2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 25, Number 1

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

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2015

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

FOOD ECO-DISTRICT IN VICTORIA

C. James: Victoria is getting fed. Victoria’s first FED, the food eco-district, is an innovative partnership between the community, not-for-profits and local businesses.

The idea encourages urban gardening and connects local restaurants with local food. As Victoria’s food eco-district becomes more established around Fort Street, organizers hope to attract tourists and locals to the area, creating an economic engine of growth that enhances our capital region and supports our fantastic local businesses.

The FED concept is based on the eco-district model developed in Portland and now spread to cities across North America. The idea enhances sustainability on a neighbourhood level at a scale that is large enough to make a difference, but small enough to have a direct positive impact in the community.

In Victoria the FED team has greened up a former parking lot at Fort Common and turned it into a gathering and growing space. Businesses have donated supplies, including plants and soil, and several local restaurants use the vegetables and herbs that are grown in the planter boxes.

The FED team has been accepted to attend a three-day eco-district incubator workshop in Portland. They’re going to learn more and then return to sow the knowledge.

For more background on the FED project, check out their website at get-fed.com. And I want to offer my congratulations to the volunteers and local business leaders who are supporting this initiative and helping Victoria proudly lead the way in local food security, food awareness and community engagement.

B.C. SNOWMOBILE FEDERATION

D. Barnett: Sledding and snowmobile areas in British Columbia encompass a wide variety of terrain, including groomed trails, massive glaciers and hillsides topped with fresh snow.

From March 20 to 22 the British Columbia Snowmobile Federation celebrated its 50th anniversary, holding their celebrations and annual general meeting in 100 Mile House. The federation, over the past 50 years, has worked on a volunteer basis with many clubs in B.C. in representing the snowmobile community in our province continue to help manage and provide educational opportunities through the development of both distribution of information and through representation of various member snowmobile clubs.

Today the voice of snowmobiling in B.C. has more than 70 local clubs and is a billion-dollar industry in B.C., with room to grow. Rural B.C. communities such as Revelstoke, Valemount, Blue River, Salmon Arm, 100 Mile House and others benefit from this tourism product, which helps to keep these community vibrant.

The BCSF is truly a dedicated group of individuals in our province who establish, maintain and protect quality opportunities for organized snowmobiling. The BCSF, with local clubs, holds many management agreements which give snowmobilers riding areas groomed by many local clubs.

I look forward to continue working with the BCSF in the spirit of shared stewardship in providing safe snowmobiling, respecting the land and its values and supporting the long-term economic prosperity for rural B.C.

[1010]

ALBERNI VALLEY
REGIONAL HERITAGE FAIR

S. Fraser: One of my favourite events of the year is coming up tomorrow. Friday is the 13th annual Alberni Valley Museum Regional Heritage Fair. Port Alberni is the home to the regional heritage fair for Vancouver Island north and hosts both local students and those from Ladysmith to Port Hardy. Students have represented Port Alberni, Tofino, Ucluelet, Parksville, Qualicum, Nanaimo, Comox, Courtenay, Cumberland, Campbell River and Gold River and Zeballos.

The heritage fair encourages students to explore issues of personal relevance and take pride in their heritage. The regional fair takes place at the Alberni Valley Museum at the Echo Centre in Port Alberni. On Friday students will present their projects to judges. I have been honoured to be a judge for many years. They get to take part in some heritage-related workshops and activities and then board the classic steam train for an afternoon at the historic McLean Mill.

This program is designed to create and strengthen young people’s knowledge of the diversity and uniqueness of Canadian heritage. Providing young people with the opportunity to develop strong roots in their community and culture will give them the confidence to fully share as active citizens in the shaping of Canada’s bright future.

Six students from the regional fair will be chosen to represent us at the provincial fair, which will be held here in Victoria in July. There, 100 students from across the province meet for a week packed full of activities that
[ Page 7878 ]
conclude with a showcase of the participants’ projects. These students have worked hard, and they deserve recognition from this Legislative Assembly.

Let us all give them an applause loud enough to hear over the blasts of the steam whistle from the train that goes to McLean Mill in Port Alberni.

MEN AND RELATIONSHIPS

L. Throness: Recently I had the pleasure of attending the 40th wedding anniversary celebration of a couple of dear friends, Chuck and Deb Strahl. It was held in Ryder Lake community hall, the same place as their wedding banquet four decades ago. But this time the reception was hosted by their children, and there were plenty of grandkids running around too.

After enjoying a great lunch, the program began. Each of their four children paid cheerful tribute to their parents. When it came time for others to share, I stepped forward. Because I had worked for a long time for Chuck, former Member of Parliament for Chilliwack, I’m in a pretty good position to judge his character. I could truthfully say that I had never seen a man more protective, more patient, more loving and attentive to his wife than Chuck, and Deb returned it all in kind.

After everyone had their say, it was Chuck’s turn to speak, but he didn’t talk much about himself. He talked about his wife. In a beautiful moving tribute of love and commitment, undimmed after 40 years, it really was a profound moment.

There’s a lot of violence against women in our society. Our courts hear a constant refrain of relational tragedy and bodily harm. Too many men in our prisons have poured out their frustrations and anger on their women. Our shelters are full of those who suffer the blows of their intimate partners.

It struck me that this may be due in part to the role models of our culture, often found in popular movies and books. It’s the ideal of a muscle-bound tough guy, the martial arts expert who always solves his problems with fists and guns. The man who puts himself first, the powerful, unmerciful man. Yet this kind of man, with all of his strength, can’t hold a relationship together.

After attending the 40th anniversary of Chuck and Deb Strahl, I was reminded that the role model we should elevate and the man of real strength is the man strong enough to show tender affection to his wife.

KUTERRA SALMON FARM AND
CLOSED-CONTAINMENT AQUACULTURE

C. Trevena: It’s been a year, and people are saying it’s a success. The Kuterra closed-containment salmon farm near Port McNeill has harvested 180,000 kilos of fish. It’s a project about learning and about growing. It’s most certainly about commerce. And it’s about collaboration.

People in the aquaculture industry are watching, learning and sharing. The smolts used were from Marine Harvest. Kuterra is owned by the ’Namgis First Nation. The farm is close to the Nimpkish River, but the water it uses comes from springs on the site and recycles through the system. The footprint is small at 0.7 of an acre, but its impact is large as people watch the fish grow and monitor the technology and the cost.

[1015]

For anyone who has been to a hatchery, the technology appears familiar. But instead of the fish being moving into the ocean for the final grow-out, Kuterra keeps them in tanks until time to harvest. They’re using recirculation aquaculture systems technology, which three other B.C. facilities used. In Sechelt sturgeon and coho are grown. In Nanaimo it’s steelhead; in Abbotsford, tilapia.

The company says that the rising electricity costs are not a factor, but with the popularity and, to be frank, politics around salmon, every aspect of Kuterra is under scrutiny. B.C.’s Albion Fisheries is the distributor, and Safeway stores through to Manitoba stock the fish. And like everyone in the aquaculture industry, there’s a rivalry about which chef will promote your product. For Kuterra, it’s Ned Bell at the Four Seasons in Vancouver.

Now, for salmon aficionados, it is farmed fish. Whether net-pen or closed containment, the taste and texture of Atlantic salmon is different. But it’s a farming technology that’s being examined worldwide. In Norway, the world leader in salmon aquaculture, the industry and government are working together on expanding closed containment. In the north Island salmon farming is evolving both on land and in the water.

RAIL SAFETY WEEK

S. Hamilton: This week, until May 3, is Rail Safety Week in British Columbia. Rail is vital to our economy, and as we know, rail was key in creating and uniting Canada from coast to coast. As with all things dealing with the transportation of people and goods, safety is the top priority in the operation of British Columbia’s rail systems.

Railway safety is a shared commitment, not just of governments but also of railway operators, various agencies and, of course, the public. Through many communities, including my own of North Delta, there’s been the construction of ten separations, or overpasses, at railway crossings to reduce interactions between vehicles, pedestrians and railway traffic. These include CP Rail, CN Rail, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and the Southern Railway of British Columbia, connecting Canada to the United States and the busy port of Metro Vancouver.

I’d like to acknowledge the B.C. Provincial Committee on Rail Safety Public Outreach and its work to educate people and improve rail safety in our province. I’d also like to acknowledge the public’s cooperation in promot-
[ Page 7879 ]
ing safe behaviour at rail crossings and along rail rights-of-way that pass through our cities and our communities. It’s important that we continue to promote awareness of high-risk activities such as walking along a railway track.

As we all recognize Rail Safety Week, let us remember the important role railways play in supporting economic development and that safety must remain a top priority for all of us.

Oral Questions

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF
B.C. HYDRO CAPITAL PROJECTS

J. Horgan: Yesterday the Minister of Energy had some interesting things to say about the flexibility of capital project financing at B.C. Hydro. In fact, B.C. Hydro has come under significant scrutiny of late, particularly on the transmission line front. The northwest transmission line, the Iskut extension, the Dawson Creek to Chetwynd line and the Interior to Lower Mainland line are now projected to be, at a minimum, $500 million over budget. And that’s $500 million that’s not going to be coming out of the minister’s pocket or the Premier’s pocket but out of the pockets of ratepayers.

In the case of the northwest transmission line — budgeted at $395 million, slated to come in at $715 million and counting — the minister’s defence was interesting. He said: “The project costs more than budget, but it doesn’t cost more than it’s worth.”

My question to the Premier is: is this the new philosophy of the B.C. Liberals with respect to discipline for capital projects in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the northwest transmission line as a power line to nowhere. I don’t know if he wants to take that back at this point in time, given that one of the most important mines in Canada to ever open up, the Red Chris mine, would not have happened without this power line. I don’t know if he wants to take that statement back, because the Brucejack property is going to go ahead as a mine this year. There will be shovels in the ground. It would not have gone ahead without this transmission line.

[1020]

The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the electricity that is generated by the Forrest Kerr project, owned by AltaGas — clean, green electricity, 190 megawatts of it — as junk power.

This side of the House stands for jobs. We stand for economic development. We stand for faith in the people of the province.

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

J. Horgan: I appreciate the enthusiasm of the Minister of Energy, if nothing else.

With respect to the Interior–Lower Mainland transmission line, not yet registered at being massively over budget like the northwest transmission line, this is what the minister had to say: “I can’t guarantee it will be on budget, but I think there’s a good chance it will be.” A good chance. So we’ve got: “It may be over budget, but it’s worth more.” And now we’ve got: “I’ve got my fingers crossed that with a little bit of pixie dust and maybe a prosperity fund, we might be able to get it done.”

If that weren’t enough…. I would stop there, but there’s a better quote from the Minister of Energy, and it goes like this: “Typically, they’d come out with a number, and they’ll say it could be 50 percent higher. It could be 30 percent lower. People, you know, glom on to that and write it down.”

Well, it wasn’t just the opposition that glommed on to that number. The Minister of Finance glommed on to that number and published it in the budget. If you go to the budget in 2011-2012, the first of the Premier, it says: “northwest transmission line, $395 million” — not plus or minus 30 or 50 percent, $395 million.

My question to the Premier. Is this new plus or minus 50 percent the new stratagem for keeping things on time and on budget?

Hon. B. Bennett: The hon. Leader of the Opposition used to be a special adviser to the Energy Minister when this party on the other side of the House, in the last century, was in government. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that preliminary budgets — it doesn’t matter whether it’s B.C. Hydro or a private corporation — often have…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: …plus-minus numbers. He knows that. He knows that that’s not unusual. He knows that that is the case.

What I’d like to know…. He was the adviser to the then Minister of Energy in the last century. Why did he advise that government to invest in a power plant in Pakistan?

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

J. Horgan: I can appreciate that the Minister of Energy finds some comfort in the last century, but I think we should try and focus on the here and the now.

Let’s take a look at some of the B.C. Liberal record. The Vancouver Convention Centre was 69 percent over budget, so it missed the 50-30 formula. Too bad on that one. Here’s the good news. The B.C. Liberal replace-
[ Page 7880 ]
ment roof at B.C. Place was only 41 percent over budget, so we’re on target for that one. What else have we got? Sadly, when you pile up all the transmission lines, you miss the 50-30. You’re going to be about 65 percent over budget there.

Again, my question to the very interested Premier, who likes to come and talk about her fiscal acumen: how is it conceivably possible that you can be the head of a government that just makes stuff up…

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

J. Horgan: …publishes it in the budget and then says: “Oh well, so sad. It’s not our money anyway. It belongs to ratepayers”? How can you do that?

[1025]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, right now this government and B.C. Hydro are investing $2.4 billion a year in capital projects that are necessary, in part….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: : They’re making that investment, in part, because in the last century, when this party was in power, they failed to invest anything in B.C. Hydro infrastructure.

Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this. There have been 661 transmission and generation projects completed by B.C. Hydro over the last five years. In general, they are 5 percent under budget.

The Leader of the Opposition and the critic for B.C. Hydro can stand up in here, and they can talk about the northwest transmission line. I’ve already said many times before it’s not right that it went over budget. We’re sorry it went over budget. But it is not the trend, and it is not the pattern. The pattern for B.C. Hydro is, in fact, to bring projects in on time and under budget.

A. Dix: Let’s ignore for the moment that nobody has applied the minister’s 50-30 doctrine to capital projects since the government of Pharaoh Ramses II in 1250 BC and acknowledge that the minister had a rare moment of clarity, a rare moment of insight. He was allowed on live radio away from his political minders and colleagues.

Well let’s quote him. He’s telling us how the Liberal government works: “When then Premier Campbell decided that we were going to build that line — and it was a courageous decision on his part — he needed a number to use when he was announcing this.” What the minister is saying here is that Premier Campbell was way more similar to the current Premier than we thought.

Hon. Speaker — $400 million. He goes on to say: “People, you know, glom on to that” — glommers — “at the time and write it down and say, ‘Okay, that’s an estimate.’” Well, yes, it was the original estimate — plus 50, minus 30 — but it wasn’t actually the detailed estimate that Hydro would do.

Except, it was the actual estimate. It was the one approved by cabinet in 2010. It was the one approved by cabinet in 2011 and passed under the current Premier. It was the one presented by the minister and his colleagues to the public when they exempted this project for B.C. Utilities Commission review in 2010.

Madame Speaker: Question.

A. Dix: Were the minister and his colleagues aware that the budget for the northwest transmission line was a vague estimate when they intentionally hid it from BCUC scrutiny?

Hon. B. Bennett: The only thing that that member who just asked the question had built in the 1990s was a deck up in the Okanagan.

Let’s talk about the northwest transmission line. The opposition wants to talk about it, so let’s talk about it.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: There is an organization called the Western Electricity Coordinating Council that averages out the cost of construction across Canada for new generation and new transmission lines. They calculate that a 500 KV single circuit line costs $2.5 million per kilometre.

Both the ILM costs that we know today and the northwest transmission line come in considerably lower than that average. So, in other words, the northwest transmission line was built for less money than it would cost to build a transmission line over the same length in the province of Alberta on flat land.

We get new mines out of it. We’re going to get thousands of jobs out of it. We are going to provide clean electricity to places like Iskut. I don’t know why the NDP is opposed to that. It was a nation-building project.

[1030]

I still stand firm that the Premier of the day made the right decision to do this. The fact that the NDP has absolutely no vision in how to get to a prosperous future is no surprise to anybody.

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

A. Dix: Well, I think I’ll give the members on the opposite side a moment to recover from that tribute to Premier Campbell from the minister. What the minister is saying is that he and the cabinet and B.C. Hydro knew
[ Page 7881 ]
the number was nonsense and chose to exempt it from the legal and independent scrutiny of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Does this sound familiar? If we apply the 50-30 doctrine to Site C, it will mean that the project will come in somewhere between $6.2 billion and $13.8 billion. This gives the minister and B.C. Hydro the largest sweet spot in the history of capital projects.

Will the minister, given his commitment to capital planning and his demonstrated contempt for the ratepayers’ money, learn something from recent history and do the right thing for ratepayers and taxpayers and refer Site C for BCUC review?

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me read into the record the actual facts on the northwest transmission line. The original cost estimate was $404 million. It assumed a 138-KV line and did not include First Nations accommodation costs.

For the benefit of the critic of B.C. Hydro….

Interjections.

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

Hon. B. Bennett: For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition and the critic for B.C. Hydro, let me say that that original estimate assumed a 138-KV line. Both of these members have had experience in advising Energy Ministers and Premiers. They know that a 138-KV line does not cost as much as a 287-KV line, which was built. They know that. Have they forgotten? Perhaps they’ve forgotten that. I’m not sure.

It also didn’t include First Nations accommodation. In August 2012 when the final design was in for a 287-KV line, including First Nations accommodations, the cost was actually $561 million. The final project came in at $716 million.

We talked about that two years ago when we first came in here. That’s a difference of $155 million, or 27½ percent. We’re obviously not happy about that, but when you look at the value of this line to this province for the next 200 years, it is a wise investment.

REMEDIATION AND MONITORING OF
IMPACTS OF SOUTH ISLAND
AGGREGATES OPERATIONS

A. Weaver: I have in my possession two letters sent from the Ministry of Energy and Mines to South Island Aggregates in Shawnigan Lake concerning “sloughing or material that encroached onto Cowichan Valley regional district property.”

The April 1, 2014 letter from the ministry’s regional manager for the coast area states that “the property impacted by the encroachment must be cleaned up and returned to its pre-encroachment state to the satisfaction of the property owner.”

The story continues. I also have a letter from the CVRD clearly outlining the fact that the property impacted has yet to be cleaned up, let alone to the CVRD’s satisfaction.

South Island Aggregates needs an amendment to its mines permit before its Ministry of Environment permit can become active. Will the Minister of Energy and Mines commit to ensuring that before an amended permit is issued, the infractions and issues of non-compliance at this site will have been addressed?

[1035]

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s actually refreshing to get a question where the member has a good grasp of the facts. I don’t think that this quarry is in the member’s riding so, honestly, he deserves a lot of credit for having done the due diligence that whoever the MLA is for that area hasn’t done.

To the member’s question, he is correct that there was a commitment made by the Ministry of Energy and Mines that we would ensure that the company that had encroached on regional district land would, in fact, remediate that land. An engineering plan has gone to the regional district, about eight weeks ago.

I don’t know why we haven’t heard back from the regional district, but I will commit to work with the member, work with our ministry, work with the regional district and make sure that they know they have that plan. They can take some time to look at that plan, and that RD land will be remediated.

Madame Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

For several years soil has been dumped in lot 21 for later use as backfill for the neighbouring quarry in lot 23, which we just discussed, where the amended permit is required. I recently visited the location. I collected and subsequently analyzed water samples and noted that runoff from this site entering Shawnigan Creek had extremely high iron levels that failed drinking water standards locally.

The Cowichan Valley regional district is very concerned about the long-term safety of drinking water in the Shawnigan Lake area. They want to conduct an independent environmental investigation of lots 21 and 23 and are willing to pay the costs of doing so themselves. There will be no expense to the government.

My question to the Minister of Environment is this. Does the CVRD require a contractual agreement with the ministry to allow them to conduct such an investigation? If so, will the ministry consider entering into such an agreement? If not, is it the minister’s understanding that the CVRD has full authority to conduct
[ Page 7882 ]
such an independent environmental investigation on lots 21 and 23?

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you to the member for providing some details ahead of time. That enabled me to pursue and seek some advice with respect to jurisdictional issues around environmental testing.

Here’s what I can tell the member. With respect to lot 21, it is private property. Now, that means for the Ministry of Environment that we have full authority to be able to enter that property, conduct testing, investigate if there are concerns with respect to pollution. We intend to do so. We have done so, and I will talk a little bit more about that in a moment.

There is, however, though, no authority — the minister possesses no authority — to be able to allow another party, even through a contractual arrangement, to engage in that kind of investigation on private land.

Here’s what we can do, though. Staff, after meeting with representatives from CVRD, have developed a sampling plan for the site. I understand they will be discussing that with CVRD today. We cannot order the private property owner to allow CVRD members to attend and observe. However, we will be discussing that with them, and we’re hopeful that on a voluntarily basis the landowner will allow us to bring along CVRD representatives to observe the testing. In the absence of that, we will certainly make sure that all test results, all test processes are discussed and shared with the CVRD.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

D. Donaldson: Hon. Speaker, 53 percent of the kids in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development are aboriginal. Yet those self-identifying as aboriginal make up only about 5 percent of the people in the province. That is a huge overrepresentation and speaks to the dire circumstances that some aboriginal kids face.

[1040]

There is a federal government program available to provinces to fund previously unsupported prevention services to decrease the number of on-reserve aboriginal children coming into ministry care. Federal enhanced prevention dollars have been provided to provinces and agencies since 2007. Alberta has received about $140 million; Saskatchewan, $127 million; Manitoba, $115 million. B.C. has received zero — nothing. Something as simple as respite care for struggling parents can make a huge difference in those parents holding on to their kids.

To the minister: why are you leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table that could make a life-and-death difference for aboriginal children?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member is correct. As we canvassed in estimates yesterday, I am well aware of the statistics of the number of aboriginal children in care and the discrepancy between the success we’ve had in reducing the number of kids in care who are non-aboriginal versus the success we haven’t had in reducing the number of kids in care who are aboriginal. Part of that challenge for the ministry remains the fact that the federal funding formula in British Columbia does not provide for the same types of interventions with First Nations children on reserve.

We are not satisfied with that. We continue to work with our federal partners to look at how we can provide similar types of services and prevention for First Nations children on reserve. That work continues and, quite frankly, is why the ministry has put an increased focus on aboriginal services innovations projects in the province that actually have targeted outcomes and funding directed to achieve those outcomes.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: I’m glad the minister recognizes I’m correct, but it isn’t about me. It’s about her leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table for kids in care. This is a colossal failure in leadership by the minister and this government.

Regarding the enhanced prevention program, the Representative for Children and Youth said: “MCFD has made no real investment in engaging with the federal government to address the child welfare needs of First Nations…on reserve.” No real investment. This is just a staggering indictment. Millions of dollars are available. For the last seven years the B.C. Liberals have left that money on the table, failing kids and families who need the support to remain together.

Again, to the minister: how can she explain this shocking lack of leadership?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We continue to have conversations with our federal partners on how our relationship for funding works in British Columbia. Unfortunately, it appears that the member opposite does not understand that the relationships and funding arrangements in British Columbia differ from those in other provinces and have for some time.

That does not mean that, in any way, we are not continuing to have conversation and encourage our federal partners to look at new ways of delivering services and funding in British Columbia that will achieve better outcomes for children in British Columbia. First Nations children deserve the same services and supports on reserve and off reserve, and we continue to advocate to ensure that those will happen.
[ Page 7883 ]

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY REGULATIONS
PENALTY PROGRAM

S. Chandra Herbert: In 2008 the government introduced a program to help crack down on bad landlords who harm tenants and bad tenants who harm landlords. New Democrats have been saying for years that it does not work. Well, it turns out that the minister’s own staff agree.

Seven years after this program was introduced, can the minister tell us how many penalties have actually been levied?

Hon. R. Coleman: I thought of opening my QP binder at the risk of moths flying out, so I thought I wouldn’t bother.

[1045]

We actually did a plain-language rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act. It hadn’t been touched for over 20 years. When we did it back in 2002, we built a process around it. We put discipline into the system. In actual fact, the residential tenancy relationships are much better in the last ten years than they were in the previous 20, probably, as people evolved around this particular piece of legislation.

We have brought in administrative penalties, which is actually a deterrent in the system to take care of people — the small amount of people — within this system who want to abuse the issues in and around landlord tenancy. At the same time, our expectation is that people within these relationships, both the tenant and the landlord, will continue to operate within the act, within the rules and have tenancy agreements in place.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the number of administrative penalties issued by this government to crack down on bad landlords and bad tenants isn’t a difficult number to remember, so I’ll inform the minister, since he’s paid such little attention.

The residential tenancy branch has issued a grand total of one penalty. Just one penalty. And you know what? They never even collected on it — not one penny, not one dime, nickel, dollar. Nothing. Not one thing to crack down on bad landlords or bad tenants. They’ve walked away.

Well, the internal review shows why. Staff reported there were no clear guidelines, no legal authority, not enough people to even go after those breaking the law. In a major understatement, the staff described the administrative penalty program as “not particularly successful.” Well, I’d say so.

When this minister and the B.C. Liberals let bad tenants and bad landlords continue to break the law with impunity, it’s not successful. It’s irresponsible. Can the hon. minister tell us why his government continues to let lawbreakers walk away free?

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, the member hasn’t done his research with regard to some of the abilities that we’ve had because of the deterrent of administrative penalties, where you actually had the landlords go in and do the renovations and fix up bad properties because that was hanging over their heads. That’s called a deterrent, hon. Member, and it actually works in the residential tenancy branch.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that the member opposite thinks the sky is falling, but there are 500,000-plus people in British Columbia in residential tenancy agreements today. The number of complaints that come through the residential office is about that big, relative to the statistics.

We know that as long as people use the law, use the tenancy agreement that’s on line when they bring in a tenant — whether it be a single person with a basement suite or a large landlord — those relationships stand the test of the discussion with the residential tenancy branch. We continue to look at improvements to the act as we go through it, and we work with both parties to try and make sure that that relationship continues to be strong in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Hon. T. Lake: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: We’re joined in the gallery today by some representatives from Domtar, who operate the Kamloops pulp mill — a very important economic generator in my community. The mill began operations in 1965 and, after 50 years, is notable for its progress in energy conservation.

I’d like the House to please join me in welcoming Dennis Clare, the operations manager of the Kamloops mill; Kristin Dangelmaier, who is the environmental manager; Nels Goddard, the human relations manager; and Bonny Skene, the regional public affairs manager. Would the House please make them very welcome.

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

Leave granted.

D. Barnett: Today in the House we have a constituent from my riding, which very often doesn’t happen. I’d like the House to welcome Tom Baraniak from Bridge Lake. Would the House please make him feel welcome.
[ Page 7884 ]

Tabling Documents

A. Weaver: I wish to table the three letters that I referred to in question period today.

Leave granted.

[1050]

Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I’m able to present reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, on, one, all amounts borrowed by government, and secondly, all amounts loaned to government bodies. They provide an overview of the province’s borrowing activity for fiscal year 2013-14.

Secondly, I respectfully present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, again in accordance with the Financial Administration Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and, in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 22.

Madame Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley seeks leave to table a petition. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Petitions

B. Routley: I have today a petition from the undersigned youth of the Cowichan Valley. They have their concerns about the increased exports in American thermal coal through the Fraser Surrey Docks and through the Texada facility. They believe that that will pose extensive health risks to the well-being of communities. They also have concerns about the impacts on growing climate change.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — SPECIAL WINE STORE
LICENCE AUCTION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 10:55 a.m.

On section 1 (continued).

Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined by Doug Scott, assistant deputy minister and general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, and Barry Bieller, director of policy, planning and communications, liquor control and licensing board.

A. Weaver: I’d like to speak to the definition of “special wine store licence.” In the definition, under 1(1) it says the following: “‘special wine store licence’ means a licence that authorizes the licensee (a) to sell wine in respect of which the naturally occurring sugar use in the fermentation process comes from only (i) plant products grown in British Columbia.”

My concern there is that this is rather broad. Every definition of wine that I have seen anywhere would describe wine along these lines: wine is an alcoholic beverage made from fermented grapes or other fruits. The natural chemical balance of grapes lets them ferment without the addition of sugars, acids, enzymes, waters or other nutrients, for example.

Under this definition, beer is actually wine, because beer comes from plant products, and the starch in the beer is fermented. The starch is what produces the sugar.

I’m wondering why this was not more specific and if the minister could explain whether or not she’s open to actually changing plant products here and later — further down it also refers to plant products — to fruit.

For example, in the statement about cider here, it talks about “only from plant products grown in British Columbia.” We know cider…. These definitions don’t really make that much sense because they’re so general. In fact, you only need one definition here, because sake is rice wine — the sugar’s coming from the starch in the rice — yet sake is separated out here. Cider — again, there’s no difference between beer and cider in terms of the kind of process involved, yet here we talk about plant products in British Columbia.

The question, again, is: what is the rationale for saying “plant products” as opposed to “fruit products” in the definition of wine?

[1100]

Hon. S. Anton: The definition is a reflection of the definition in the Liquor Control and Licensing Act regulation. I’ll just read out the definition of “wine” in that regulation: “‘wine’ means liquor obtained by the fermentation of the natural sugar content of fruits or other agricultural products containing sugar, including honey and milk.

In the drafting of this particular definition, it expanded slightly on that in terms of the language used, but not in the intention — except, by the way, to emphasize that it is from products grown in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: In fact, I understand the previous definition, and I would argue that this definition is in error because beer qualifies as wine by this definition used in
[ Page 7885 ]
this particular definition here. As I said earlier, at second reading, I believe this is rather rushed. One of the reasons I’m introducing this amendment now is to correct what I believe is a faulty definition.

[In Section 1 by deleting the text shown as struck out by adding the underlined text as shown:

“special wine store licence” means a licence that authorizes the licensee

(a) to sell wine in respect of which the naturally occurring sugar used in the fermentation process comes from only

(i) plant fruit products grown in British Columbia,

(ii) honey produced from beehives located in British Columbia, or

(iii) milk from animals located in British Columbia,

(b) to sell cider in respect of which the naturally occurring sugar used in the fermentation process comes only from plant fruit products grown in British Columbia,

(c) to sell sake in respect of which the rice used in its production is grown only in British Columbia, and

(d) to sell the wine, cider and sake from any location approved by the general manager within a specified grocery store;]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of this section is that the wine — and it is wine — must be made from British Columbia products. The reason for including “plant” rather than “fruit” and the reason I was looking at the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is because I’m sure somebody in Oak Bay–Gordon Head must have tried dandelion wine at some point.

There may be others of that nature that would fit better within the category of plant products rather than fruits. But clearly, just to reiterate, this is about wine, and it’s about wine from products grown in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: May I assume we will vote on my amendment?

Interjection.

[1105]

A. Weaver: Okay. I have another question with respect to the bill and the legality of the bill in general. The question here is with respect to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

It’s pretty clear to me. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but NAFTA is very clear. If we look at NAFTA, and we go to the relevant section, which is annex 312.2, “Wine and distilled spirits,” section A, “Canada and the United States,” it says this:

“As between Canada and the United States, any measure related to the internal sale and distribution of wine and distilled spirits, other than a measure covered by article 312(1) or 313” — I’ll come to that in a second — “shall be governed under this agreement exclusively in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which for this purpose are hereby incorporated into and made part of this agreement.”

This statement here which is relevant to the legislation before us is then referring back to article 312(1). If we go to article 312(1), we find the following: “No party may adopt or maintain any measure requiring that distilled spirits imported from the territory of another party for bottling be blended with any distilled spirits of that party.” So it’s not really relevant to what we are talking here. And article 313 talks a lot about distinctive products with respect to Canada and Mexico. With respect to the United States, all it refers to applies to standards and labelling of the distinctive products set out in that annex.

There is a lot with respect to Canada and Mexico, and Mexico and the United States. It recognizes things like Canadian whiskey, bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, etc., but there’s nothing on wine. If we were entering…. Talking about Mexico, there is some legislation that allows — if I can read the relevant section here.

“Notwithstanding paragraph 3(a) of article 301, and provided that listing measures of British Columbia otherwise conform with paragraph 3(a) and article 301, automatic listing measures in the province of British Columbia may be maintained provided they apply only to existing estate wineries producing less than 30,000 gallons of wine annually and meeting the existing content rule.”

That applies to Mexico. That does not apply to the United States. It exclusively applies to wines in the agreement with respect to Mexico. I wonder to what extent the minister and her staff have sought legal advice and opinion with respect to the validity of this bill under NAFTA.

Hon. S. Anton: I believe we did canvass this last time. The licences we are issuing are B.C.-product-only licences that were in existence when we negotiated the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and NAFTA. We are, of course, mindful of our trade obligations, which is why we are limiting the number of licences issued to the level that existed in 1987.

Amendment negatived.

A. Weaver: Further to the discussion of the NAFTA, the grandfather-clausing under NAFTA, my understanding is that that applies to existing outlets, not existing estate wineries.

[1110]

My question is: has legal opinion been received from those involved in international trade law to actually give them that opinion that this bill will stand up to a challenge by NAFTA? I have seen in the media concerns being expressed by California wine growers that this is actually not in accordance with NAFTA because the grandfather-clausing applies to existing outlets, not existing growers of grapes.

Hon. S. Anton: We have considered this, and I think I’ve answered the question several times now.

A. Weaver: Will the minister table a legal opinion on this at a later date in the House so that we avoid potential legal challenges — and taxpayer money spent — by California growers who will challenge this under NAFTA?
[ Page 7886 ]

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, we are mindful of our trade obligations, and I’ve answered this question several times, both on the previous occasion and answered it again today.

A. Weaver: I recognize — and I would hope, and I appreciate — that the government is mindful of their obligations. The question I asked was: will the minister table in this session, prior to us rising, a legal opinion that actually supports the government’s intention that they’re mindful of legal obligations such that this actually can stand up to a NAFTA challenge? I don’t think it can.

I’m not a lawyer, but I can read the Free Trade Agreement. I can look at what happened in Ontario with grandfather clausing. It strikes me that this won’t stand up. I would, of course, defer to a legal opinion that the government were to table this session for all of us to actually see so that we can actually have some confidence that we’re not going to put the taxpayer of British Columbia at risk of spending millions of dollars in legal challenges to uphold a piece of legislation that neither the official opposition or the independent members support in the first place.

Hon. S. Anton: I believe I’ve answered the question, which is that we are mindful of our trade obligations and proceeding accordingly.

A. Weaver: My question to the minister, then…. Let’s suppose we do have a NAFTA challenge, we are mindful of our obligations, and we lose a ruling under NAFTA. What would that mean to the province of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: It’s a hypothetical question. I’m not going to respond to it.

M. Farnworth: One of the more contentious issues that has come under this piece of legislation is the issuing of licences — in essence, a new set of licences.

Can the minister explain why they’re creating yet another set of licences and permitting some grocery stores to lease VQA licences with additional benefits?

[1115]

Hon. S. Anton: There are two different kinds of licences here — I just want to be clear on that — with close to the same result at the end of the day but not identical.

The two sets of licences are these. First of all, there are the VQA licences. These are the licences held by the B.C. Wine Institute, and they give out third-party contracts. At the moment, those are mainly VQA stores around British Columbia. Those stores may move into a grocery and sell 100 percent VQA wine. That’s a special form of licence. There are about 21 of them.

The second set of licences that we’re talking about are the reissuing of these licences, which were issued prior to 1987 — reissuing them under this act. As I said the other day, we have not settled on a number yet, but it’ll be under two dozen.

They, too, may go into a grocery. In fact, the goal is that they will go into a grocery, and they may sell 100 percent B.C. wine. In the one instance, it’s VQA licences contracted to sell VQA wine. In the second, it is reissued licences for 100 percent B.C. wine. Both of them may go into a grocery.

S. Simpson: I’m picking up on the question raised by my colleague from Port Coquitlam.

With the VQA licences, it’s my understanding, and the minister can confirm, that they continue to be on the consignment model with the 30 percent discount, where I think 26 percent of that goes to the operator and 4 percent to the Wine Institute. They continue to have that 30 percent discount model that is not available now to the independent wine stores. Would that be correct?

[1120]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question mixes up two different issues. The 30 percent discount is gone. That was relating to the former relationship between government retail wine prices and independent wine stores. That has been replaced by the single wholesale price.

The VQA relationship is completely different. The VQA relationship is one between the B.C. Wine Institute and its contracted stores. That’s a private business relationship. Government doesn’t set the terms. I gather that there is a retailer’s commission, but again, that’s not something that government is in the middle of.

S. Simpson: Let me clarify. The government sets the discounts. Maybe the minister could confirm that, for the 21 VQA store licences that are there today, the 30 percent discount continues to exist for those stores. Should they negotiate those into a grocery store or whatever, they are negotiating licences that incorporate the 30 percent discount and a consignment model that is different from the pricing, now, that everybody else faces. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: I have to say again this 30 percent discount is not applicable any longer. It’s a red herring in this conversation.

The 30 percent discount, just for the member’s clarification…. When government retail had a bottle of wine that they sold at retail in government liquor stores for $10, the independent wine store could buy that at a 30 percent discount. They would buy it at $7, and then they would sell it at whatever they chose to sell it at. That’s where the 30 percent discount came in.

We no longer have that system. As of April 1 we moved to the single wholesale price so that the price of a bottle of wine is now set, which is cost plus wholesale markup. There’s a formula for that, and that formula applies to independent wine stores, licensee retail stores, government
[ Page 7887 ]
liquor stores and rural agency stores. They all pay that same single wholesale price.

That 30 percent number is irrelevant to anything that we’re doing here today. It’s an old number. It’s gone.

The member raises one other issue, which is the issue of consignment. Consignment does happen, I gather, between the VQA’s stores and its contracted stores. Again, that’s because that’s a private business relationship between those entities. Government is not in the middle of that.

If the VQA chooses to give the wine on consignment, that’s a relationship between those two parties. There will not be consignment in these new reissued licences that are proposed under this act.

S. Simpson: Well, let me try again just a little bit. The minister is saying that the wine institute may negotiate those 21 VQA store licences into grocery stores. So if they negotiate that into a grocery store, through the Wine Institute, are they negotiating with that store a price point that includes a 30 percent reduction?

Or are those stores going to have to pay the wholesale price for every bottle of VQA wine they get, or are they going to pay a different price? The minister might say it’s a private deal, but the deal is written by the government and by the minister, and there’s nothing private about that.

[1125]

What’s the price difference between a VQA licence and an independent wine store licence on a bottle of wine?

Hon. S. Anton: The B.C. Wine Institute has a relationship with its contract stores. At the moment those are generally freestanding stores, but they may move into grocery. In fact, one of them recently did in South Surrey.

There is a private business relationship between the Wine Institute and those stores. If the Wine Institute…. Their VQA members provide product to the store, and there’s a commission on that product.

[1130]

That’s what you would expect. If a store is selling a product, it needs to make a commission. That commission, at the moment, is in the order of 26 percent for the store and 4 percent for the Wine Institute.

That’s where, we’re informed, the commission is at the moment. That could change at any time because, again, that is a private business relationship between the Wine Institute and the stores. It is unrelated to the 30 percent in the independent wine stores, which the member referred to earlier.

A. Weaver: Coming back to the question that I asked earlier, is the minister’s interpretation the same as mine that under NAFTA, there can be no more than 21 licences ever issued because these 21 licences would be grandfathered, and any subsequent licence issued would actually be subject to NAFTA? The question, then, is: why is there enabling legislation in this bill to actually allow the minister, through regulation, to create more licences?

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of our trade obligations, as I said the other day, the maximum number that we are proposing to reissue under this act is 24, and it could be less than that.

The provision that the member is referring to, if I got his question right…. We may not issue them. They may not be auctioned all at the same time. We could do it in a couple of batches, depending on what we sense the market to be. The goal here is to maximize the benefit to the taxpayer.

A. Weaver: My final question on this bill is with respect to…. It’s hard to know which section to ask this in, simply because it’s about an omission. Hence, I’m raising it now in section 1, because perhaps we address it later.

What steps is government taking, through the introduction of this bill, to ensure that a monopoly on the special licence does not actually end up occurring — that is, one bidder bids for all of them, for one-bidder stores in 24 locations across the province? That would then, actually, I would argue, not create a level playing field for competing grocers — let alone the level playing field that’s already not created because of the 10,000-square-foot area requirement.

Are there steps in place in this bill, or envisioned, that would allow government to ensure that one store chain does not bid up all of them and therefore have exclusive jurisdiction for these specialty wine store licences?

[1135]

Hon. S. Anton: I’ll just remind the member opposite that there are nearly 1,000 full liquor retail licences under the licensee retail stores and the government retail stores, any one of which could go into a grocery in the appropriate circumstances. There’s certainly not a limit on the number of grocery stores….

They have to be grocery stores. They have to be 10,000 feet, and they can’t be general merchandise stores. But as long as the grocery fits within the qualifications and is within a kilometre, for the full service, that grocery may have liquor. There are many opportunities in British Columbia for that set of circumstances to exist.

In terms of the special wine store licences, whether they would be constrained as to how many people could bid on them or whether one person could bid on all of them, one entity, there’s no restriction on that at the moment, and at the moment we’re not contemplating a restriction. I suppose, theoretically, we could do it. But as I said, we’re not contemplating it at the moment.

S. Simpson: Getting to the topic, a little bit, that the minister talked about. Of course, this model, the model with the 30 percent…. The minister says it’s not part of the bill. The reality is that that model was put in place to support small B.C. wineries and provide them with some
[ Page 7888 ]
support. The minister has also talked continually through this debate and through debate on second reading, when she had her comments, about level playing fields.

Could the minister tell us whether in fact, as is rumored out there about the negotiations, the Wine Institute is negotiating with Overwaitea but not with anybody else at this point? Could the minister tell us whether she or her staff are aware of whether that is accurate or not — that Overwaitea is currently the only chain that’s being negotiated with around the VQA and the specialty stores?

Hon. S. Anton: The B.C. Wine Institute does have the licences, as we have referred to several times. They may possibly be in negotiations around British Columbia, but I think that question would be more properly put to the B.C. Wine Institute.

S. Simpson: The problem with that is that this is the minister who has talked about fairness, talked about a level playing field, talked about how the single wholesale price was about ensuring that everybody was playing at the same level. Yet — and we can debate grocery stores, generally, and whether they should be getting any of these the licences — the reality is that is what we’re talking about. That is the responsibility of this minister, if her word is worth it, to commit to a level playing feel. Can she tell us if the Wine Institute….? Do her staff know and does she know if they are negotiating with one chain?

Hon. S. Anton: The negotiations, if any, between the B.C. Wine Institute and grocery stores are between the B.C. Wine Institute and the grocery store. They do not come to government at all. They don’t come and ask for our permission to negotiate or have discussions.

[1140]

The time that these come to government is if there is to be a new location for the contract arrangement between the Wine Institute and a store. Then it has to come into our licensing group. Prior to that, any negotiation that’s going on is entirely a private matter.

S. Simpson: Except, of course, it’s this government and this minister who create the rules that allow this advantage to happen.

The other problem with this, of course, is that unlike everybody else, if you follow the grocery chain model, the one-kilometre rule is there. This creates a distinct advantage. If folks who are within a kilometre of major food stores don’t want that food store to have liquor services because they’re close, they can continue to block that. That’s the reality, if they’re within a kilometre.

We know in the Lower Mainland, from the reports in the news, that, in fact, there are very few stores…. Maybe one, I think, was identified by the Vancouver Sun as being able to do a store-within-a-store based on the one-kilometre rule. The only way you get liquor into these stores is through this avenue. It’s the only way you get liquor in. It is the government’s responsibility. It’s the only door in.

What does the minister say to those other grocery chains, to other stores that are concerned about this? We know the private liquor stores are concerned about the VQA rule, the specialty store rule.

What does she say to those who say: “How come this deal gets to be done with one company, and none of the rest of us get to bid or look at how we get access to these licences?”

Hon. S. Anton: The proposition and the question is one that I can’t accept because I have no knowledge. So I cannot possibly answer a question like that.

S. Simpson: The minister says she has no knowledge of this. I would be surprised if the minister had no knowledge of what the wine institute was up to. But we’ll move to a different road.

Around the dormant licences, which are part of this, the minister has said that up to, I believe, 24 licences — dormant licences; she’s called them dormant — may move forward. Could the minister tell us: where did those dormant licences come from? Were they wine-only licences that have expired? Where did the 24 licences come from?

Hon. S. Anton: I’ve answered this question a number of times now, but I’ll answer it one more time.

Some of the B.C. product–only licences that existed in 1987 evolved into the VQA licences. Others reverted back to government. These dormant licences are the ones that are proposed to be auctioned. As I have said many times, the maximum number is 24, although we have not landed on the final number yet.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could tell us about these licences a little bit. I’m assuming there are records of these licences, of who held these licences.

And at the point that the license becomes inactive, at the point when the licence holder is no longer using the licence, have those licence holders continued to pay fees on those licences? If they haven’t, how is it that the licences don’t just get cancelled?

Hon. S. Anton: They were licences that reverted back to government.

[1145]

S. Simpson: Would the minister table those licences so we can see how they’re written? I think there are some serious questions about whether a licence goes dormant or a licence expires if the fee isn’t there.

Can the minister table the licences so we can see where it says in the licence: “If you don’t continue to pay the fees, you don’t have the licence. It reverts to government to be able to use as they see fit rather than expire”?
[ Page 7889 ]

Hon. S. Anton: I think I’ve answered the question about the licences.

S. Simpson: I think the minister doesn’t want to answer because she knows her answers are flawed, and she knows that in fact these licenses probably shouldn’t be reissued, and they’re not dormant. They’re expired.

These 24 licences that were issued were issued with conditions. Will the minister release the copies of the 24 licences so everybody can see whether what the minister is saying today is accurate?

Hon. S. Anton: I think we’ve canvassed the question of these licences both the other day and today.

S. Simpson: If they were never issued but these licenses were created by a government or cabinet order, will the minister table the order or documents that created the original set of licences?

Interjections.

The Chair: Let’s have the debate between the member and the minister.

Hon. S. Anton: I have answered the question about the licences.

S. Simpson: To our friend over there on the other side, these licences are a big part of exactly what this legislation is about.

I’m taking by that that the minister has no interest in transparency, no interest in accountability, no interest in being forthright with the people of the province, no interest in being forthright with the industry, because the minister refuses to provide information about how she got to this decision. The minister refuses to provide information about whether what she’s doing is actually allowable under the law. Produce the information.

I’m going to try again. If the licences weren’t cancelled, if they were discontinued and no fees are being paid on them, why? Why were they cancelled if fees were being paid? And if they’re not being paid on them, then are they discontinued? How is it they revert back to the government? These are legitimate questions.

I don’t expect…. Maybe the minister would like to show us where she discussed these issues. How were they discontinued? What are the rules under those licences? I’m sure the licence holders, when they held them — if anybody held them — were well aware of those rules. How is it that they revert back to government under law so that they can be reissued today?

[1150]

Hon. S. Anton: I’ve answered the question about the licences.

S. Simpson: One last question. I don’t want the minister here to answer anything about licences. All I want the minister to do is table the actual licences so we can read them for ourselves. The minister doesn’t have to answer another question about licences. Just make the commitment, table the licences, or else tell people that you’re hiding things, that people don’t have a right to know. You’re prepared to bury this. There is another agenda to this, and that’s what’s going on.

These licences prove to the people in this province, the people in this industry, that these 24 licences are legitimate and that the rules around those licences allow them to be reissued. Only question — release the actual licences.

Hon. S. Anton: I have given the maximum number. I’ve given the history of the licences. Obviously, as I’ve said many times, we’re mindful of our trade obligations.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SPECIAL WINE STORE
LICENCE AUCTION ACT

Madame Speaker: Members, the question is third reading.

A. Weaver: I’ve listened during the course of deliberations at committee stage to the numerous concerns raised by the opposition and by the independent members. It’s clear to me that this bill is not ready for dissemination.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, your comments are out of order. Please take your seat. There is a motion on the floor.

[1155]

A. Weaver: I am seeking an amendment to the motion to replace the word “now.”

[I move that the motion for third reading on Bill 22, Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting the words “6 months hence”.]
[ Page 7890 ]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: In bringing the motion forward to amend this and delay it, hoist it, for six months, I have listened to the opposition. I’ve listened to others in this House. It’s clear to me that this bill is premature. Many of the questions have not been answered — questions about where these licences are coming from, questions and concern about powers being given to government, questions about NAFTA. It is for this reason that I put the amendment forward.

[1200]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion put forward by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head: “…third reading on Bill 22, Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting the words ‘6 months hence’.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1205]

Bill 22, Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 10:56 a.m.

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $1,378,927,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Cadieux: As we get started this morning I have a couple of responses for the member from yesterday that we didn’t have.

In response to your question regarding caseload numbers, the average caseload has dropped by one to 26.7 from 27.7 since November of 2014. With the additional 100 people that we have right now over last year, that has enabled the caseloads to drop by one on average, but we expect that to continue with the adding of 200 new staff, 100 of which are social workers, over the next 12 months. There is variance between service delivery areas, and we’re looking to address this through a combination of our hiring and service redesign processes.

As well, in response to your question, Member, regarding the number of staff we have transitioned from auxiliary to permanent positions, we have a breakdown as follows: 24 staff have converted and five are in the process. We anticipate approximately 69 conversions to be completed by September of 2015.

D. Donaldson: To the minister, thank you to her and her staff for the prompt reply on those commitments around those numbers. I know they probably worked hard overnight to get them, so that’s great.

I would like to canvass an issue a little more extensively, so we can have more of a conversation about it, that we
[ Page 7891 ]
actually just canvassed in question period: the enhanced prevention focused approach dollars. I believe the fact that they were not receiving these dollars, and the minister and her government’s role in that, needs to be more fully explored as part of these budget estimates when it comes to child safety, family support and children-in-care service delivery areas.

Here’s what we know. The ministry is responsible for services for all children in the province regardless of whether they’re First Nations or non–First Nations and regardless of whether those First Nations kids are living on reserve. As the minister knows, up until 2007 the provinces, including B.C., were funded by the federal government for only what could be called child safety issues on reserve — in other words, interventions that would result in the removal of the child into some form of care under the ministry. Not the best option or very forward-thinking, I think we’d all agree.

In light of that, in 2007 the federal government began to fund provinces for prevention services for kids living on reserve — so supports to the family and children so they could remain together and the kids wouldn’t have to go to ministry care. That program is called enhanced prevention focused approach, EPFA, and the emphasis is on prevention.

By the way, these supports from the province are available to all kids living off reserve, and the EPFA dollars are supposed to help close the gap somewhat, as the minister knows, so kids living on reserve can access services that all other kids in the rest of the province are offered.

[1100]

Since 2007 Alberta has received more than $140 million. Saskatchewan signed up in 2008 and has received more than $128 million. Manitoba joined the program in 2010 and has received more than $115 million. B.C. hasn’t received any of these dollars.

It’s hard to understate, I would say, how important funding these prevention services can be. I know, personally, up in the area where I live that there is at least one case where a First Nations child in care died. These kinds of prevention dollars can actually fund much-needed respite care, for instance. It could have been a factor that could have saved the child’s life. So it’s hard to understate how important those dollars are.

I’m going to give the minister an opportunity for a more fulsome explanation, which can happen in this venue, about the leadership from the province on this matter and why we’re leaving these federal dollars on the table.

[1105]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I would hope that the member understands that the ministry and myself as minister in my time here have certainly been focused on this and on the fact that when the federal government decided to start providing prevention dollars, we were there right away, saying: “Yes, we would like to see those flow to B.C.”

That said, we’ve been pursuing those dollars. While the federal government has chosen a method of engagement that focuses on bilateral agreements between provinces and AANDC and that has not resulted in necessarily equal or similar relationships in all provinces, to this time, as the member is aware, funds have not been made available to British Columbia.

There have been, over the period of years, significant engagements between the ministry, delegated agencies, First Nations leaders, the representative and the federal government with AANDC to explore both our expectations and theirs in terms of the funding. Certainly, at a point in time a couple of years ago where we thought that all of those negotiations were heading in the right direction, with no explanation the federal government chose to withdraw from those conversations.

The messages that we have had, to some degree, have focused on the fact that there has been mixed success in the eyes of the federal government in terms of what dollars have been spent in other jurisdictions and what has been achieved with those dollars. Since the release of the representative’s report on some of the work the ministry was doing with First Nations in British Columbia, additional focus was placed on the work here and on what the representative saw as the responsibility of the federal government.

[1110]

Now since that time, since February of 2014, we were again told that the steering committee, that the federal government wasn’t successful in securing money to implement the EPFA in British Columbia. We continue to strongly advocate and work with our partners at AANDC. In fact, we’ve jointly developed a workplan and are continuing the development of a bilateral accountability framework. There continues to be some discussion about whether or not our expectation of the dollars matches their expectation of what they should be spending. To date it hasn’t, but the discussion continues.

Certainly, discussion continues and is moving forward very well as it relates to the roles and responsibilities, joint compliance reviews, prevention information and so on. There are regularly scheduled meetings between AANDC and MCFD at all levels of the organization to ensure that the tasks identified in the workplan are completed and agreed upon and that we’re moving forward and ready to both receive and implement those funds when they become available.

I met with Minister Valcourt in November on this issue. I hope to meet with him again next week when I’m in Ottawa, if that can be arranged. We are hopeful. Frankly, this does need to happen in British Columbia, and we need to ensure that First Nations children have access to the supports that they need and that the federal government has a responsibility to fund.
[ Page 7892 ]

D. Donaldson: More than $457 million has flowed to other provinces under the enhanced prevention focused approach since its inception in 2007. Again, when I checked recently — as a matter of fact, a few days ago — there were application forms on line for 2015, this coming year, for EPFA dollars for provinces. So the federal government might be reviewing it, but the money is still out there ready to be accessed.

The minister talked about a workplan. Did the workplan that she discussed cover the enhanced prevention focused approach dollars, or was that simply on the dollars that are flowing to the province for intervention?

[1115]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member, it would appear there is some confusion on his part about how this relationship with the federal government works or does not work. The EPFA funds do not yet exist for British Columbia in that they have not been secured in a federal budget to flow to British Columbia. That would be the responsibility of AANDC and the federal minister to work through their processes. I would suggest that if the member needs more information on that, there is another venue for achieving that information.

There is also is no mechanism by which the provincial government can download a form off a website to apply for funds in this regard. There is no mechanism, no application process by which we can fill out a form to ask for multi-millions of dollars of funding on an annual basis to flow to British Columbia to do the prevention work that is necessary, nor contemplated under the EPFA.

There may be some project-based dollars for organizations that can apply to the federal government, but that is not the mechanism by which the province engages with the federal government. The EPFA funds and our ongoing relationship in regards to our everyday business and our current relationship that already exists with the federal government in relation to funding child protection work in British Columbia is a trilateral agreement between the government of British Columbia, the delegated agencies and the government of Canada.

D. Donaldson: In my previous answer, when I asked about EPFA funding, the minister in her styles listed a whole bunch of things that they were doing, including a workplan. When I asked about the workplan, she actually said no, that work plan has nothing to do with EPFA.

I’m going to ask the minister now about the efforts about pursuing these dollars that her ministry and this government has made. The Representative for Children and Youth back in 2013, a couple of years ago, said — and I quote from one of her reports — “The representative does note that B.C. has not made a sustained or serious effort to engage with the federal government on these issues.” She pointed that out two years ago.

The minister mentioned that she had met with the federal minister in November of last year. Where did she meet with him? Were there reasons given from the federal minister about why these dollars aren’t flowing to B.C.?

[1120]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The minister and I met in Richmond in November. Just to recap for the member, prior to 2013 there were periods of time when the working groups in British Columbia, and with the feds, on this prevention funding seemed close to having success. That, unfortunately, did not materialize. As we already canvassed, likely the fact that it didn’t materialize may have had something to do with the fact that there are mixed results that they’re finding in terms of the work that’s going on in other provinces and the funding that they’ve made available there.

Frankly, there were concerns raised after the report that the representative did about how we were engaging with First Nations here in British Columbia. That is why, after that report, we certainly saw fit to refocus our efforts in British Columbia on our aboriginal service innovations, which is the type of work that fits directly with the sort of enhanced prevention funding approach and what they’re looking to see as well. It fits well. The representative is supportive of that approach.

We’re continuing our conversations with the federal government around the changes that we’ve made and the changes we would like to continue to see and where we would like to see them step in and provide dollars. Since 2013 the team at MCFD has continued to make concerted efforts to have those conversations and move those conversations along with the federal government related to the funding. At this point, the answer is: we don’t have the money in our budget, and we’re not there yet. We will continue to press.

D. Donaldson: So we’ve missed out for eight years now. I understand the minister is saying there have been some efforts recently. But the fact is other provinces have received this funding, and we haven’t. We’ve been missing out continuously.

[1125]

The big issue is the kids who could have benefited, and the families, from that money. Some of them ended up in ministry care. I know the ministry is trying to reduce the number of aboriginal children in care. So by missing out on this funding for the last eight years, we’ve underserved a vulnerable sector in B.C., the children living on reserve.

When the federal minister visited B.C. last year, he was quoted as saying, when he was up in Port Alberni, that in regards to the enhanced prevention focused approach dollars: “B.C. is not there yet.” This is what he said: “B.C. is not there yet.”

Debra Foxcroft, president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, said: “We’ve been saying B.C.’s been ready for a long time and are wondering why other provinces
[ Page 7893 ]
have had this money for so long and why B.C. is being rejected. Why do our children and families and youth have to wait?”

Could the minister be a little bit more specific on what the federal minister said and what he means by “B.C. is not there yet,” given the fact that she’s met with him?

Hon. S. Cadieux: While I can’t speak specifically to Minister Valcourt’s thoughts or what’s behind his commentary, beyond what has been shared with us, what it comes down to, from our understanding, is that the federal government is not yet convinced that there is adequate accountability in British Columbia in terms of how dollars are spent and outcomes achieved and not significant enough agreement amongst First Nations leaders, MCFD delegated agencies and the federal government on what those lines of accountability should be.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. I think we’re finally getting to some of the crux of the matter that we can actually get our teeth into here.

The minister talks about her discussions with the federal government, and one of the concerns of the federal government is not adequate accountability when it comes to why B.C. hasn’t received enhanced prevention dollars, regardless of whether the federal government now is concerned about mixed results. The ball has been dropped in the last eight years now, that B.C. hasn’t accessed these dollars. They’ve been left out.

What is the ministry doing to address the concern of the federal government that there isn’t adequate accountability around these dollars? I mean, if they’re citing that as a cause that we’re not getting tens of millions of dollars per year, then I would assume that that’s a high priority on behalf of the ministry, to address it.

What has been done to address the federal government’s concerns that the province does not have adequate accountability to receive enhanced prevention dollars, and when will that be resolved?

[1130]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member, I think, unfortunately, his understanding or expectations are rather simplistic and naive as it relates to relationships with the federal government and how this process has unfolded and not unfolded.

The reality in British Columbia as it relates to this funding and what accountability means and what accountability is required, in terms of our conversation with the federal government, has been a bit of a moving target with the federal government. They’ve been less than clear over time as to what it is they’re looking for from B.C.

[1135]

We’ve canvassed for the last half an hour what we’ve been doing to do our work with the federal government and to bring those dollars to British Columbia. We need them here. We know that.

Frankly, one of the things that we did through this process, partially, in an attempt to achieve that relationship for dollars, was our move away from indigenous approaches, where we were funding First Nations governance around these issues, to aboriginal service innovations with a clear focus on accountabilities for the dollars that are spent, on approaches that are direct service delivery to children, with expressed outcomes to prevent kids coming into care in the first place and/or to find permanency for kids who are in the care of the ministry.

The additional work we have done in the ministry over the last couple of years, while I have been minister, to improve and to re-engage our quality assurance programs and our auditing programs, including our audits of delegated agencies, is certainly part of what we’re doing to demonstrate to the federal government the accountabilities they continue to express a desire to see.

We’re sharing the results of those audits with AANDC, but let’s not forget that the federal government has its own set of challenges in relation to their file. They are also facing budget reductions. They have their own set of priorities, which they may or may not express to us at any given time. They are accountable for what they do and don’t do in British Columbia as well.

D. Donaldson: Well, my expectation is that leadership would be shown in this province similar to other provinces, because they’ve been able to access the dollars. It’s the dollars that have been lost over the last eight years and the dollars that we could get in the future.

I want to pursue one other aspect that the minister mentioned as a reason why the federal government is saying B.C. isn’t ready. What she cited, another reason, was agreements among First Nations and the province. So I’m going to talk a little bit about that and then ask the minister to explain that aspect of her answer.

The Tsilhqot’in decision by the Supreme Court of Canada was handed down last year, as the minister will know. It recognized aboriginal title on the land, not just in existence in legal theory that needed ground-truthing. It was ground-truthed through that decision. It talked strongly about consent, and consent about what happens on the land.

Many are also beginning to explore what that now-established precedent of consent means about First Nations people when it comes to who should be in control of the design and implementation of a system of care for their children. Who is the ultimate authority? First Nations feel they are the ultimate authority.

The fight over aboriginal title is the fight over the future of the well-being of First Nations children. When this government talks about reconciliation, they forget about that, and they get narrow in their scope. Maybe this minister and this government can’t understand that,
[ Page 7894 ]
but First Nations do. They know in 2010-11 aboriginal kids were 4.5 times more likely to have protection concerns reported, 6.1 times more likely to be investigated, 8.2 times more likely to be found in need of protection, 7.4 times more likely to be admitted into care and 13.4 times more likely to remain in care.

Why consent, if you’re First Nations, to that kind of system with those kinds of results for your kids? The government not only talks a good game about reconciliation, but it also uses the term “partnership.” The Premier talked about the Tsilhqot’in decision in terms of a new opportunity and in the next breath talked about partnerships.

Well, when it comes to one-off economic partnerships on natural resources, this government spends the time and resources necessary. When it comes to signing a partnership with First Nations about how to jointly access federal dollars for vulnerable children on the reserve, there is no leadership. Nothing happens.

What is the plan around coming to an agreement — the province and First Nations — that will then overcome one of the hurdles the minister has cited to accessing this federal money?

[1140]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Tsilhqot’in discussion and the lead on that for government is the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

While the member made a lot of commentary in his last statement, I’m not sure there was a clear question, Mr. Chair. I would suggest that if it relates to First Nations leadership, the Tsilhqot’in discussion and higher-level governance issues, those questions be directed to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations.

D. Donaldson: The minister cited in one of her previous answers that an impediment to coming to a funding agreement with the federal government on dollars for the enhanced prevention focused approach was, as what was said by the federal government, a lack of an agreement amongst First Nations and the province around these dollars. Could she please elaborate on that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, the agreement that I was trying to explain to the member goes back to the joint table that was established and in conversations back in 2012 between the delegated aboriginal agencies, some First Nations groups in British Columbia, the ministry and AANDC. They were trying to come to an agreement relating to the nature of services that would be funded, the outcomes that would be derived from those services and the amount of funding required to do that work. Largely, agreement was reached.

[1145]

However, AANDC came back and said: “Well, we haven’t been successful in getting the money, so we’re not moving forward in British Columbia.” That is the nature of agreement I’m talking about when it relates to needing to find agreement with the federal government in a bi- or trilateral way in order to get those funds to flow. There is no argument amongst delegated agencies, First Nation groups and MCFD that those funds need to come to British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: We’ve explored this topic for 45 minutes and in question period, and I still don’t get the sense — when there are millions of dollars on the table from the federal government for such an important topic as preventing children on reserve from coming into care, when they don’t get the services that other children in the province have — that the minister has really gone out in a leadership role and tried to push and come to terms and cajole and encourage the federal government to see that B.C. is ready.

I’ll finish off this segment by asking a specific question. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has passed numerous resolutions in the last couple of years regarding this topic of enhanced prevention focused approach funding. They point out that although the delegated agencies model is something that the province has created and understands and that the federal government understands, there are 84 First Nations in the province who aren’t covered by delegated aboriginal agencies.

Their proposal is that the federal funding from the enhanced prevention focused approach flow in a tripartite agreement directly to those First Nations so that they can also benefit in any future deal. This is part of, I think, what the federal government is referring to around an agreement amongst the First Nations and provinces.

Are MCFD and the government supportive of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ resolution regarding that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, I have been advocating, the representative has been advocating, First Nations leaders have been advocating for this money, and I would welcome the member to advocate, as well, to have this money come to British Columbia.

What’s important is that the money does flow to British Columbia and that that money flows to services and children in British Columbia for better outcomes. That’s what we all want to see. We’ll work with anyone on that basis. The reality is that to date, contrary to the perception the member has that there’s money on the table, there is not money on the table with the federal government for British Columbia for the enhanced prevention. We want to see that changed.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

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

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