide just a bit of context about this bill. It was the first bill that was introduced during this session. Bill 9 implements the recommendations requiring legislative amendment that Gordon Macatee made in his recent report entitled WorkSafeBC Review and Action Plan. The aim of this legislation is to improve workplace health and safety in British Columbia.

[1745]

Before proceeding too far, I want to provide, as I said, some context and background in terms of our commitment to safe, healthy workplaces for workers in this province. I know that it’s not only a priority for the government but for every member of this House to do everything we can to ensure that workers in British Columbia go to work and return home safe and healthy at the end of that workday. One workplace death is one too many, and one workplace injury or occupational disease is also one too many.

We, along with all British Columbians, were deeply saddened by the two tragic mill explosions in Prince George and Burns Lake. In particular, we were horrified by the loss of the four individuals that were killed in these two explosions and by the suffering of the numerous others who were injured.

I know that many in this House have been very personally impacted by these tragedies and, in particular, those people whose communities were impacted and changed, likely forever. The individuals and the families that have been impacted, the communities of Prince George and Burns Lake, continue to be affected by the aftermath of these tragedies.

Many of us, including myself and other members of this House, were further troubled by the decisions of the criminal justice branch in early 2014 that charges would not be made in the case of either explosion. Problems with how WorkSafe investigated the incidents were certainly cited as part of the reason why.

In January 2014 the Premier ordered Deputy Minister John Dyble to conduct an internal review of the decision not to lay charges against Babine Forest Products in the Burns Lake case. Mr. Dyble made a number of recommendations, including changes to improve WorkSafe B.C.’s investigation and communication processes. WorkSafe B.C. accepted and implemented all of Mr. Dyble’s recommendations.

Government also acted by engaging industry, labour and WorkSafe to bring about real and sustained safety improvements to protect workers in B.C. mills. On March 31, 2014, government, the forest industry, organized labour and WorkSafe B.C. announced an aggressive, coordinated plan to accomplish over the following 90 days a number of specific outcomes regarding mill safety and a combustible dust strategy.
[ Page 7246 ]

In April 2014 the WorkSafe B.C. chair agreed to my recommendation that we appoint Gordon Macatee as administrator to ensure that the necessary reforms were undertaken at WorkSafe. In turn, as the Minister Responsible for Labour and for WorkSafe, I provided the WorkSafe B.C. chair with a letter describing the changes that Gordon Macatee would lead.

Key elements of the agenda included ensuring that future investigations are handled correctly by implementing recommendations from the John Dyble internal review; ensuring that B.C.’s sawmills are safe by implementing the 90-day action plan on sawmill safety that was announced on March 31, 2014; and developing a plan for implementing a world-class inspection and investigation regime at WorkSafe B.C.

In early July of last year Mr. Macatee delivered his report entitled WorkSafeBC Review and Action Plan, which I will refer to as the action plan. The plan contains 43 recommendations to ensure that WorkSafe B.C.’s investigations are handled correctly in the future, that sawmills are safer places to work, that best practices are employed in occupational health and safety generally and that B.C. establishes a world-class inspection and investigation regime.

Government and WorkSafe B.C. very quickly made a public commitment to accept all 43 recommendations in the action plan. More than two-thirds of the recommendations in the plan did not require legislation. Many recommendations were acted on immediately, including a sustained compliance plan for B.C. sawmills and ongoing inspections of mills and other wood products manufacturers.

[1750]

To address the issue of investigations at WorkSafe B.C. leading to successful prosecutions, the action plan includes a number of steps to be taken, including memoranda of understanding between WorkSafe B.C. and police services and the criminal justice branch, improved communications, major case management and a model with two distinct units for investigations.

At this point, I would very much like to acknowledge the work that Gord Macatee has done for taking on a very difficult and challenging task. He did a great job of developing the action plan, and he did that work in very short order. Above all, the plan is focused on the key objectives of bringing important changes at WorkSafe and ensuring that workers are safe and healthy in B.C. sawmills and other workplaces.

The report was thoughtful and considered. It also took into account both worker and employer interests and perspectives, as Mr. Macatee consulted with key stakeholders on both sides as he prepared the action plan. I also want to thank Mr. Macatee for agreeing to stay on and oversee the successful implementation of the action plan.

On February 25, 2015, Mr. Macatee issued his most recent report on the progress that industry and WorkSafe B.C. are making in implementing his recommendations. Mr. Macatee noted that there has been dramatic improvement on the part of B.C. mills to monitor and control combustible dust and therefore to control a very serious risk for workers. He also noted that controlling combustible dust is a daunting challenge and that everyone involved needs to remain vigilant.

Mr. Macatee has noted that the engagement and commitment at WorkSafe B.C. has been obvious, and they have taken significant action. Overall, Mr. Macatee concluded that he is pleased with the progress being made on the action plan, but what remained in the hands of government were the recommendations from the action plan that required legislative changes. Implementing these recommendations is what Bill 9 is intended to do.

The proposed legislation that is on the floor today will make improvements in four areas. The first is to add new enforcement tools so that WorkSafe can better achieve workplace safety compliance.

The action plan recommended that WorkSafe B.C. should have a full spectrum of tools to enforce B.C.’s workplace safety requirements in a balanced and effective manner. The tools will include some that are less onerous to employees who are willing to come into compliance with the safety laws and regulations applicable to their workplace. It also includes more forceful tools to deal with serious repeat offenders who disregard the health and safety of their workers and ignore WorkSafe B.C. compliance orders.

The action plan found that other jurisdictions employ tools not available in British Columbia. It recommended additional tools at the lower end of the enforcement spectrum and strengthening tools at the upper end. Accordingly, Bill 9 introduces a new compliance agreement.

When appropriate, WorkSafe B.C. can enter into a compliance agreement with employers who voluntarily agree to take specific actions to remedy a safety contravention. Failure to take the agreed-upon actions, however, will result in the agreement being rescinded, and other enforcement action by WorkSafe B.C. will be considered.

It also establishes a new administrative penalty for employers that can be issued on the spot, like a ticket. WorkSafe B.C. will set out in regulations the specific contraventions for this penalty and the specific penalty amounts. The maximum amount allowable for the new penalty will be $1,000.

At the same time, the changes will include more forceful tools to deal with egregious, willful and repeat offenders. In this regard, the legislation will expand WorkSafe B.C.’s ability to shut down workplaces where unsafe conditions present a risk to workers and where less drastic action will fail to achieve worker safety. It will also expand the court’s authority to bar the worst offenders from continuing to operate in an industry. This will include the
[ Page 7247 ]
directors and senior officials of a corporation.

[1755]

The second area includes several changes to shorten the process for issuing and reviewing employer penalties so that they are more effective at promoting workplace safety. This includes clarifying that the onus rests on employers to demonstrate that they exercise due diligence to avoid a WorkSafe B.C. administrative penalty for a safety contravention. It also includes provisions that will allow for shorter time periods to request and conduct a review of a penalty or other occupational health and safety order.

Thirdly, the legislation will specify new time frames for employers to conduct an investigation when there is a significant workplace accident. Specifically, the legislation will require employers to conduct a preliminary investigation within 48 hours of a significant incident and to take necessary actions to prevent a similar incident from occurring while a full investigation is being conducted.

The full investigation into the cause of the incident, including the resulting investigation report and determining the corrective action necessary to prevent a similar incident in the future, must be completed within 30 days. The legislation will give WorkSafe B.C. authority to grant an extension beyond 30 days if WorkSafe B.C. considers that to be appropriate. The time frames will ensure that remedial actions happen in a timely manner but that employers also have time to conduct an appropriate investigation.

Finally, Bill 9 adds two new members to the WorkSafe B.C. board of directors — one with a background in occupational health and safety and one in law or law enforcement. This will ensure that workplace safety expertise is in place at the highest level at WorkSafe B.C. In turn, this will help improve decision-making and policy-making related to occupational health and safety investigations and enforcement.

In addition to these changes arising from the action plan, Bill 9 also contains two minor amendments to the terminology used in relation to hazardous substances. These changes are a result of amendments that are being made to the federal Hazardous Products Act to support Canada’s adoption of the globally harmonized system for classifying workplace hazardous materials. We are making the changes as part of this bill in order to be able to implement the new system in June of 2015.

As I said at the outset, Bill 9 is aimed at improving worker health and safety in British Columbia. It goes without saying that safe workplaces are critical to the well-being of all of the workers in our province.

The B.C. Federation of Labour has indicated publicly that it is pleased with the needed reforms to worker safety contained in this legislation. But we know that good employers also care about the safety of their workers and support the overall goal to have safe workplaces, and we believe that this is the majority of B.C. employers.

Safe workplaces foster productivity and investment in our province. The changes in this bill establish a balanced enforcement system that is fair to employers but that also treats seriously the egregious and serial offenders who unfairly compete in the marketplace with unsafe work practices.

Bill 9 is part of a larger plan to ensure that events like the tragic sawmill explosions in Burns Lake and Prince George, with the resulting failure of prosecution, do not happen again. It is also intended to ensure that all workers return home safely.

I know that all the members in this House are very concerned that changes be made, and I know that we’ve had the opportunity to brief members of the opposition. We look forward to their comments and to working together to improve worker safety in the province of British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think I’ll probably go a little bit over my 30 minutes, so I’ll let you know that I am the designated speaker. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 9, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

[1800]

This is a piece of legislation that, as the minister says, was generated and created because of what became clear, what I would suggest are the pretty deep and structural weaknesses within WorkSafe B.C. that tragically became evident with the two mill catastrophes, the Babine and the Lakeland explosions, that led to four deaths and 42 injured workers.

The bill does move to address a number of issues that Mr. Macatee identified in his work, and it certainly does go some way in dealing with those issues. I look forward to talking about those specifics in more detail as I make my comments today, and also to talking about some of the areas where we believe that there need to be some improvements in the bill.

There are a number of pieces of the bill. There are a number of aspects of this legislation that are enabling in their approach. As we all know, enabling legislation — the devil is always in the details there.

In this case, as I understand, those regulations that will flesh out Bill 9 will in fact be prepared by WorkSafe. It will be their initiative, and they will do that work.

I look forward, when we get to the committee stage, to talking to the minister about what her expectations will be for that regulatory regime and also to talking about the assurances that the process of preparation of those regulations is inclusive in terms of consultation, transparency and accountability so that you have a regulatory regime at the end of the day you hope all of the parties to this can say is fair and balanced.

Whether people get everything they want or not, everybody will accept that the regulatory regime will, in fact, enable the objectives that the minister spoke about in her comments. That, obviously, is a piece of work to
[ Page 7248 ]
come down the road, and we will continue to pay attention to that.

As I said, the impetus for this, as tragic as it was, really was the result of the two explosions at Babine and Lakeland. The result of that, as we know, was that on January 20 at Burns Lake, Babine exploded — both of these determined through combustible dust. Babine exploded on January 20, 2012. Two workers were killed, and 20 others were injured, and then just a couple of short months later on April 23 in Prince George, a second explosion at Lakeland, where again, two other workers were killed, and 22 workers were injured.

When those accidents happened, tragic accidents, WorkSafe went in and investigated. What WorkSafe found in that investigation…. At their investigation at Babine they found a dust collection system that was ineffective. They found inspection and maintenance systems that were ineffective. They found waste conveyors that didn’t adequately capture dust and that the supervisory staff at the mill did not adequately monitor, clean up or maintain the mill in a proper way to be able to deal with those risks related to dust.

Lakeland, the explosion a couple of months later, was a very similar situation in terms of the WorkSafe investigation. Dust control measures were deemed to be ineffective. The cooling fans weren’t regularly inspected or maintained and didn’t function properly. And the supervision was again inadequate in terms of cleanup and maintenance.

WorkSafe deemed and determined that both of those accidents were preventable and that both of them could have…. With proper oversight, proper investment, proper cleanup, there was not a reason for either of those tragedies to have happened in the way they did.

They forwarded that information on to the criminal justice branch after their investigation in order to have the branch determine whether charges related to negligence or other legal factors were available. As we know, the criminal justice branch rejected the consideration of charges, as the WorkSafe inspection and investigation rendered much of the information and evidence inadmissible in a court because of the way that the evidence was collected.

[1805]

The reality is it’s not that WorkSafe did…. The challenge here for WorkSafe, of course, is that due processes required under the criminal justice branch were not ones that are followed by WorkSafe when they are doing a regular investigation. They are different processes. What we discovered, of course, is that there was this situation where most of us, I believe, think that this deserved its day in court. But that’s not to occur.

Of course, we know that this is a very high profile and a very disturbing situation with these two explosions, and we will talk a little bit more about that. What we do know, as well, is that they are not entirely unique.

We can go back and reflect back to the Westray law, which was a federal law that was changes to the Criminal Code following an explosion of the Westray mine back in the Maritimes. The result of that was changes to the law to create the opportunity for criminal charges to be laid against a company if there was negligence that was deemed to be preventable and charges against senior officials and executives with those companies.

What we know is that law, which was adopted decades ago, has never, ever been used, and not just in British Columbia. It has never been used in the country. You need to ask yourself, when you put a law in place that no criminal justice branch anywhere in this country has the ability to use, what you’re facing. That’s the circumstance that we faced here, and that is the criticism that has been made by advocates of worker safety across the spectrum. They have challenged what occurred here.

We know that the weaknesses and the situation that we faced here were very tragic at both Babine and Lakeland. We know that there needs to be a resolve to this. We have had debates in this House and questions in this House and discussion about how the government should have approached Babine and Lakeland to get to a resolution.

The government…. Clearly, Mr. Dyble, as was reported, did his work. That was followed by Mr. Macatee doing his work, the work that he continues to do at WorkSafe.

We know that this has been an issue that I think the minister, no doubt, has paid a lot of attention to. I think that some of the changes that we’re seeing…. I think the placing of Mr. Macatee at WorkSafe is a demonstration of that. I think the president and the CEO deciding it was time to retire is an example of that and is partly motivated by that.

I still think that there is more that needs to be done. This legislation will afford us the opportunity to speak a little about that, and we’ll talk more about it when we get to another process around estimates here some time in the coming weeks.

As the minister knows well, the coroner’s inquest that has followed on one of those incidents, the Lakeland accident, which is in play now…. The minister and the House will know that we called for an independent inquiry, not an inquest. We wanted an independent inquiry. We wanted the families and the workers and the victims to have the resources to be full participants in that inquiry. That has not occurred.

We have the inquest, and we have had a situation where the inquest was proceeding with a number of parties who were quite rightly part of the inquest, whether it was the company, the union, WorkSafe, the B.C. safety association — a number of people who have vested interests — and, of course, the coroner’s own legal counsel.

[1810]

We had an array of lawyers there. The families didn’t have the legal counsel that they desired and that we believe they should have had. The other thing…. I think it
[ Page 7249 ]
was our view that the inquest had limited ability and has some limited ability to deal with some of these questions.

As we all know, the inquest has been adjourned at this point. It was adjourned by coroner’s counsel, and that adjournment came because it came to light that the company had a company do their own investigation of the accident, a forensics company out of Seattle, which did their own work and produced what we understand to be a fairly detailed report around this that the coroner was not aware of.

They did not have knowledge of that report. That’s what the coroner’s counsel, Mr. Orr, has said, and he requested and got the chief coroner to adjourn that inquest at the point where it became evident that there was this body of evidence.

It also became clear at that time…. As Mr. Orr, the lawyer for the coroner’s counsel, has stated, apparently WorkSafe has had knowledge of that report from the company for two years — it’s what Mr. Orr had stated publicly — and that WorkSafe did not disclose that information to the coroner. They didn’t disclose that information at all.

That’s troubling. It’s troubling that that didn’t occur, because what we would expect — as I think the minister had said in response to questions here, and it’s correct — is that if the intent of that inquest is to find the answers to the questions, then you would expect and hope that all parties would, in fact, be contributing to those answers.

It becomes particularly troubling when the major public body there responsible for public safety, for workers’ safety, for protection of those workers and for these investigations, in fact was aware of information that they did not disclose when it became clear to them that others were not aware of that. That’s a problem.

The minister, I think, was up to the inquest. I’ve been to the inquest on a couple of occasions to sit and listen. What I heard here was what you hear when you put six or seven or eight lawyers representing different bodies in a room and put witnesses on the stand. Those lawyers do what they do. They protect the interests of their clients, whether their client be the company or the union or WorkSafe. That’s what they were doing, and this was not necessarily the environment to find, I think, the answers that we needed and want to find.

The result, though, of the matter with this report from the company that now has come out…. Of course, it led to an adjournment of the inquest. That adjournment…. I understand that the inquest will reconvene on the 11th of May. There will be evidence given by the authors of this report for the company, and I’m hopeful that at a minimum WorkSafe representatives will follow that with an explanation of why they didn’t disclose this.

What has been suggested in the media — I’ve not spoken to folks at WorkSafe, so it’s what I read in the media — is that they also declined that information when it was offered to them by the company when they were doing their own investigation, that WorkSafe declined the forensic report.

If that’s accurate, it certainly raises the question about why on earth they would decline that information. It may have been totally appropriate for them to take the information, to review the information and to determine that it didn’t have value. If they had done that, that would have been fine. I could accept that. But to decline it out of hand raises a serious question.

So we have this problem. What you have here now is this other situation with WorkSafe where there’s a cloud hanging over them in relation to why on earth they would make that decision to not disclose critical information that they had and to have not even reviewed the information when it was offered to them from what presumably is a credible company that did this work on behalf of Lakeland, the mill.

[1815]

The result of this is that at this point you will know that the union — the Steelworkers, who had representation there — made the decision that they believe that the inquest is now fundamentally flawed. They have withdrawn from the inquest at this point. That’s a problem, because the families and the workers have no representation there.

I know that the minister has said that’s the responsibility of the coroner’s counsel. I understand that, but as an example, I would note that when I was there for the opening day, one of the gentlemen who was a longtime employee of the company was up giving testimony. He, of course, was asked to review a number of photos, a number of pieces of evidence that he had not seen prior to coming on the stand.

The coroner’s counsel is the counsel who took him through those documents. I would have anticipated if the coroner’s counsel was acting on behalf of the families and the workers, the victims, the workers who survived, that there would have been some time to sit down and to have given this gentleman the opportunity to see and review those materials prior to being asked to comment on what those photos were and particular aspects.

That’s problematic. I don’t think there was anything malicious about this, but it just is a problem. It is a deficiency in that process, because those families and those workers don’t have counsel that represents them. They don’t have anybody who is committed to ask the questions that they want asked and to get the answers that they want. That is problematic. We have that situation.

One of the things around the accidents themselves that motivated Bill 9, this particular piece of legislation…. This gets to, I think, what has been talked about as some of the structural weaknesses that have been exposed at WorkSafe B.C. here. I think the evidence was showing that there were clear inefficiencies, as WorkSafe identified in their review, around conduct and around the adequacy of how they addressed a number of items to control dust.

The levels of combustible dust were there. There didn’t
[ Page 7250 ]
appear to be any prior enforcement from WorkSafe B.C. to deal with this. There was a failure to identify those hazardous levels of combustible dust ahead of time, and there of course wasn’t enforcement.

This is particularly concerning in the Lakeland situation. Babine was a shock to everybody when it happened in January. We all understand that. But the day before Babine occurred, as we heard in the testimony at the inquest, there was a major fire at Lakeland, including a fireball that went 30 feet into the air and a major effort by all of the workers at the mill, at Lakeland, to get that fire under control.

We were told by one of the senior operators there of the head-rigs…. They said only one of the two head-rigs was operating. That’s the reason that they don’t think they had a full-blown explosion at that time. If both of them had been operating, the amount of fuel…. The situation would have been different.

This occurs. The next day after that, the Babine explosion. The question you have to ask yourself is: at what point here does there have to be a report on that Lakeland incident — the accident, the fire — knowing that there was an explosion the next day, and how is it that there weren’t WorkSafe inspectors all over that mill almost immediately to ensure that we weren’t looking at a comparable situation to what happened at Babine? But there weren’t. There weren’t, and that’s troubling. That’s troubling however you cut it.

We have this challenging situation as we see it there. It’s particularly challenging for the families and for the victims.

[1820]

I’m sure that the minister has spoken to the families and to the workers. She will know — I certainly know from discussions I had with some of the workers there — that they are far from recovered from this. Who knows whether they will ever fully recover, not only from their personal trauma but the reality as well that….

I can see in their eyes…. As they said — talking to one of the workers saying: “I worked for 30 years, 25 years with Glen Roche, one of the gentlemen who died, and I’m not quite sure why I’m alive and he’s not. There will always be that feeling.” He talked about how when Mr. Roche was brought out of the explosion, the terrible shape he was in and the struggles they had to get emergency vehicles in to be able to get Mr. Roche to proper medical facilities, and how eventually…. I think it was a fire warden or a superintendent who took Mr. Roche in his own vehicle to try to get him some care. Obviously, sadly, he succumbed.

The families are not feeling confident about this process at this time. We all have to stay aware of that. There are regulatory processes. There’s independence of the inquest in the coroner’s office, and we all have to respect that, but we also have to respect the families that feel pretty alone in this whole process today. There are those, and the victims who were other workers, who feel alone in this process. I’m not sure that we are paying as much attention to that as we need to.

That all resulted in, as the minister says, the Macatee work and Macatee’s report, the WorkSafeBC Review and Action Plan. That WorkSafeBC Review and Action Plan led to a number of things and led to Bill 9.

What we know in Bill 9…. As the minister said, it deals with a number of factors, but it deals with some critical — four or five — core pieces. It introduces a new compliance agreement system, where employers who violate the act can promise WorkSafe that they will fix the problems and at that point, with the proper commitments, escape a fine or an order at that time, providing they proceed.

That’s a good thing, but what we’re going to need to talk about when we get to committee stage is what happens if they don’t comply. There aren’t specific consequences addressed in the legislation itself. These are consequences that, presumably, if they’re there, will be addressed in the regulatory regime that will complement the legislation.

The challenge for us will be to try to draw out…. I’m hoping the minister will be able to talk a little bit about what her thoughts are and what the scope of those consequences are for a company that makes a commitment on a compliance agreement and then chooses not to proceed in a full and thoughtful way to fulfil the objectives of the compliance agreement.

The bill encourages on-the-spot ticketing, as the minister said, of up to $1,000. Now, in my understanding, that’s different from administrative fines of half a million dollars plus or so. This is presumably the opportunity for a WorkSafe inspector to get somebody’s attention by writing them a $1,000 ticket in the hopes that that gets their attention to actually proceed with some action.

For a large company, it’s obviously a negligible price. But we will have to ask ourselves, and we’ll have this discussion, about how the $1,000 amount was arrived at and why the government and the minister anticipate that that becomes a reasonable deterrent or punishment at the early stages. Obviously, there are the bigger fines down the road if you come to those. Why is that a deterrent or a punishment, if it’s deemed by an investigator that that’s necessary?

[1825]

The legislation also talks about stop-work orders and injunctive powers, which have been expanded to allow WorkSafe to go after employers who continue to ignore or breach WorkSafe rules. Some people would have called this the Arthur Moore clause. For those who don’t know, Mr. Moore has a long history in the asbestos removal industry of hiring people, providing no protection or security, changing his companies on a regular basis and has a long history of exploiting workers around asbestos removal and acting in an irresponsible way.

We know that WorkSafe was never able to get at him. They got at him on a contempt-of-court charge. They’ve never been able to successfully have him charged or in any way to act on him until they finally were able to get a
[ Page 7251 ]
contempt-of-court ruling because he ignored the courts. That’s as close as we got.

Again, there is a whole piece of regulatory regime that relates to this and the effectiveness of the tools that will be required to make this piece stick. I think it’s an area that everybody would agree is a good idea, and it’s a good clause. The question simply is going to be: can it work? Can it be made to work, and can we be assured that there aren’t loopholes that allow people who act in an irresponsible way to get around it?

Those are people that every legitimate, credible and thoughtful employer in an industry wants out of their sector and out of their industry because they just give people a bad name. I know that people who work legitimately in the asbestos removal and hazardous waste materials area, for example, would be happy to have Mr. Moore long gone from that sector, because he does nobody any favours.

The minister spoke about changes to the board of directors. The board of directors are changed under this legislation by adding two new directors. One of those directors is somebody with occupational health and safety experience to add to the list and the second with a law enforcement background. Nothing wrong with these changes. It will be hard to know how they in fact enhance the board, and we’ll have to have some discussion about that.

There are a couple of areas that I guess I would note at this point. Again, the minister would know this. We have suggested on this side of the House that there needs to be a stronger relationship — I know that the minister talked about a memorandum of understanding — with the criminal justice branch.

We have suggested that a dedicated Crown prosecutor makes sense, somebody who specializes in the field of employment law and occupational health and safety and can provide direct advice to WorkSafe in proceeding with initiatives and investigations and can also support making sure that the best practices are in place to allow that if charges are warranted, they in fact can go ahead.

There may be a number of ways to get there. The decision was not to do that. I believe that’s something that Mr. Macatee, who wrote the report, had some sympathy for — a position that he had sympathy for — but it hasn’t occurred.

The second area, and it relates to the board — and we’ll talk a little bit more about this as we proceed as well — is concern that has been raised to me that there is, essentially, one workers’ representative on the board, who is appointed to the board. The concern is that there’s not a lot of worker representation.

It was pointed out to me — and I know that it can change, depending on who the appointees are — that the public interest appointee is somebody who comes from an employer-side background as well. So it would be good…. Maybe the occupational health and safety position is a position where it would make sense that that come from somebody on the employees’ side of things, the workers’ side of things, who brings special expertise.

As I’m sure the minister knows — because she’s spoken to lots of people at the federation of labour and others — there’s no shortage of people on the employees’, the workers’, side who bring particular expertise in the areas of occupational health and safety and could be a good contributor to the board. We might suggest that that would be a good place to at least put a second member on that board to deal with those matters.

[1830]

The other thing that the legislation does, the other of the key components is that the bill requires two accident investigations to be addressed with reports, one within 24 hours of the accident and one within 30 days. The problem here…. I think the 24-hour one makes some sense, to quickly have the company do an assessment. But there is a question here about whether WorkSafe is downloading its regulatory responsibilities on that broader, more comprehensive investigation.

Some of the areas where there are difficulty and where we’ve seen difficulty in a number of areas, I believe, with where the government works — we see this in the environmental side sometimes — are around self-policing and self-regulation. Some of the concern that has been raised to me is that that second investigation begins to look like self-regulation.

The question is: why isn’t there an independent third party with expertise, like WorkSafe, conducting that second investigation? We’ll get a chance, hopefully, to talk about some of that in committee stage as well.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

We’ll also get to talk a little bit, in a little while, about some of the things that aren’t in the report and some of the other challenges that we’ve seen with WorkSafe moving forward. Some of the key issues that we’ve seen here as we move through…. I’d like to talk a little bit about some of those issues and some of the sections of the bill.

Again, section 1 of the bill — this is one of the areas that is pretty key, and I referenced this a little bit earlier — is around the notion of injunctions and the ability to injunct employers and prohibit employers and their personnel from carrying on business if they fail to pay fines, if they’ve contravened the act or a WorkSafe order or if they’ve continued to be problematic.

That probably works pretty well if the company has few assets, if it’s a smaller company that depends on its principal owners and officers. If you injunct them, then that could help to slow down their ability to do business and get their attention, hopefully, to in fact comply with WorkSafe’s rules.

However, a lot of people work for very large corporations. They’re not in danger of closing. They just set up shop elsewhere. For example, neither Lakeland’s nor
[ Page 7252 ]
Babine’s owners…. Neither of these are fly-by-night companies. They’re both well-established companies. You need to ensure, if these powers are going to work, that they be able to dig enough that they actually have an impact on a company like that, a larger company, if they choose to ignore or not properly adhere to WorkSafe orders.

As we know, what happens with large companies and small companies can be very different. You need to make sure that you’re protecting the integrity of the law and those injunctions if, in fact, you’re dealing with a larger company.

Again, section 2 deals with the board of directors. As I mentioned, you’re adding these two new positions to the board. It raises questions about why the decision was made, and I’ll look forward to the minister’s explanation about what she believes is the improvement that comes with these two positions, in the sense and necessarily as how they are. They do begin to raise, I guess, some questions about how WorkSafe works. This is probably where we need to have a better and more independent review at some point of WorkSafe.

There are questions here, when you have this one entity which is as complex as WorkSafe is, where it’s supposed to write the rules. As we know, because of changes that were made earlier in the 2000s, the board of directors now has essential legislative authority to write regulations, to do things that for most everybody else in government are done by cabinet and by order-in-council. In the case of WorkSafe, they get to write their own regulations, a very different situation than everybody else.

[1835]

They get to write the rules. They have to ensure that the rules are followed. They investigate and fine employers who break the rules. They’re supposed to compensate injured workers, provide vocational and rehab services to those workers and deal with prevention matters, and they do this all at the same time.

These are a whole lot of roles, and there has to be some question. Even though there is a fair amount of resources at WorkSafe, no doubt…. They’ve got $11½ billion of investments, as I understand, so they’ve got a lot of resources. But there is a question about whether the complexity of the organization is such that it needs some review as to how it works. That probably requires more than adding two people to the board of directors.

It’s a challenge. I certainly have no qualms about somebody with health and safety expertise and somebody with legal expertise sitting on that board. That makes fine sense to me. Whether that actually is a fix for the governance issues at WorkSafe is an entirely different question, and it’s not a question that I believe gets answered by adding a couple of directors to the board.

The other area here is around appeal deadlines. These are minor amendments to the procedure for appealing WorkSafe decisions. They enable the government to shorten the time limits applying to appeals for their orders. The problem is that you need to have a pretty assertive approach to the issuing of orders and fines.

With Lakeland and Babine, as we know from the report that WorkSafe did, post those accidents, they didn’t deal with dust issues. That was acknowledged. They didn’t deal with proper maintenance and upkeep of equipment. The supervisory staff didn’t do what they needed to do.

WorkSafe identified in both cases that these accidents were entirely preventable, yet they never were in those places to issue those kinds of orders and fines — at least orders, if not fines — that would have triggered any question around appeals.

An appeals process is good, but you need a system of enforcement in place that works before you concern yourself with appeals, and there continues to be questions around that. I know Mr. Macatee is working on that, and I’m pleased that he’s working on that. Maybe we’ll see more about that as we proceed. But it is an issue, because clearly, that side of investigation and enforcement has been lacking. It has been lacking, and we need to address that.

The question of the compliance agreements. Again, just to come back and reflect on that, there needs to be a role for enforcement in compliance agreements. We need to be able to ensure that there’s a requirement to comply and to see what happens there.

We need to get a better sense, I believe, of a number of those key pieces, whether it’s how stop-work orders are going to proceed, how ticketing will proceed, how the administrative penalties will proceed. All of those are things that I believe we’ll be able to, hopefully, flesh out to some degree in the committee stage.

We have this situation where we are today. The question then becomes: what happened? What happened at WCB — Workers Compensation Board; still WCB to me — at WorkSafe, that created this situation?

We know that when WCB was created back in 1917, it really was the historic compromise. This was the compromise where no-fault compensation was put in place for workers to ensure that they were protected, that they were compensated; to ensure that there was some protection around workplaces. In return for that, litigation was off the table, and there wasn’t court case after court case around accidents.

[1840]

That makes sense to be able to do that, but to do that, WorkSafe has to play a bigger role than it has put itself in recently. I’ve had people who are in the sector who would say to me that WorkSafe has become a glorified insurance company for many and that that has been its focus, whereas we know the focus needed to be fair compensation for workers who are injured to ensure that they can continue to support themselves and their families.

Proper rehab and vocational training to allow them opportunities to get back into the workforce, whether it’s in their original place of work or if they have to change
[ Page 7253 ]
their occupation — to ensure they have the ability to do that and to move into other occupations. And an aggressive program around prevention to ensure that you protect workers and you hope that they get home when they need to.

The problem is that we have seen a number of changes that don’t help with that. A number of things that have happened around this…. Some of these relate to areas that are covered by Bill 9, but some of them also relate to the broader challenge around WorkSafe that is reflected in the problems I think that Bill 9 is intended to fix.

We have seen the effect of the elimination of many of the pensions that people get, and compensation, obviously, is a huge part of what WorkSafe and WCB provides. We’ve seen a reduction in vocational rehab assistance for injured workers. That’s a problem. The appeal processes have become incredibly technical and litigious.

I don’t know about other members here, but I know that when I get people who come into my office with WorkSafe and WCB issues, we are very, very careful. We’re sending them to workers advisers. If they’re unionized, we’re sending them back to their unions to get assistance. They’re so complex, these cases.

The reality is that if the appeal isn’t handled exactly right, they lose that opportunity. They’re done. What could be worse than somebody who goes to work, is doing their best on the job, has an accident that is not their fault, and all of a sudden, their life for them and their family is turned upside down because of the complexity and the technicality of a process that they can’t get their head around and that they can’t get the support for? We need to figure out how to fix that and remind ourselves of what WorkSafe and Workers Compensation was supposed to be all about.

I mentioned pensions before. We know there are real issues about what happens post-65 with people who had lifetime pensions that are not there now. There are issues about the value of that compensation and changes in the value of the compensation. It used to be, before changes that started in 2002….

It was in 2002 that there were a series of legislative amendments that were proceeded with. They came as a result of Alan Winter, who was an employer-side lawyer on compensation issues, brought in by the government to, in fact, rewrite the rules. He did that. He suggested a number of changes that very much, you would argue, were supportive of the employer side. That included changing how people are paid.

It used to be that folks got 75 percent of their gross income. They received a pension. They got 75 percent. The thinking is that you don’t pay taxes, so that’s pretty much getting your full pay, pretty close to that. Well, they restructured that, and they made 75 percent now 90 percent of your net income. The reality of that result is…. If you do the calculation, it’s about a reduction of 13 percent in your benefits. So we reduced the amount of money that people were paid.

Part of what Mr. Winter suggested, part of what was suggested in the acts that were put forward, was that it was about an affordability issue for employers. I understand that. But the people who paid for that were the workers, and they were asked to pay lock, stock and barrel.

[1845]

I go back to the deal that was done, going back to 1917 and on. The deal, the compromise, was clear. Workers were to receive compensation and have some protection and rehabilitation and, hopefully, some rules that prevented accidents, and nobody was going to sue employers. That was the deal.

Well, the employers continue to have the deal that they don’t get sued. But since 2002 — and particularly, 2002 to 2008 — a number of changes were brought in the Workers Compensation Act, when it was amended by Bills 49 and 63, that created this situation where you now have less money and less support coming.

Also, as I talked about earlier, this is a challenge: the regulation. They’ve invested a whole lot of power in the board of directors — a board of directors that is essentially appointed by government, that is not politically accountable, and they get to write regulatory rules. They get to practise legislative powers — something others don’t get to do.

At least when regulations are written and put in place by order-in-council, if people want to be critical of the minister or of the government, they are being critical of people who have been elected and who can be defeated in an election versus a board of directors at WorkSafe that is essentially anonymous, for all intents and purposes, to the public and anonymous to the people who are most directly impacted by this.

I think that we need to be thinking about how we get about addressing some of those issues. As I said, you need to begin to make changes here, I think, that are broader than what Bill 9 does. We need to make changes that will allow a more full review of WorkSafe. That doesn’t take away from what’s in this legislation. Some of it’s very important. Some of it will provide incremental improvements as we move forward. There is no doubt about that.

But we’re not addressing some of the key issues that are in front of us. So one of the things that we will be looking at as we proceed…. I know that some of my colleagues will speak to this bill when we’re back up at this tomorrow. They will be speaking to other aspects of the legislation and to what should occur here.

I think that there are a number of changes that we should be looking at and that we’ll be getting to discuss with the minister as we move forward on some of these matters. We will be looking at the governance question and talking to the minister in committee about governance.

We will be talking about how that board is comprised, how it’s accountable. Whether in fact the reviews that
[ Page 7254 ]
have been done of governance, that have been done by Mr. Macatee in a modest way…. He’s done a lot around the particular review related to Babine and the results of Babine and Lakeland. But what should we be saying about the broader governance question, and who should be participating in that discussion?

We’ll be talking about compliance. We’ll be talking about penalties there. Are the penalties of a nature that in fact provide real deterrence? Are the penalties of a nature that they are more than just the cost of doing business? We know that the vast majority of employers will try to do the right thing. They will work to do the right thing. But not all employers are that way, and it can’t simply be the cost of doing business. It’s not good enough if the rules around this are such that in fact that’s what we’re seeing.

We’ll talk about the Crown prosecutor and about why there hasn’t been a decision taken. It may be paid for by WorkSafe, in terms of the cost of a prosecutor. We know the criminal justice branch is short of money like everybody else. Whether, in fact, WorkSafe should be paying the cost of a dedicated Crown prosecutor — that’s a possibility as well.

We’ll talk about the issue of employer citations and whether they are effective and whether employer citations achieve the objectives that we want to look at.

[1850]

We’ll be talking about the difference between compliance agreements and rules and orders. When do compliance agreements make sense, and when do rules and orders make sense? Does this legislation in fact get us to the place where it protects workers in a way that is firm enough to be able to accomplish that?

We’ll be talking about the memorandum of understanding and how some of that work proceeds to make sure that we end this situation that we have seen time and time again where…. When there have been incidents that deserve a criminal investigation and, potentially, a criminal prosecution, they have not been able to proceed because WorkSafe, by the nature of its investigations, has in fact created a situation where there’s so much inadmissible evidence that the criminal justice branch won’t proceed.

That’s one of the areas that this legislation is intended to correct. The question will be: does it create the kind of firewalls, does it create the kind of tools that in fact lead us to be able to have some confidence that in future, when those criminal investigations and charges are warranted, we have not compromised that opportunity because of the way WorkSafe has conducted its investigations? We need to make sure that we are dealing with that.

We need to look at, I think, some of the broader issues, as well, in this discussion around decisions that need to be taken about what other options are, what the next step is. We’ll be talking to the minister in committee stage about what happens next and about what her expectations are — as we proceed with changes at WorkSafe, what her expectations are.

Some of that we might do in the estimates process, but some of that we will do in relation to this piece of legislation because this is, obviously, a step forward. It’s an incremental step, but it is a step forward that we’ll be looking at the minister to give us some advice on as to how she sees this all being addressed and dealt with.

I’m hoping that as we get to this discussion around Bill 9 — I’m pretty confident that my colleagues here will enunciate some of this — we will also have some discussion around some of these other issues. We may find a way to highlight some of those, whether it is the governance questions, whether it is the level of vocation and rehab programs, whether it is pensions and compensation.

We’ll hear, hopefully, more about that from people who have many folks who have come to their offices. I know that we all, as members, get folks with WCB, WorkSafe, issues coming in to visit us who are looking for support. Hopefully, we’ll get a chance to highlight some of that.

Also, hopefully, we’ll get a chance to talk quite a bit about the governance role as it counts to the role, the authority, of the board. I must say I have concerns about the authority of the WCB board to be able to write regulations and how that will occur. Hopefully, we will get to talk about that.

As we go through all of this and we deal with the technical side and with all of the sides of this, I am hopeful that all of us in this House will remember how we got to the place of discussing this piece of legislation and having this legislation in front of us.

It was about two very tragic accidents. It was about four people who lost their lives and the families that will be devastated forever because of the loss of those lives. It’s about the other 42 people who have probably had their lives irreparably damaged by being involved in that accident and many others that I can’t even begin to understand who maybe weren’t on shift at that shift or were friends or family whose lives have been rocked by what happened at Babine and Lakeland.

[1855]

I know the minister is very aware of this. At the end of the day, as we have this discussion, however Bill 9 proceeds and will pass, obviously — and we will support the bill — we not lose sight of how we got to Bill 9. We have no illusions, no illusions at all, that Bill 9 solves the problem. It doesn’t do that. Bill 9 is a step in the right direction. Bill 9 provides some incremental improvements. But it leaves great, great challenges in front of us still with worker safety.

We’re coming up to April 28, which is the Day of Mourning. Here very shortly there will be the annual Day of Mourning, where we recognize workers who have died across the province, across the country. I know that for everybody in this House, that’s a solemn day. It’s a day that everybody reflects.

We need to make sure that Bill 9 is only a step down the road to try to make sure that there are less and less names on those lists every April 28 — less and less people who
[ Page 7255 ]
die, less and less people who are tragically injured and incapacitated. We have the responsibility to make sure that those rules change, and we have the responsibility to take that task on. The agent may be WCB, but the responsibility rests here. We can’t allow that to not continue.

With that, I will close my remarks and move adjournment of debate.

S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. S. Thomson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: At its rising, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY,
INNOVATION AND CITIZENS’ SERVICES

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

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $63,971,000.

The Chair: Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is a beautiful sunny day in Victoria in April, and I am pleased to call the Committee Supply, Section A, to order.

Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. A. Virk: Yes. First of all, I’d like to introduce my staff that are present. I have Deputy Minister John Jacobson with me on my left. On my right I have Associate Deputy Minister Sarf Ahmed. We’re also joined by ADMs. We’ve got Colin McEwan from the budget area, and we have Bette-Jo Hughes, associate DM, as well, here with us.

I’m pleased to introduce the estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. The ministry’s role is to provide British Columbians with easy access to government services, to support leading-edge technology and development opportunities and to provide infrastructure support to government ministries.

On the technology and innovation side, we support British Columbia as a recognized leader in research and innovation. Technology plays a significant role in our lives, from the electricity that powers this room to the gas that fuels the cars. We’re exposed to technology in the everyday part of our lives, and British Columbia’s innovators are leading the path.

[1445]

Because of this, it is one of the key eight sectors identified in the B.C. jobs plan and is an increasingly key driver for the economy, creating over 84,000 jobs for British Columbians. We continue to develop, and we will be among the top provincial performers in terms of growth in technology revenues.

I look forward to the many opportunities that fall under this growing ministry. I’m ready and look forward to answering any questions that we may have.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. Member, do you have an opening statement?

D. Routley: Yes, I do.

It is my intention to call on the expertise of the minister’s staff, and I’m sure that they’ll live up to the fine standard that’s been displayed in all of the estimates that I’ve witnessed in my ten years as an MLA. I am concerned about a number of issues around, particularly, the open government segments of the ministry, FOI performance and FOI issues generally, as well as privacy protection.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Of course, a very current issue on top of mind of British Columbians and top of debate in this Legislature over the past few days and even over the past few years is the sale of public assets. Of course, we’ll be asking questions related to those sales. We have provided the minister with a number of specific properties and sales that were transacted in the past year. We’ve requested information that was lacking from some of the releases that we’ve seen so far, and I’ll be asking for more clarification on those issues.

We will be asking questions about the ongoing crisis around archiving of the records of British Columbia that has been referred to by previous Information and Privacy Commissioners as putting the historical record of British Columbia in peril. There has been some recent development — as recently as today, in fact — in that area of the ministry’s business.

Then from about 5:30 till 6:30 this afternoon another member will be asking questions. Vancouver-Fairview will be asking questions about the technology side of the ministry. Then there will be, I hope, opportunity from 6:30 to 6:45 for us to sum up our business.

With that, I’ll begin questions.
[ Page 7256 ]

The Chair: Yes, please do so.

D. Routley: Can the minister answer whether there have been any fee increases or new fees imposed within the ministry or by the ministry, for what, and how much revenue are those fees generating? How does this compare to old fees that the ministry has charged?

Hon. A. Virk: In response to the question, in the current period in question there have been no fee increases.

D. Routley: Have there been any funds transferred from other ministries? What programs would these funds be funding? Have any program areas been moved to another ministry? Of course, one large one, GCPE, has been moved, but have there been other movements?

[1450]

Hon. A. Virk: There is a number of changes. First of all, the board resourcing development office transferred to the responsibility of the Ministry of Advanced Education, as did, correctly noted by the member, the GCPE, properly referred to as government communications and public engagement — also transferred to the Ministry of Advanced Education.

In terms of other changes, there is less funding — which was transferred to the Ministry of Finance for corporate accounting services in the years 2014 and 2015.

D. Routley: How much was the fund transfer in terms of budget for the transfer of the government communications and public engagement unit?

Hon. A. Virk: The transfer for GCPE communications was the amount of $37.255 million.

D. Routley: Are there federal funds transferred to the ministry, and if so, what programs do these fund?

Hon. A. Virk: There have been no funds transferred to this ministry in this period.

D. Routley: Has the ministry received Treasury Board approval for access to the contingencies in the new programs vote? Has the ministry accessed those funds for any programs? Did the ministry access the contingency funds in the previous year?

[1455-1500]

Hon. A. Virk: Thanks for the question from the member opposite. The Treasury Board had approved in 2014-2015 a sum of up to $5 million for an increase in connectivity across British Columbia. The final number in terms of the access to those contingencies will not be known until the 2014-2015 accounts are finalized. At present there is no request for access to contingencies in the current fiscal period 2015-16.

D. Routley: Are there any ongoing reviews in the ministry, and have any reviews been completed in the past six months?

Hon. A. Virk: In terms of ongoing reviews, as a matter of efficiency and transparency and accountability, there are reviews in terms of performance at supervisory levels that are ongoing all the time. Perhaps if the member can clarify the types of reviews or if there are specifics that he’s looking for, then I could better provide him more of a succinct response.

D. Routley: I suppose…. Aside from the pro forma reviews or the normal reviews in the course of the business of the ministry, are there any reviews that would not be considered routine?

Hon. A. Virk: Other than the cyclical, ongoing reviews in terms of proper stewardship, there are no extra-special reviews ongoing at present.

[1505]

D. Routley: In September of 2014 the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner released a report entitled A Step Backwards: Report Card on Government’s Access to Information Responses. There are a number of very critical judgments of the ministry’s performance and the government’s performance in living up to the deadlines of FOI guidelines. Did this report from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner not trigger or precipitate any review of the ministry’s operations?

Hon. A. Virk: In terms of the area of freedom of information, the ministry is constantly examining performance of that particular area. The report from the commissioner is helpful as we continue our ongoing examination process, to continue to make the process that much more accessible.

D. Routley: I assume from the minister’s answer that that means there was no review triggered by the particular concerns expressed in the commissioner’s report.

[1510]

Hon. A. Virk: As I said, there is an ongoing examination of the efficiencies of FOI, and the report was certainly helpful in accentuating the ongoing improvement process that continues on. We appreciate the work of the commissioner in compiling that report.

D. Routley: Are there any audits being done in the ministry that go beyond the standard and routine audits that would be performed?
[ Page 7257 ]

Hon. A. Virk: The Office of the Auditor General is currently conducting an audit of the workstation services agreement. The nature of the work in the ministry as it relates to IT and technology and communications is such that there is an ongoing review or internal cyclical audit mechanism that’s always ongoing as well. But that doesn’t answer the member’s question in the sense that they’re not extraordinary examinations. They’re ongoing all the time.

D. Routley: How much was spent on contractors providing services to the ministry in the last fiscal year? Has this gone up or down since the previous year?

[1515]

Hon. A. Virk: First of all, let me start from last year, as until the final accounting mechanisms are completed, we will only be able to provide last year’s costs in the question that’s asked. We’ll certainly endeavour to get that to the member.

In terms of a comparison for this year, the 2015-16 year, it’s too early to be able to do a comparison. We’ll certainly be able to provide that after that fiscal year finishes, which will be sometime down the road.

D. Routley: Is the minister aware of how many contracts were tendered and how many of these were direct-awarded versus how many might have been put to bid?

Hon. A. Virk: There was a total of 305 contracts, of which 94 were direct awards and 211 were in the bid process.

D. Routley: Could the minister explain to me the circumstances of the failure of the relationship between the government and IBM as a service provider?

Hon. A. Virk: As the member understands, I would define and narrow my response to within the space of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, which has contracts and ongoing contracts with IBM.

D. Routley: The minister was responsible for the design and implementation of the integrated case management system. At the time of conception, development design, the ministry was warned repeatedly by the Privacy Commissioner that privacy audits would be appropriate and probably would save the government considerable resources, considerable taxpayers’ resources, should there be any problems detected at that stage.

[1520]

The ministry resisted, I believe, seven calls for privacy audits. Now that the system is in operation, we see that there are considerable privacy complications and failures.

Can the ministry, now that we are experiencing the legacy of that system, estimate the costs that will be incurred due to the failure of the system on the privacy issues that we’re seeing that might have been avoided had the ministry acted on the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner earlier?

[1525]

Hon. A. Virk: In terms of privacy impact assessments, they were indeed completed at each of the implementation phases and reviewed by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan mentioned reference to the October 2013 audit, which was done prior to the completion of the project. What the audit did confirm is the necessity of the phased approach. As the Auditor General indicated, the majority of the issues raised were resolved by the completion of the project.

If the member has any further questions in terms of the specifics to that, he certainly can direct those to the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

D. Routley: Well, the ministry was advised during the conceptual and design phases of the system that privacy audits should be done. This was a recommendation directly from the Privacy Commissioner. This was a recommendation made to the committee reviewing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The ministry did not carry out privacy audits during the conceptual and design phases, which would have been the key phases to appropriately do privacy audits in order to avoid what was described by the commissioners at the time — two commissioners, in fact — as potentially the source of huge costs for the public in rectifying problems beyond the design and conceptual phases.

Can the minister explain to me why the ministry didn’t heed that advice? It’s quite clear that now the problems that were predicted have come to pass.

[1530-1535]

[D. McRae in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: Just to add some clarity, the business owner for the ICM system is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. This ministry did indeed work with SDI in the consulting with the Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner throughout the four phases, and privacy impact assessments were completed with the knowledge of the Privacy Commissioner throughout the four phases of implementation.

D. Routley: The problem I have with the minister’s answer is that he avoids the fact that privacy assessments were not done before implementation. It’s all well and good that privacy assessments were done during the implementation phases, but privacy assessments were not done during the design and conceptual phases of the sys-
[ Page 7258 ]
tem. That has become a significant problem in terms of the loss of public resources because of failures.

What we’re hearing from people within ministries who are expected to use the system is that it has failed them. This has been well documented. Private information within the Ministry of Social Development has in fact been compromised and has been vulnerable. There’s been a lack of adequate protections for people in terms of their privacy.

As a result, the system is only one-third implemented upon completion. The minister can talk about a phased implementation. A phased implementation can mean “were completed.” One-third of the ministry is capable of using it, and the other two-thirds are on the never-never plan or whatever plan the minister may want to refer to. The fact is that one-third of the system is being used. Two-thirds of those systems that it was meant to replace are still operating.

As far as we can detect, in speaking to people that have shared information with us, the rest of the system is unlikely at any time soon to be put to use. Does this mean that completion of a $200 million system really means completion of a system that would cost $600 million if it were to be fully implemented? Or does it mean that $60 million was put to good use and $140 million was essentially wasted if the system is not able to satisfactorily replace those legacy systems that are still in use?

[1540]

Hon. A. Virk: The member is certainly asking, in terms of privacy impact assessments, the time when they’re completed. Each privacy impact assessment was completed and reviewed with the Privacy Commissioner prior to each phase being implemented. However the member wants to take that, they’re completed prior to it commencing — prior to phase 1 commencing and so forth and so on.

In terms of the broad speculation that the member engaged in, in terms of what percentage is good and what’s not, I could certainly take the questions to the SDSI Ministry for a response to that broad speculation.

D. Routley: Could the minister share with me any other data-sharing initiatives that the ministry is working on currently?

[1545]

Hon. A. Virk: To improve the delivery of services throughout B.C., we have just completed an information-sharing agreement, a privacy impact assessment and an integrated a program agreement between Service B.C. and Social Development. These agreements have been reviewed by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

D. Routley: Is the ministry currently involved in any data-sharing initiatives in partnership with health authorities?

Hon. A. Virk: There’s no data sharing directly with any health authorities.

D. Routley: My question wasn’t that there would be data sharing. Is the ministry working on any data-sharing initiatives inside government? I should clarify — in terms of designing and implementing any systems.

[1550]

Hon. A. Virk: The ministry is working with the Ministry of Health in sharing identity information as it relates to the B.C. Services Card program.

D. Routley: I’d like to move on to the issue of asset sales. In the 2013-2014 government asset sales summary, it is indicated that over 50 properties were sold, and we have requested information detailing those sales. Particularly, we’d like to see information that has been redacted from some of the documents that we have received.

I would like to first ask the minister a general question. Does he believe that the appraised value, the sale value and the identity of the purchaser should be publicly released, should be publicly available after a sale is completed?

[1555]

Hon. A. Virk: The first part of the member’s comment was that he would like to see redacted information. Any information that is redacted is completed by professional public servants according to the FOI Act, and is certainly not I as a minister or a political decision in terms of what information…. It’s the application of the act.

Once a sale is completed, the land sale information is available through the land sale and survey authority on our ministry website.

D. Routley: Well, the minister’s answer completely disregards the fact that the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the release of the information that we’ve been bringing to light over the past few days, that being the appraisal values of properties and the identity of the people who sold those properties and the amount that they were sold for.

How can the minister say that that is information that can be rightfully redacted when the Information and Privacy Commissioner has only just recently forced the government to release that information to the opposition, through FOI requests, that had initially been redacted?

I’m asking: does the minister disagree with the Information and Privacy Commissioner that that information should be public? Is he putting on the record now that he will defy the rulings of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and not release that information on the properties that we have, in the past two days — on
[ Page 7259 ]
Friday, in fact — sent to his office and repeatedly asked for information pertaining to?

[1600]

Hon. A. Virk: The suggestions made by the member — I categorically suggest that they are wrong. The trusted and well-trained public servants that are responsible for the FOI Act release information based upon their best analysis of the act. Indeed, the Information and Privacy Commissioner certainly has the ability to issue instructions and clarity in terms of what additional information should be released.

D. Routley: In fact, the Information and Privacy Commissioner did indicate that that information should be available. Is the minister prepared now to release to me the appraisal values, the sale values and the identity of purchasers for the properties that I have requested in the past few days?

[1605]

Hon. A. Virk: The information released through an FOI request is dependent on the timing of the request. The act is very specific in terms of competitiveness of industry, of government. If a transaction is in progress, some information may indeed be redacted by public servants in applying the act.

As the member suggested, if a deal is completed, that may change the timing if there are other deals that are tied to it. The public servants have to apply the act in different points of time and will release information based upon the act in those different points in time.

D. Routley: It’s interesting that a member so well noted for his respect of the Freedom of Information Act of the province is in charge of this ministry. It’s pretty clear in his response that he’s not interested in making this aspect of government’s business as transparent as it possibly can be.

It’s clear that the government did not release the appraised values, or the purchaser, or the price of the properties that are now the subject of such serious contention and scandal. The principle that was applied by the Information and Privacy Commissioner in ordering the release of that information is intact and should be applied to any other government business of a similar nature.

Let’s go to the property that has been the highest point of contention, the Burke Mountain property that was appraised to have a value of approximately $6 million. The sale price declared by the government was $100,000, sold to a person who had made approximately $1 million in donations to the B.C. Liberals over the past decade, $225,000 since the asset sales program was announced, and made donations the day before and the day after the sale — that property.

I have a question about that property specifically. What amount of property transfer tax was paid on that transaction?

[1610]

Hon. A. Virk: The member has suggested a number of times some order that he has referred to from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. For clarification, I’m advised by my staff that the commissioner did not issue any such order. In fact, the government, represented by the Ministry of Forests, reconsidered after the timing change and the completion of the transaction, thus facilitating the release of further information.

[1615]

Regarding the amount of property purchase tax, this is indeed paid by the purchaser. We’ll find out that information and provide it to the member, as requested.

D. Routley: Well, it seems that should be basic information that should be available. I’m very disturbed that the ministry is not able to provide that number to me right now. I would like to ask the minister to tell me upon which value the property transfer tax was calculated. Was it calculated on the sale price, or was it calculated on the assessed value?

Hon. A. Virk: I’m sorry that the member is disturbed. I wouldn’t expect him to be disturbed in this environment. But as I said, we’ll determine the amount and how that’s calculated. Then, when we have that amount, we’ll certainly provide that to the member, as requested.

D. Routley: I would ask the minister to consult with the staff that are surrounding him and ask them what value the property transfer tax is calculated upon — the assessed value or the sale price.

Hon. A. Virk: As I said before, we will determine the total value — the question that the member asked — and once that information is in my hands, I will have that provided to the member’s office.

D. Routley: My partner’s family owns a real estate company. Her brother is the president of the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board. I’ve talked to a lot of realtors, and I’m sure I’m on firm ground in saying that the property transfer tax ought to be calculated on the assessed value of the property. So if it is not calculated upon that price and if it is calculated upon the sale price, then I would suggest the B.C. taxpayer has taken a double kick in all of these transactions.

It only raises more suspicion when the minister is unwilling to provide such basic information, particularly when we have provided the minister with questions related to so many specific properties.

I’ll move on, and I will ask the minister if he can tell me what the appraised value, the assessed value, the sale
[ Page 7260 ]
price and the name of the purchaser was for the closed road at McCallum Road and Trans-Canada Highway.

[1620]

Hon. A. Virk: I’m advised that those locations referred to by the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan are in the conduct of the Ministry of Transportation. We’ll certainly pass on the member’s request to that ministry to respond accordingly.

D. Routley: I have the feeling that there might be additional commitments to pass on information as soon as possible. I’d like the minister to commit to passing on the information related to property tax calculations and the information that I’m going to be asking him over the next several questions, as soon as possible — and make some sort of commitment to me now as to how long that should take.

[1625]

Hon. A. Virk: As the member alluded to, he certainly has questions on a number of different properties. I endeavour that, if he can provide us a list of properties he wants information on, we can provide that to the respective ministries that have ownership and will provide that request to those ministries forthwith upon receiving that full list of ministries’ information that he’s requesting.

I can’t submit to him a timeline in which those other ministries may have to take to collect that information or the availability to him, but the requests would be submitted forthwith upon receiving the information from the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

D. Eby: My question probably will have been anticipated, certainly, by the minister’s staff. I’ve asked this for the past two years in a row. This is the third year I’m asking about the Jericho lands, which are located in Vancouver–Point Grey. There’s a provincial parcel of property, a number of acres.

The neighbours and community members are incredibly concerned that the province will do what they did with Burke Mountain, which is, essentially, to give the property away to a friend of the government and not take into account the concerns of their community.

They have good reason to be concerned. July 25 I came here, and I asked if the government was planning to sell the land. I was told no. January 30, 2014, the government wrote to a journalist saying they weren’t planning on selling the land.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

May 6, 2014, I came here and asked. The government said they weren’t planning on selling the land. I bring those messages back to my community, and sure enough, on December 4, 2014, they read in the news: “At this point we’re in early conversations with First Nations about their interest in the property for the purposes of sale.” They heard that from the former minister before this minister took over this ministry.

I’m wondering if I can get a straight answer from this minister. Where is the government at in the sale of the Jericho lands, and what interests of the communities will be taken into account before the land is sold? Or will they be hearing about the sale on Global rather than through proper communications and consultation with the community?

Hon. A. Virk: I can confirm to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey that in recent months we have begun to engage in more formal discussions. We won’t prejudge the outcome of the discussions. We’re certainly interested in what they have to say and what opportunity is presented. First Nations are certainly noted…. We’re happy to explore the opportunity with First Nations, should an offer eventually materialize.

D. Eby: I thought my question to the minister was clear, but I’ll say it again in a much shorter form. Will he consult with the community before disposing of this land? Will he come to the community, or will his representatives come to the community, and consult before selling this land so that they can hear the concerns and visions that the community has for the future of this land?

[1630]

Hon. A. Virk: As the member may very well know, local government is indeed responsible for all land use decisions and will certainly employ all different ordinances and bylaws and processes they have. That’s when the extensive community consultations would occur.

D. Routley: I suppose the simple word “brutal” as a description of an answer isn’t entirely parliamentary, but it seems appropriate that an answer like that should be described by myself and my colleague here from Vancouver–Point Grey — that that is absolutely brutal.

This ministry is responsible for the sale of these properties, yet the minister who is responsible for transparency in government, for open government, is refusing to commit to community consultation on the disposal of important public properties, important to the constituents of my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey, important in terms of the history of the province. That the government and this minister are not prepared to commit to full consultation with the community seems, in that simple word, brutal. It’s unbelievable to me.

[1635]

The answer the minister gave before the questions from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey around the appraisal value, the sale price and the identity of purchasers, that he would have the ministries that owned
[ Page 7261 ]
the properties confirm that information for me, is also a brutal avoidance of sharing information.

His ministry is responsible for the sale of those properties. His ministry and the staff that surround him and the minister have access to that information now. The public, the people of B.C., ought to have access to that information now.

I’ll ask him about the Willingdon lands in Burnaby. What was the appraised value for this property, done by B.C. Assessment? Was a third-party assessment done or an appraisal? What date was the property sold? We know it was sold, and we know it was sold for $57.9 million. We would like to know what the value was — the appraisal, the assessment and the date of the sale.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

I’m the new kid on the block here. I just want to keep the demeanour and the questions all on an even keel. I understand that the last couple of days have been a bit tenuous for everybody. But we just want to keep an even keel on everything, and I’ll just ask both sides, please, if at all possible.

Hon. A. Virk: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your comments as well. I will certainly refrain from providing any comments on the member opposite’s comments.

In terms of the questions he asked on the Willingdon lands, that’s a property within the purview of my ministry. That land deal closed in March of 2014. The assessed value was $35.197 million, the appraised value was $61.290 million, and the sale price was $57.908 million.

[1640]

D. Routley: I’ll share with the minister a comment that I received from George MacMinn, who was the Clerk of this House or Deputy Clerk for 53 years — the longest-serving Clerk or Deputy Clerk in the Commonwealth. He said that there’s anger and passion in the chambers of our government so that there isn’t blood in the streets that would be caused by the frustration of the people over governments doing things like selling $6 million worth of property for $100,000.

That’s why people who vote for their government and then see this sort of behaviour are caused to send their members, their representatives, to their government with their passion, which, in this case, is a passion generated by an anger over what appears to be a substantial loss of value to the public and that loss being to the benefit of a major donor of the political party, the B.C. Liberal Party, that the minister represents in government.

I would like to ask a question about the property at 5455 Manor Street in Burnaby. Its assessed value is $888,000. Was there a third-party appraisal? What date was the sale? What was the sale price? And what was the name of the individual or group that purchased the property?

Hon. A. Virk: The aforementioned parcel is within the purview of the Ministry of Transportation. As before, with some of the other parcels, we will certainly pass on that request to the ministry.

Perhaps, for efficiency and to assist the member, if he has a long list of properties that he’s looking for information on, as I suggested before, he can provide that, and then we can appropriately pass that information to the appropriate ministries that have that information to consider the request.

D. Routley: The property that I described was sold by the ministry that the minister is responsible for. Why can he not provide the information that I’ve asked?

[1645]

Hon. A. Virk: The Minister of Finance has overall responsibility for surplus asset sales — just as a reminder to the member.

My staff does provide management assistance in the program. The ministries that own the properties are responsible for the transactions. The transactions that have completed, the information as to sales, is available on our website and on land titles. If there’s additional information on a different ministry’s property, we can certainly pass on that request to that ministry on behalf of the member.

D. Routley: Entirely unacceptable. The ministry is responsible for the sale of the properties. The ministry released the information on the properties that have been the contentious issue of the recent days.

[1650]

I’d like to ask about a property in Comox — the old Brooklyn School, 1475 Noel Avenue. This property was assessed by B.C. Assessment at $4.5 million. It was sold on the 9th of October, 2013, for $2.4 million to Northgate Christian school. I would like to know: was there a third-party appraisal done on this property, and if so, what was the appraised value?

Hon. A. Virk: I’m advised that particular property…. There’s certainly information that the member has, and we’ll pass on that request. That property was owned by the Ministry of Education, and we’ll pass on the request for additional information to that ministry.

D. Routley: The Ministry of Education didn’t sell the property. The Ministry of Citizens’ Services sold the property. I’m asking the Minister of Citizens’ Services how much he sold the property for or how much it was appraised to be worth. His ministry sold the property. He has the information.

Please, Minister, give me the information. What was the appraised value of that property?
[ Page 7262 ]

Hon. A. Virk: If I may clarify again, as I said before, our ministry provides the administrative assistance to other ministries. As I said, this property was owned by the Ministry of Education, and as such, it was additional information, as the member is requesting. We’ll certainly pass on his request — as I have said so on all other sales he requested — or other information to the ministry that owned the property.

D. Routley: I’d like to ask about the Tranquille lands in Kamloops at 1955 Tranquille Road. This was a 2012 land assessment of $2.07 million. It was sold for $1.825 million. What was the third-party-appraised value of that property?

[1655]

Hon. A. Virk: I’m advised that that specific property was the ownership of the Interior Health Authority and we’ll certainly provide them with the request from the member.

D. Routley: Who was the owner of the Willingdon lands in Burnaby?

Hon. A. Virk: The member may recall correspondence with my office, that we would respond to questions in terms of properties that were part of the Shared Services B.C. inventory. The Willingdon lands were part of the inventory. As such, I was able to provide that information to the member.

When the member has requests on properties that were the purview of other ministries…. In those cases, as I have said, the Minister of Finance has overall responsibility of the release of assets for economic gain, and other ministries have conduct of those properties. We can pass those requests on accordingly.

D. Routley: I absolutely do not accept that as an answer from the minister. His ministry sells the properties. His ministry provided the information to the opposition on the properties on Burke Mountain in Coquitlam. I am asking him to provide the same information for other properties which he was responsible for the sale of.

I’m asking now about the former Grief Point Elementary in Powell River at 6960 Quesnel Street. Its assessed value by B.C. Assessment was $2.96 million. Was there a third-party appraisal done on this property?

It sold on the 20th of September, 2013, for $625,000 to the Powell River Christian School. I would like to know if there was a third-party appraisal done and what value was placed on that property by a third party. His ministry is responsible for that sale. He should provide that information as the minister responsible for open government and transparency as well as the sale and disposal of public property.

[1700]

Hon. A. Virk: That particular property, the elementary school that the member refers to, understandably, is the purview of the appropriate school district in that area. We’ll certainly pass that on to that organization through the Minister of Education.

As I said before, if there are properties that are part of the Shared Services B.C. inventory, that’s one matter. Once again, if there’s a long and exhaustive list of properties that the member wishes to have information on, if he wishes in the interests of expediency to provide that, then we can provide that and endeavour to put his request forward to those areas that have the ability to respond to those questions.

D. Routley: It’s not only unacceptable that the minister responsible for the sale of the properties won’t share the information but also unacceptable that our short time in estimates is eaten up by his extensive consultations — just to simply stand up and regurgitate the same boilerplate excuse for not sharing the information that he is duty-bound to provide to British Columbians.

I think it’s absolutely disgraceful that we’re not able to get better answers from this minister about properties — in this case, assessed at $2.96 million and sold for $625,000, so $2.3 million less than the assessed value. All I’m asking the minister for is the appraisal value, third-party appraisal, to verify whether $625,000 is a fair price for a property that B.C. Assessment valued at $2.96 million.

You know, that would clear up a lot of suspicion that people have about the goings-on in the minister’s bailiwick. People would not then perhaps be so suspicious of the minister’s business when it pertains to the sale of properties if the minister would share that information. Perhaps the appraisal value would support a sale price of $625,000 for a property that was valued by B.C. Assessment at $2.96 million. But the minister’s answer, which seems ridiculous to me….

The minister appears to suggest that he doesn’t have the information or at least that he’s unwilling to share it. It only heightens people’s suspicion around this issue and causes the minister more grief, I’m sure.

In the case of that elementary school in Powell River, I asked for the appraisal, and the minister consulted for four or five minutes and stood up and gave me the boilerplate answer. I’d like to ask the minister this. Does he have the information at his disposal? Is he refusing to share it, or does he not have it?

Hon. A. Virk: As I’ve stated a number of times before, if the member has a list of properties across British Columbia over a multi-year period that he wishes additional information on, we’d certainly endeavour to take that list and pass it to the appropriate location — and pass his requests on to the appropriate location — such that they can respond accordingly to the member.
[ Page 7263 ]

[1705]

D. Routley: We’re making progress because the minister didn’t eat up four or five minutes of my time consulting before giving the same excuse.

That’s facetious, and it’s perhaps a little bit disrespectful, but it’s out of an absolute frustration with the minister, who refuses to be transparent, who refuses to share information that clearly is at his disposal and that the people of B.C. have a very heightened interest in receiving.

So I would like to ask the minister: does the minister have the information? Does he know what the appraised value of that school in Powell River is? Is he refusing to share that information, or does he not have the information?

Hon. A. Virk: As I said, if the member has an exhaustive list and is looking for additional information, I will certainly, as I’ve said a number of times, take his requests for the various properties to the various locations in British Columbia under the release of assets or economic gain and provide that to the bodies that can seek that information and provide it back to the member.

I’ve advised the member a number of times that I will endeavour to do so, by being provided his list of the locations that he wishes. I’m certain that he has others that he will want to ask information on. As I said, if there are properties that are part of the inventory of Shared Services B.C., that information will be available with me, and I would be able to respond to the member.

The Chair: Member, just before….

I’m just going to ask this of all members. It’s my understanding and…. I would like to encourage everybody to ensure that their questions are relevant to the operational responsibilities of the ministry. What I’ve heard here as Chair is that the minister has said he has asked for a list, but he has also stated that he will provide these answers. I’m assuming it’s as soon as possible, so that these answers will come forward.

All I can ask is: let’s try and keep this moving in the right direction. I think we are going to carry on in the right direction if we accept what the minister is saying, that these answers will be provided in the essence of quickness.

Am I correct, Minister?

Hon. A. Virk: If I may clarify, I would forward the request that the member has made to the appropriate ministries.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

D. Routley: I respect the advice of the Chair. I also am very uncomfortable with the answer, because in fact we have provided this list to the minister. We have provided the list of properties and requested that the minister attend estimates with this information. He’s had time to assemble this information, but he has not answered the question I’ve asked. I have not asked the specific value in the last two questions. I’ve asked him: does he know what the appraised value of the school in Powell River is? And he is refusing to share that information here. Or does he not have the information? That seems a pretty basic question.

Hon. A. Virk: As I have reiterated a number of times, the release of assets for economic gain is the sole privy and is accountable to the Minister of Finance. As such, those questions on those initiatives can be directed to that ministry’s estimates.

As I said, if the member continues on this line of questioning, I can continue to assist him. He can provide that list, and we can put it to the appropriate ministry that can endeavour to take that request and then appropriately respond to it.

D. Routley: As the minister’s answers are repetitive, despite the variety of questions, I’ll continue to ask that question one more time. The information that I asked for is the appraisal value. Does the minister have the information and will not release it, or does he not have the information? Is the information not available to him? His ministry sold the property. Is he saying to me now that he will not divulge that information or that he doesn’t have the information?

[1710]

Hon. A. Virk: As there has been correspondence between my office and the member opposite, if there are questions surrounding properties within the inventory of Shared Services B.C., that information is readily available. As I’ve responded to the member, in terms of estimate appraisal, sale price, sale date and information that surrounds other areas of responsibility, I’ll certainly take that information. I don’t have that available at my fingertips, and it’s not in my purview.

If the member has information regarding property that is in the purview and responsibility of other areas of government, if he can provide that list, we can certainly pass it on to them so they can search out the information and respond to the member’s request.

D. Routley: The minister sold the property. Does he have the appraisal?

Hon. A. Virk: The staff that accompanies me certainly came prepared with the information surrounding the inventory of a property that is part of Shared Services B.C. The inventory that our ministry provided aid and assistance to in the disposal of those properties of other ministries — that information is not readily available with my team and my staff at present.
[ Page 7264 ]

That’s why I suggested the fullest of lists that the member has. We can certainly take that. Then that request can appropriately…. We can respond back to the member with the information that he has requested upon checking with the ministry and those that have that fullest information.

[1715]

K. Corrigan: I had a question or two about the Willingdon lands, 3405 Willingdon Avenue. My understanding is the information has already been provided — maybe just confirmation on this — that the assessed values of those lands was $61 million. Is that correct?

A Voice: Appraised.

K. Corrigan: Sorry, appraised value.

Hon. A. Virk: For the benefit of the member, I did respond, and this is information that I do have. It’s within the inventory of Shared Services B.C. In fact, I’ll give you a whole rundown.

The assessed value was $35.197 million. The appraised value was $61.29 million. The sale price was $57.908 million.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear. The $61 million appraised value — was that for the land itself and none of the other components of that deal? In other words, that didn’t include the liquor distribution centre, didn’t include anything else — was simply the appraised value of that piece of property. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Virk: Yes.

K. Corrigan: Can I get a copy of that appraisal?

Hon. A. Virk: The staff certainly doesn’t have that with them here today, but they’ll certainly endeavour to review it for appropriate application of privacy concerns and get back to the member.

K. Corrigan: I’ll take that as a yes unless there’s some legal reason why it can’t be provided to me. My understanding is that some appraisals have been made public through freedom of information or other manners. I’d love to see a copy of it.

I’m just wondering if I could quickly ask about the process. The city of Burnaby, my understanding is, had an appraisal done of the same piece of property for $42 million, which is substantially less than this amount. Perhaps the minister, just as my final question, could give me an assessment of what the minister believes was the obligation to the city of Burnaby in terms of whether or not they informed the city of Burnaby that they were considering a different sale and what they did in terms of informing the city of Burnaby about the progress of those negotiations. Because as you well know, the city of Burnaby was interested in buying that property.

[1720]

Hon. A. Virk: Let me provide some fulsome information for the member from Burnaby. The government did, indeed, consult with the city of Burnaby in regards to the Willingdon lands beginning in June of 2012. The city was granted an exclusive period, some 75 days, to complete their due diligence and submit an appropriate offer. The city had ample opportunity to do due diligence, and at the end of the period did not come forth with an offer.

The province had a legal duty to consult with First Nations. During this consultation an agreement was reached to purchase at, incidentally, considerably higher than the appraised value.

D. Routley: Now, in the interests of what little time remains, I would like the minister to give some sort of a commitment as to what time frame we’re looking at for our list of properties, which was forwarded to his ministry on Friday of last week. How long should we expect it to take for us to receive the information we’ve requested?

Hon. A. Virk: We certainly endeavour to ensure that information is provided as soon as possible.

D. Routley: The other very basic question I had was around the calculation of property transfer tax — whether it is calculated on the assessed value, as it is for every other British Columbian on every other land transaction, or the sale price. If the minister could provide that information, I would be most relieved.

[1725]

Hon. A. Virk: That information for the member is certainly available on the Land Title and Survey Authority website and, additionally, on the Ministry of Finance’s website. Just to summarize, the property purchased asset is based on fair market value as determined by sale.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

D. Routley: On to FOI processing time. If I could ask a couple of questions with the remaining time.

[1730]

Has the average processing length of time increased or decreased since the time of the commissioner’s latest report, A Step Backwards?

Hon. A. Virk: The average processing time for 2014-2015 is 43 days. Just for comparative purposes, 2013-14 was 44 days.

D. Routley: Yes, and to put that in context, in 2013-2014, the 44 business days — that was up from a 30-day
[ Page 7265 ]
average the year before, 2012-2013. What is the minister doing in order to address this increase in length of processing time?

One day has been taken off the average, but when we’re rounding figures, that could be as little as half a day. What is the minister doing to improve response times to meet his legal obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which is 30 business days? That was the average only two years ago.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: As the division bells are ringing, we’re going to recess till the end of division. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 5:34 p.m. to 5:47 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: The member from Burnaby suggests I should just say yes, but I think there’s a different response.

The process will continue to improve. We’ve completed a major lean process, introduced a new system and will continue to improve the processes. These improvements have allowed government to manage year-over-year volume increases.

D. Routley: Why is the ministry not proactively publishing the calendars of senior staff as recommended by the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

Hon. A. Virk: There is one requester. Upon an analysis of security and threat assessment, those calendars will not be published.

K. Corrigan: I asked a question earlier about the process with regard to the sale of the Willingdon lands. I was told by the minister that with regard to negotiations with Burnaby, there was an exclusive period of 75 days during which the city of Burnaby had the ability to come forward to make an offer — an exclusive period to make that offer — but they didn’t make that offer and so there was no deal.

Could the minister confirm that the ministry asked for that exclusivity period to be extended? Could the minister confirm that after that extension was granted by the city of Burnaby, it was during that extended period that there was an understanding on both sides that that period would continue during the consultation period?

[1750]

Then, after that, the ministry then came back — I believe the words of the then minister were “you snooze, you lose” — and said that they had a deal with the First Nations and with the Aquilini Group. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Chair, if I just may…. For your information, we are here, certainly, to provide estimates on the 2015-2016 vote. If this line of questions continues on issues from 2013 or 2014 or other periods, it’s not within the purview of these estimates to continue on that line.

K. Corrigan: I believe that we have been through that kind of discussion in this chamber and in the main House many a time. We’ve sought rulings on that, and we have been told repeatedly that to get an understanding of the future, it’s good to understand the past. Thank you. I see that our Chair is nodding, and so the question stands.

Hon. A. Virk: I guess your nodding means yes.

The Chair: My nodding means yes. The question is in line with the estimates.

Hon. A. Virk: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since it is a period, we’re talking, some time ago, and there are some specific questions in terms of discussions and negotiations that occurred, we’ll provide that information to the member after having researched it appropriately to ensure that it’s accurate.

K. Corrigan: I’d be interested in timelines and so on — as much specific information as possible.

My final question, I hope. The appraised value was $61 million, I believe. I think we’ve had that discussion already. The sale price was somewhere around $57-point-something million, almost $58 million. I’m wondering if the minister could confirm: is that the amount that was actually paid for the property?

Hon. A. Virk: Yes.

V. Huntington: I appreciate the critic of the Technology portfolio allowing me a quick question. To the minister and his staff: it’s a question directed about Internet connectivity on Westham Island in south Delta. I’d like specifically to ask a question about the possibility of improving Internet connectivity on Westham Island.

You’ve been doing good work with Telus across the province and with the funding from the connecting British Columbia agreement on improving Internet connectivity in rural and northern areas. What I would like the ministry to understand is that the Internet connectivity on Westham Island, which is ten minutes as the crow flies from downtown Vancouver, is non-existent. It isn’t supplied by Delta Cable, nor does Telus supply Internet connectivity.

[1755]

Even though it’s largely a rural area, with float homes along its coastline, it does have the Canadian Wildlife Service on Westham Island, and it is part of the Lower Mainland.

I understand that Telus intends to invest $1.16 billion in 2015 and 2016 to expand urban and rural Internet
[ Page 7266 ]
connectivity and capacity. In light of the work that both the ministry and Telus have been doing, I would ask if the ministry staff could evaluate Internet connectivity on Westham Island and work with Telus and Delta Cable, as appropriate, to see if there are options to improve access. It is a semi-urban area and is not on Mars. I would like the minister to take a look at the potential for connectivity, finally.

Hon. A. Virk: Thank you for the request. Whether it’s the Lower Mainland or remotest rural British Columbia, we have the same commitment to ensure that we bring connectivity all across British Columbia, unless of course, you’re hiding from technology somewhere and don’t want to be connected.

I can certainly arrange for my staff to meet with the member to provide a technical briefing on that location and to pursue and discuss what options are available.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for answers to questions so far. I am going to ask a number of questions related to technology and government support for technology generally, as well as the Innovation Council and the Premier’s Technology Council.

I have, in previous sets of estimates, referred to studies by the B.C. Technology Industry Association — their report card, which is done periodically by KPMG. I am going to ask some questions of the minister with respect to activities of his ministry or the government generally, or advocacy that he may be undertaking as the minister responsible, to respond to some very interesting points and requests made by the industry association.

As the minister is, I’m sure, aware, one of the significant points made by the BCTIA in their four-point plan…. It flows from some key points that were made in the Technology Report Card — one of them being that it’s necessary to revitalize access to early-stage venture capital in British Columbia.

While the start-up capital is pretty good, one of the reasons that KPMG gave the industry a C-plus — which is a slight rise from the C of the year previous but still not all that good in comparison to other provinces in Canada — was the need to invest in early-stage venture capital in order to take companies past the start-up stage. I’ll deal with the issue of talent availability that was also raised in the report card subsequently.

As a result of this report card, the industry presented a four-point plan. Part of the points they made was that there was an opportunity between 2014 and 2020 to double the percentage of the technology sector’s share of B.C.’s GDP from 8 percent to 16 percent.

They had a very interesting graph that showed if investment continued at the rate it was currently growing, we would reach some growth in jobs, not insignificant. But with the trend, which looked like it was starting, for investment to taper off, in fact, we would not get that growth.

If we invested in a pretty reasonable manner in supporting early-stage companies, there was the potential to not only double GDP share but to grow by an additional 31,000 jobs in a six-year period. That is not insignificant, particularly considering that these jobs pay 66 percent, on average, higher than the B.C. industrial average.

My question is to the minister. The industry association recommended that B.C. set aside $50 million and ask the federal government to add another $50 million to establish a regional fund of funds to invest, 50 percent of which would have to be invested in British Columbia.

[1800]

They expected that the private sector’s contribution would effectively triple that available fund, and that could make a huge difference.

In addition, the industry association recommended that the amount available in the small business venture capital fund shoot up to $50 million. It has gone up, but only by about $3 million in this year’s budget, which is not that large an amount, even though it will result in an additional $10 million overall in investment.

There were some other recommendations, including that the limit for a company be raised from $5 million to $10 million and that the $200,000 cap be eliminated, as well as the carry forward period be extended from five years to ten years.

My question to the minister…. I realize I’ve lumped a lot of things in here, but I know you’re going to consult, so we may as well get it all on the table at once.

Those measures are not addressed in this year’s budget. Can the minister say if it is the government’s intention to look seriously at these recommendations, especially given the significant number of jobs that have been projected as a distinct possibility to be created as a result of increased venture capital investment? Is there contemplation of some action being taken to fully meet or partially meet these objectives? Does the minister think that these are good ideas? In general, can the minister comment on these recommendations by the industry association?

Hon. A. Virk: I want to thank the member, actually, for his passion. He joins government in his passion and support for the tech industry and the recognition from the members opposite that we have such a vibrant, important industry in our midst. It is by the virtue of a strong environment that promotes business, an environment with some of the lowest business taxes in the universe — some of the lowest corporate taxes, the lowest personal taxes — that result in many of these tech companies choosing to, first of all, stay here, to remain here, to grow here.

I have travelled around the province and spoken to members of BCTIA, Bill Tam and others, consistently. I think the report is valuable. We take those considerations to heart. We are going to continue that dialogue with members of BCTIA and members of other associa-
[ Page 7267 ]
tions. In fact, I was with Acetech just a week ago to have the same discussions — discussions with different verticals within the tech industry, from the life sciences right to the gamers.

This government indeed, as the member suggested…. The small business venture capital tax credit has gone up from $30 million to $33 million. Within a responsible government, within a balanced budget, we’re going to continue to work with this industry to realize that growth, that growth from 84,000 jobs and how we can make that sector even more vibrant.

G. Heyman: I would thank the minister for his comments. He’s correct. I certainly share enthusiasm, as do my colleagues, for the tech sector. We know that despite the significant importance that resources play and will always play in the economy of British Columbia, the tech sector actually employs more people than all of the aspects of the resource sector combined.

[1805]

It has a great future. One of the reasons it has a great future is because much of what it does is not only noncontroversial in terms of environmental impact. Much of it is actually devoted to contributing to worthwhile endeavours like clean technology that actually help us address greenhouse gas emissions.

There’s a tremendous opportunity in technology to add value to our resources so that within the resource sector we get more jobs, we get more value, and we get more return for our activities in that sector. It seems to me to be a win-win, and it also seems to me to be a good place for government to be placing a focus and devoting some significant financial resources.

When I looked at this year’s budget, I saw significant amounts of money devoted to oil and gas road maintenance — significantly more new money, that is, than one can say is being devoted to anything that could be generally described as technology or the green economy.

I also am not sure about the minister’s numbers. My understanding, although it’s a little hard to ascertain in the budget, is that the small business venture capital tax credit quantum is going up to about $28 million, not $33 million, but I will have to look at those numbers again.

Anyway, notwithstanding the minister’s answer, it’s good to hear that he’s in dialogue with the industry associations, as we all should be, whether we’re in government or opposition. But the fact remains that B.C. is second to last in the level of total venture capital among the 20 North American jurisdictions that were examined by KPMG.

That doesn’t seem, to me at least, to be good enough. It seems to me to be something that the government would want to address in a practical manner, because notwithstanding the vibrancy of the tech sector in British Columbia, we’re not that large a jurisdiction. We don’t have a lot of large anchor companies, but we could have, and we could certainly help grow people through the early stage.

Can the minister say whether additional moneys being made available for venture capital leverage or a fund or additional money being added to the small business venture capital tax credit fund or some changes to the caps or the carry-forward periods or the amount of individual investments are being contemplated or if it would be something that the minister and his staff are examining in order to be able to report whether the claims of the industry associations stand up and that this is something that should be seriously addressed?

Hon. A. Virk: I thank the member for his question. The Ministry of International Trade has conduct of the venture capital file and is working very hard and diligently on bringing forth recommendations. I very much look forward to what those recommendations look like.

The member will be very happy to know that we are renewing a tech strategy. It’s currently being looked at and put together, and part of that is consultations across industry. It’s not just the industry representative group. It’s actually going to the small entrepreneur, the small business man and business woman. It doesn’t mean only in the metropolitan areas. It’s in rural locations. It’s in the north. It’s in the Kelowna area. It’s in Kamloops.

[1810]

We want to have that examined, that personal discussion with as many individuals as possible. There are commonalities that we’re hearing from different verticals in this space, and we’re going to incorporate all that we hear. We’re working on that in terms of a tech strategy. The member will certainly hear about it in short order, a renewed tech strategy.

This government is absolutely committed to the tech sector, to grow that from 84,000 jobs to a number that’s even higher. I do have to comment that the tech and resource sectors do go hand in hand. It’s a complementary industry in that they complement each other very well.

G. Heyman: In the interests of time, I’m going to ask two questions at once. One of them is: notwithstanding the responsibility of the Ministry of Small Business, can the minister confirm that he considers it a part of his role to advocate with that ministry with respect to tax credits?

The second question should be hopefully fairly easy to answer. I would love to have a briefing from the minister’s staff at some point on the progress of the tech strategy and at some point, obviously when it’s complete and it’s appropriate, a briefing on what it looks like.

Hon. A. Virk: In relation to the two questions that the member proposed, certainly, part of our tech strategy is going to look at the variety of instruments, including the small business venture capital tax credit, venture capital. I anticipate talking about talent and a host of other
[ Page 7268 ]
things as well. Certainly, at the appropriate time I’d be more than happy to have staff or myself sit down with the member opposite to discuss tech strategy, when it’s the appropriate timing.

G. Heyman: Thanks to the minister for that offer, and let the record show that it’s a standing request. When the minister or the minister’s staff think the time is right, please contact my office.

My next question…. This is interesting, because the former minister is now the Minister of Advanced Education, and this minister is the former Minister of Advanced Education. One of the things the report card indicated is that there’s a shortage of specific talents such as engineering, science and marketing — a shortage of graduates in B.C., as well as a need for people with those skills. My question to the minister is: is he advocating with the Minister of Advanced Education to take steps to create spaces for graduates in the specific fields that have been identified by the tech report card?

Hon. A. Virk: I had this real long answer all figured out, but the answer is yes.

G. Heyman: That’s probably the right answer.

Employment in the sector was the third-highest growth among all industries in B.C. between 1999 and 2012. However, employment’s been flat since 2009, by some reports. It’s interesting to note that there’s local demand for a number of types of technology goods that can’t be met by local supply or aren’t met by local supply. B.C. is importing about $5 billion worth of technology goods, while we’re only generating $1 billion in exports.

[1815]

My question to the minister is: what steps is the minister taking, or does the minister think could be taken, to create and encourage the production of those goods that are needed in B.C. so that they can be supplied from B.C. companies rather than by imports?

A corollary question is…. Other jurisdictions often use government procurement to help spur certain manufacturing, particularly in technology. It’s well known that in the United States the Silicon Valley expansion was supported by a significant government investment. Government can also play a role by establishing a connectivity office that helps connect businesses in B.C., for example, with tech producers in B.C. to ensure that, where there’s production and where there’s a demand, the people who need to know how to connect those two actually are able to do that, and that’s expedited.

That doesn’t appear to be the case in British Columbia. There is no such office, and people in the sector have often told me that that would a good thing. It would help the sector. It would help grow companies within the sector, as well as employment within the sector.

Could the minister comment?

Hon. A. Virk: All the points that the member raises are indeed important points, and these are the points that are being examined as we plan and prepare and get work done in preparing our new tech strategy.

G. Heyman: I’m going to move on to the Innovation Council now. The mandate of the Innovation Council is to “advance commercialization in B.C. through focused support to start-up companies and facilitation of partnerships between industry and academia” and “work cooperatively with the B.C. Regional Science and Technology Network offices and the university-industry liaison offices operating in the province,” and also to support job creation and the development of highly skilled talent, making it easier for entrepreneurs and start-up companies to succeed in B.C.

The Innovation Council’s budget states that its funding is planned to remain fixed at the same amount that it has been from 2013 right through to 2018. However, there’s a great need for more funding for these technology initiatives.

Why is the ministry choosing not to keep pace with the sector’s needs or even inflation, leaving BCIC’s budget stagnant?

[1820]

Hon. A. Virk: I would be remiss not to commend the work of the British Columbia Innovation Council and what they do in terms of tech accelerators, the support, the executives in residence and the new, young entrepreneurs that are promoted there. It’s not only what government spends. It’s what BCIC is able to leverage in private industry in its accelerators. It’s able to leverage at the federal government. It’s able to exponentially increase the value of its work in partnerships with associations across the country. They continue to do absolutely excellent work.

G. Heyman: As the minister knows, a review of BCIC was done in 2011 by an external firm. Cabinet received a request for the decision regarding the B.C. Innovation Council on November 2, 2011. The opposition has requested the report in past estimates. We finally, via FOI, received a version that was heavily redacted under section 12. In fact, I think over 75 percent of the report was redacted. The only part that really wasn’t redacted was the title page, the table of contents, a couple of pages of positive recommendations and a list of all of the people who were part of the council and who’d been contacted by the council.

Given the fact that other reports on Crown agencies, other reviews, have been released — for instance, the Lottery Corporation this past December — why does the government and the ministry continue to refuse to share the full report?
[ Page 7269 ]

Hon. A. Virk: The report that the member mentioned and the sections he mentioned are indeed correct. All has been released that can be released, and the application of the appropriate legislation has been applied.

G. Heyman: For the record, if the ministry thinks that it can release positive recommendations but not recommendations that we may assume were not so positive…. I’m not sure why section 12 applies to one of them but not all of them.

Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the very many blank pages with “Key finding” as a title, we have a letter from the then minister to the chair of the board of directors of the B.C. Innovation Council on October 2, 2012, that was a letter of direction.

One can infer from the letter that the minister found some, what are called, areas of improvement that could be made at the corporation’s executive levels — or perhaps what would reflect negative findings from the review. They have to do with weakness and inability at the leadership level and involve board executives and CEOs. The letter, for instance, instructs the board chair to align BCIC’s board governance model with board resourcing and development office policies and best practices.

What are the grounds for that recommendation, and what was the board governance model prior to the review?

[1825]

Hon. A. Virk: I’m advised that in 2012 that letter was indeed received as sent by the minister at the time and all the stipulated requisites and areas that needed to be done were acted upon as requested.

The Chair: Just a reminder to the member what the vote number is right now, just to inform you, if you can somehow make sure that your questions are actually tied to the vote on the floor and to this year’s estimates.

G. Heyman: So for clarity, for my previous question and the ones coming up, I would say we have an amount of money devoted to the Innovation Council. I think it’s in the public interest that the money is well spent and well accounted for.

What I’m trying to ascertain is what changes were made to ensure that the money is well spent and well accounted for, in comparison to how it might have been spent or accounted for previously. In order to ascertain that, it’s important to know what the deficiencies were previously.

Having said that, my question to the minister, which I don’t have an answer for, is: what were the grounds for the recommendation, and specifically, what improvements were made?

[P. Pimm in the chair]

Hon. A. Virk: The question relates to a letter written by a previous minister probably several ministers ago in 2012. I’m trying to connect that with the current vote that we have in front of us right now.

If you so choose to decide, we can respond appropriately in writing to the member after examining the letter. I don’t have that 2012 letter readily available to examine, to respond in the most fulsome sense that I would like to, to the member.

G. Heyman: I actually do have a copy of the letter, although it’s highlighted at my own discretion, so perhaps I will keep it.

[1830]

If the minister will commit to provide answers in writing, I will state again that the purpose of the question that has to do with the recommendations made by the previous minister in 2012 is to ascertain exactly what deficiencies were corrected and whether, in fact, they have been corrected. With that, I will read a series of questions into the record, if that’s all right.

The letter expands on the recommendation with additional directives instructing the BCIC board to align with government expectations, including: “Set up a board structure compatible with other Crown corporations, with an accompanying contract for fulfilling the duties of a board director, formalize conflict-of-interest rules and define board director expectations and accountabilities, including attendance and time commitment expected.”

My question with respect to this is: what is the basis for that recommendation? Have the deficiencies that caused the recommendation to be made been implemented, in whole or in part, and what do they look like in order to assure taxpayers that the budget money allocated to this council is now being appropriately used?

Next question. What is the basis for the recommendation that the board “develop a performance contract for the CEO that includes development and execution of an operating plan that is directly a result of the strategic plan to build the right organizational structure, roles, competencies and capacity for a highly credible organization,” and again, how has this recommendation been acted on?

Next question. How is the changeover of CEOs related to the recommendation that the board develop a performance contract for the CEO, and is the minister satisfied that this changeover has contributed to addressing the recommendation?

My next question. The letter directs BCIC to “recruit and select BCIC executives and staff using a competency profile and a strong, transparent recruiting process, including references.” This recommendation seems to suggest that standard hiring practices were lacking prior to the review. So my question is: why was the recommendation made, and are hiring practices now appropriate?

My next question. The letter also recommends that BCIC “develop a new set of outcome-based performance
[ Page 7270 ]
measures as part of a rigorous approach to planning and evaluation and extend these metrics to partner selection and reporting.” What was the level of planning and evaluation in place prior to this letter, and have the recommendations been implemented in a manner that the minister considers appropriate to ensure that the budget moneys are being spent wisely?

My final question with respect to BCIC is that…. The letter directs BCIC to divest itself from all non-core responsibilities, including, interestingly, science fairs and secondary school programs that presumably were meant to ensure that young people were encouraged to enrol in. Specifically, those disciplines that we discussed earlier appear to not be graduating enough students in British Columbia to meet demand of the industry. Why was the Crown corporation assigned the role to promote the knowledge economy told to walk away from projects that foster the next generation of innovators?

I will be happy to receive a response to those questions. I will now move on to the Premier’s Technology Council.

My questions are…. The Premier’s technology government website stated that the council publishes reports up to twice a year making recommendations that aim to help B.C. attract high-tech industry investment and growth. However, there have been no reports by the Premier’s Technology Council since June 2010. Why have there been no reports published in the last five years?

Hon. A. Virk: It’s the Premier’s Tech Council. I think that question is most appropriately put to the Premier, as it is the Premier’s Tech Council.

[1835]

G. Heyman: My understanding is that the tech council, notwithstanding the fact that it’s called the Premier’s Technology Council, is the responsibility of this minister and resides within this ministry. If that’s the case, I think the minister should be able to answer the question.

Hon. A. Virk: The direction for the council is provided by the Premier.

G. Heyman: But I am correct that the ministry overall has responsibility for the council and that it resides within the ministry’s budget?

Hon. A. Virk: The budget does, indeed, reside in the ministry. In terms of the performance of the council, that does, as I mentioned before, reside with the sole purview of the Premier.

G. Heyman: I imagine that I could go to the Premier’s estimates and ask the Premier why the technology council has not met its mandate to publish reports up to twice a year over the last five years. I can also imagine that the answer I might get would be: “Too bad. You should have asked that question of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services because that’s who oversees the council.”

Is the minister telling me and members of the opposition that, in fact, it’s the Premier’s responsibility to ensure that the council meets its mandate to publish reports?

Hon. A. Virk: The ministry does not have the authority for whether or not the Premier’s Technology Council does publish the reports, as they may or may not be required to do.

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister can tell me how often the council meets and how the members of the council are chosen.

Hon. A. Virk: The members are appointed. The member is certainly free to take that up at estimates at his choosing in a different venue.

[1840]

D. Routley: I would like to ask the minister about one more property — we were asking about property asset sales earlier — and that is the south block of the Legislature and the portion of the Q lot located on Superior Street in Victoria, right across the street from the Legislature. I would like to know the sale price, the purchaser and the appraisal for that property, please.

Hon. A. Virk: The question relates to south block and a portion of Q lot. A portion of Q lot is still retained by government — a small portion of Q lot and a small block. The sale price was $34 million, the appraised value was $27.7 million, and the assessed value was $33.506 million.

G. Heyman: I note the hour. I have two more questions on the Premier’s Technology Council. I have one that I forgot to ask on the innovation council. I will read the questions. If the minister has time to answer them, that’s great. If not, I’d appreciate the answers in writing.

With respect to the technology council, when does the Premier’s Technology Council plan to release its current initiative review and make recommendations on the provincial government’s research and innovation investments over the last decade?

What is the annual budget of the council this year as well as the budget from the last two years for the Premier’s Technology Council? The council does not actually generate annual reports with annual budget information, and we could not locate it through other public avenues. If it’s possible for the minister to say where this information can be publicly accessed, that would be extremely useful.

With respect to the innovation council, I note that in this year’s budget…. We’ve talked earlier about the good
[ Page 7271 ]
work of the innovation council. I agree. There are many good things to say about the accelerator programs, the mentorship. I know the council is focused, but when I look at the council’s budget, its budget is fairly flat, at just under $7½ million a year. It’s actually forecast to drop to $7.344 million in 2017-18. In terms of programs and initiatives, it’s gone down this year from last year by approximately $200,000 and goes up slightly but not to the same level in the next two years. There’s a lot of good that could be done with these expenditures.

Just for comparison, I note that the not-as-large province of Saskatchewan with not as large a tech sector has budgeted in 2015-16 over $30 million. Manitoba has budgeted $17 million, and the tiny province of Prince Edward Island has budgeted over $21½ million in 2013-14. That’s the most recent budget for which I have figures.

My question to the minister would be: why does this government not invest a larger portion of the budget, which comes closer to that of other provinces without as robust a tech sector, in our innovation council in order to help spur the growth of GDP in this sector as well as jobs? Are there any plans to do so, notwithstanding the fact that if I look at the three-year budget plan, they don’t appear to exist?

[1845]

Hon. A. Virk: The budget for BCIC is stable at $6.09 million. There are moneys in reserve that come into play that fluctuate the total revenue from time to time. In comparison to that — and hardly to compare it — Saskatchewan has an entirely different business model, so it’s not comparing apples to apples.

In terms of the Premier’s Tech Council, there’s a budget of $425,000 annually allotted for that organization.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:47 p.m.

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

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