2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number 1

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the House today are former MLA Val Roddick and her husband, Noel Roddick, and also Rod Swenson and his son, Joel. The Swensons are counted among many multigenerational families that have contributed to the success of farming in Delta and British Columbia. Their family has been farming in the West Ladner, Brunswick Point and Westham Island areas of Delta since the 1890s. They are here today to discuss issues important to the continued success of agriculture in their community and, indeed, the entire province.

Also, Val Roddick was a former parliamentary secretary to the then Minister of Agriculture. Val and her husband, Noel, have since retired from operating their successful horticulture business in Delta and continue live on their Westham Island farm as well as stay actively involved in their community.

Would the House please make all these wonderful agricultural people very, very welcome.

[1335]

C. James: I have two visitors in the gallery today. They have travelled all the way from Nanaimo to ensure that their voices would be heard on the issue of bus passes for people with disabilities. I’d like to introduce Brent Frame and Sonya Granhall and ask the House to please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. C. Oakes: Today was the first annual Red Tape Reduction Day, and we had some guests that came today. We had Karen Philp, the executive director of the Kidney Foundation of Canada for B.C. and the Yukon. We’ve seen more organ transplants done last year than ever before.

We had Iain Hooey, organizer of the Victoria Whiskey Festival, the second-best festival in the world and close to going to number one; Laura Jones, executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; and finally, Mike Croy, a family from Moose Heights. I like to say that. Mike is a Teamster, local union 213, and talked about the importance of the Helmets to Hardhats program. I know that there are two very special veterans in our lives who are looking down on today and would have been really proud.

V. Huntington: I’d like to join the Minister of Agriculture in welcoming Val Roddick, the former MLA for Delta South, and her husband, Noel; and Joel Swenson, whose father, Rod, has been in my office a number of times. The issue they’re speaking about today with the minister I’ve represented to both the Ministers of Natural Resources and Agriculture on numerous occasions. Hopefully, they’ll do better today.

J. Wickens: I am happy to have two guests in the House today, two women that I consider mentors and leaders. They are disability advocates, education advocates, and I’m so happy that I got to show them my new office. Would the House join me in welcoming Cathie Camley and Clair Schuman.

Hon. J. Rustad: Every once in a while, you get the true joy of having your spouse down here. Today I have my lovely wife, Kim, down here, and I’d ask the House to please make her welcome.

H. Bains: It is quite an honour for me to stand here today to introduce someone who I watched growing up and who made us proud nationally, internationally. We have a little argument going on, debate going on, within our own household. I say he is the Bobby Orr of field hockey, but my sons say: “No, Dad. He’s the Wayne Gretzky of field hockey.”

Nonetheless, we all agree that the greatest, I would say, field hockey player in the world is with us today, Mr. Balbir Singh Sr., the guy who scored five goals out of six goals that India scored to defeat England in 1952 — five goals. And you will hear more from my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds about his history.

There are other people who are with him that I would like to introduce. His son Ringo Dosanjh is here, and the guy who wrote the book about him finally, called The Forgotten Legend, Patrick Blennerhassett and his friend, Amy Leong.

Please join with me and give them the warmest welcome that ever we could give to anybody.

N. Macdonald: I’d just like to introduce a good friend of mine and my brother here behind me. It’s Anthony Britneff. He’s from Victoria. In all of the work that we did, as the minister will know, on forestry, this was the mind behind our work. We really appreciate that he’s here, and he’s here for Forests estimates.

The minister will know that there’s a lot coming at him, and I’d just like you to join me in welcoming a good friend to B.C.’s public lands.

L. Reimer: I, too, would like to welcome to the House Clair Schuman and Cathie Camley, two ladies I worked with on the Learning Disabilities Association, Fraser North chapter — both great advocates for special needs children. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

S. Robinson: I have two guests joining me today in the Legislature. Graham Campbell is the uncle of one of my good friends, Doug Stan. He’s touring Victoria, so he’s been invited to question period. And I learned that Graham has quite an interesting history with the CCF, the NDP and the Dave Barrett government.

Graham is a native of Winnipeg, and after joining the RCAF and fighting in the Korean War, he attended the founding convention of the New Democratic Party and ran, actually, in the 1962 election. He wasn’t successful and decided instead to pursue a different kind of career, became an academic and starting developing switching systems for the Internet. In the ’70s, Graham was the science adviser to the Ed Schreyer government in Manitoba and was sent here to British Columbia to exchange information about this new public insurance program being implemented by the Barrett government called ICBC.

Graham joins us with his girlfriend, Sandra Cohen, who originally hails from the States. Will the House please join me in welcoming these guests to the proceedings today.

S. Fraser: Two very close friends are in the gallery today visiting me, Colm and Judy Harty from Qualicum Beach. Joining them in the gallery is their son, Aidan Harty, and his wife, Shino Sato, and baby, Emma, and they are all from New York City. Will this House please join me in making them all feel very, very welcome.

R. Fleming: I’d like to welcome to the House today a visiting intern from Ottawa’s parliamentary internship program. Bryan Heystee is an intern from the office of Murray Rankin, who is the Member of Parliament for Victoria.

Bryan will be working here in Victoria all week. I know he will miss the snow in Ottawa while he does work in our MP’s office. I would ask the House to make Bryan most welcome so that he has a memorable week here, including this tour of the Legislature and all the functions that he’s performing for our Member of Parliament. Thanks very much. Please welcome Bryan.

M. Dalton: First of all, I’d like to welcome my wife here, my lovely wife of 30 years, Marlene. I always enjoy when she joins us. She’s here also with friends of ours, Lucy Solecki and her sister, Anna Maria Ruiz, from Guadalajara, I believe, Mexico. Bienvenido a nuestra casa. Would the members please make them feel welcome.

Just another couple that I’d like to introduce, and that is Christine Goertzen, and she’s here with her husband, Jason, who I introduced a few days ago. They’re with Leading Influence Ministries. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Shin: We have a group of 21 students and their professor from Vancouver Island University visiting the Parliament Buildings today to watch the question period and, of course, to meet with both government and opposition members.

The students are enrolled in the upper-level political science class entitled “Business and Government Relations” and are here to discuss the government engagement with the business community and particularly small business in B.C. If the House will please make them feel very welcome.

L. Krog: I hesitate to say the member has stolen my thunder. However, I do want to welcome as well Prof. Dana Collette along with the 21 students from Vancouver Island University. This is an interesting group of students because Vancouver Island University, as many of the members know, places a great emphasis on attracting students from around the world. You are looking at potentially future employers from many nations around the planet, and I’m delighted to see all of them here. They’re very interested to watch question period and observe some of the interesting cultural habits of the lower part of Vancouver Island.

M. Mungall: Well, joining us in the precinct today are some truly amazing advocates. We have Laurel Walton; Joan Wright; Kelly Newhook with Together Against Poverty and Jennifer Matthews; Faith Bodnar, Sheenagh Morrison and Karen DeLong with Inclusion B.C. We also have Michelle Goos and Cheyenne Furlong-goos and a really dynamic couple who I’ve come to enjoy and meet over the last few months, Sonja and Brent. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

[1345]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

FIRST RESPONDERS

J. Tegart: I’m pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fraser-Nicola to give thanks and appreciation to our first responders across this great province of ours. Every day British Columbia’s police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency personnel put their lives on the line to keep us and our loved ones safe. We ask much of them, and they make many sacrifices.

Emergencies can happen anytime, anywhere, so these men and women are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. They may be away from their families and loved ones for long stretches of time. Many of them actually volunteer for the job out of a sense of duty to their community.

Too often we take their service for granted. That is why I think it’s so important we take time to recognize and thank them for putting themselves in harm’s way every day.

Small communities in our province go out of their way to recognize their local first responders. I’m pleased to be attending such a celebration in Princeton on Friday
[ Page 10949 ]
night put on by the Royal Canadian Legion to celebrate their First Responders Appreciation Dinner.

I encourage this House to join me in thanking these outstanding individuals for the work they do and the sacrifices they make. I ask that you hold them in your thoughts today.

NISGA’A NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Austin: Last weekend I was honoured to attend celebrations of the Nisga’a new year or Hobiyee in the Nass Valley community of Gitlaxt’aamiks. This celebration signals the beginning of the food-harvesting season and coincides with the arrival of the oolichan in the Nass River. It’s a celebration of drumming, dancing and singing that is truly a wonder to behold.

Of course, this year many members here in this chamber recently saw an example of this when Nisga’a drummers came here to witness and celebrate the recent swearing in of the first Nisga’a woman ever elected in British Columbia, the new member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Well, we saw perhaps 25 people in that dance group, so just imagine a hall filled with up to 180 dancers in a single group, and members can probably realize just how moving and spectacular this cultural highlight of the Nisga’a year truly is.

Dancers came from all over the northwest. This is an event that includes all ages, from hereditary chiefs, matriarchs and elders to babies strapped to their mother’s regalia, as the drums are pounded and they dance traditional dances of the various crests and wilps, or houses.

I want to thank the community of Gitlaxt’aamiks, home of the Lisims Government, for their hospitality and for feeding the hundreds of people who came to participate or watch. As Dr. James Gosnell said, the Hobiyee spectacle is better than anything that Hollywood can put on, and there is a feeling of pride that is evident on all the faces of the Nisga’a who attend.

All that remains for me is to wish everyone here a happy Nisga’a new year. Hobiyee.

SMALL BUSINESS AND
REDUCTION OF REGULATIONS

J. Yap: In every corner of our great province, you’ll find a small business that’s contributing much to our provincial economy. In my community, it might be Steveston Barbers, A Monkey Tree Emporium or Steveston Bakery.

Small businesses represents 98 percent of all businesses in our province. They provide nearly 54 percent of all private sector jobs, the third highest in the country. More than one million British Columbians are employed by a small business.

While B.C. enjoys some of the highest small business confidence numbers in Canada, there’s always more we can do to make it easier and more efficient for people to run a business here. We know that red tape costs time and creates frustration for small business owners. That’s why we held a six-week public consultation on reducing red tape this past fall. We wanted to hear directly from British Columbians, who were generous with their ideas and simple fixes to improve service delivery. In fact, more than 5,900 people participated on line, and we received more than 400 ideas, including more than 280 through the public engagement.

[1350]

Working together, we’ve reduced unnecessary regulatory requirements by 43 percent. That’s more than 155,000 requirements out of the way.

In honour of Red Tape Reduction Day, the province is repealing 37 provincial regulations. These are outdated and unnecessary requirements that create duplication, confusion and frustration. By simplifying the law, we are reducing costs, delays and inconvenience for British Columbians, improving services and making them easier to access and simpler to use.

BALBIR SINGH

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure and honour to speak about an unsung hero and a forgotten legend. Mr. Balbir Singh has won three Olympic gold medals in field hockey — the first, in 1948, in London, winning India’s first gold medal as a sovereign nation. He won the second gold in Helsinki. He led his team in scoring, including setting an Olympic Guinness record in the final when he scored five goals. That record stands to this day. Then again in 1956, in Melbourne, he won his third gold medal when he led his team. He scored 22 goals over three Olympic games.

Mr. Singh was the only chief coach and manager to lead India to a World Cup victory in 1975 in Kuala Lumpur. In 2012, he was named one of 16 iconic Olympians by the International Olympic Committee, along with Jesse Owens and Australian track and field star Cathy Freeman. He was the only South Asian and field hockey player on that list.

Mr. Balbir Singh is 92 years young. Today he’s joined by a great author, Patrick Blennerhassett. Patrick has written a very invigorating book about Mr. Singh called A Forgotten Legend. This book will be launched on March 5 at 2 p.m. at the SFU Surrey campus. Mr. Singh will also be there, speaking at that event. Mr. Balbir Singh lives in Burnaby with his son Ringo Dosanjh and his family.

I salute you, sir. You have made us proud. I wish you a very joyous and happy life.

NUTRITION MONTH AND
HEALTHY EATING CAMPAIGN

J. Thornthwaite: March is Nutrition Month, a time for all Canadians to find out about the simple ways we
[ Page 10950 ]
can achieve better health. Eating healthy is one of the best things we can do to feel better and boost our health. Even small changes, like swapping pop for water, can make a difference.

Each month the average British Columbian eats 100 meals, which means there are 100 opportunities to make healthier choices. That’s why this year the Dietitians of Canada are challenging Canadians to take a 100-meal journey by pledging to make a small change to their eating habits and to stick with it, one meal at a time.

Committing to a healthy change is the first step, and the province offers a number of resources to help you make it as easy as possible. HealthyFamilies B.C. is our health promotion plan. It encourages healthier choices and is aimed at improving health and well-being at any stage of life. On-line tools, such as sodium sense and shopping sense, are also available, as is Informed Dining, a program that provides nutritional information on menu items at participating restaurants.

There are also strategies you can use to stick with your plan, such as writing down your goals and sharing them with others and creating a meal plan so you know what you’ll be eating ahead of time. If you ever need help, you can dial 811 and speak to a registered dietitian over the phone.

Half of Canadians over 20 live with a chronic disease, and many more are at risk. Diet and lifestyle are major contributors, and a small dietary change can go a long way in improving our health. This month, Nutrition Month, I encourage all British Columbians to learn about the nutrition tools the province has to offer and to take charge of your health, one meal at a time.

REFUGEE SPONSORSHIP

G. Holman: There are a number of groups throughout my constituency of Saanich North and the Islands who, with many others in B.C., are sponsoring or supporting Syrian refugees escaping from the terror of war in the Middle East. The Galiano Refugee Project, under the auspices of the Anglican Diocese of B.C., is fundraising to support a Syrian family or group to live on the island or in a nearby community.

[1355]

The Mayne Island Refugee Response team will allocate one-third of its donations to local sponsorship initiatives, one-third to larger organizations keeping refugees safe in camps and one-third to activities for refugees to help them become part of the community.

On Saltspring, a refugee sponsorship group is working hard to raise funds and secure accommodation for six refugees coming to Saltspring, including three children. On Pender and Saturna Islands, the refugee support project is a community outreach project of the Anglican Parish of Pender and Saturna Islands. Pender is the first of the Gulf Islands to welcome a new family, who arrived at the end of January. The children are already in school.

On the Saanich Peninsula, we have two groups organized by local churches and working actively with the Greater Victoria Inter-Cultural Association: SPRIG, the Saanich Peninsula Refugee Initiative Group, and RAPID, refugee action by Peninsula churches immediately. Both groups are already well on their way to reaching their fundraising targets and securing accommodation for their families.

I invite members of this House to join me in thanking all of these groups throughout British Columbia for providing opportunities for B.C. citizens to help Syrian refugees who’ve been displaced from their homelands. But let us never forget the tens of thousands of children and families in this province who also need a helping hand and who we have a moral, ethical and — for some — even a legal obligation to support.

Oral Questions

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

J. Horgan: For the past two weeks, we’ve been raising issues in this House about the callousness of the B.C. Liberal government — a government that, for nine years, refused to increase disability pensions for the most vulnerable in British Columbia. For nine years, a string of zeros. For nine years, the party on that side of the House said no to the most vulnerable in our community.

This year they decided to give a modest increase. And then they clawed back the bulk of that increase to take away access to public transit here in British Columbia.

Today there was a rally on the front steps of the Legislature, and there was no murmuring from the peanut gallery there. There were people that are being affected by B.C. Liberal policies — not apologists for B.C. Liberals but people affected by their decision.

Those people want to know…. Rod, from the Action Committee of People with Disabilities, said to me: “Will you please ask the minister this question: ‘Why is it that this government is balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in British Columbia?’” Can the minister answer that question?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What I can tell the Leader of the Opposition is that what we have done on this side of the House is created fairness and equity in the system for people with disabilities, as we have increased the rates — $170 million investment for people across the province, some receiving $77 and some receiving $25 and a subsidized bus pass.

For those members who are here visiting us in the House who seem to be concerned about their subsidized bus pass, I want to clarify for them that they still have access to their subsidized bus pass program, and they will be receiving an increase to their rates.
[ Page 10951 ]

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

J. Horgan: Had the minister or anyone on that side of the House had the jam to go out and speak with the hundreds of people assembled on the steps of the Legislature, she may well have been able to try and spin that story for them.

But nine consecutive years of zeros while the minister of electricity has been jacking up hydro rates almost every single year except in the election year…. You’ll remember that everything was fixed then. Everything was perfect pre-election.

After the election, a torrent of increases for just about everything in British Columbia. And now the Minister of Social Development is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Hundreds of people came to speak to the minister today, and she couldn’t make it outside.

My question to the minister is: will you restore the bus pass — the $45 bus pass — that has been in existence for the past number of years? Will you do the right thing — restore the bus pass and give these people a break?

[1400]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Let me acknowledge to the members and those who were outside today my apologies for not being available to be there to speak with them on the front steps.

I was in Vancouver, meeting with the federal Minister of Persons with Disabilities, speaking to her, meeting with her, in exactly the regards of how we create better opportunities for people with disabilities, how we create a more accessible British Columbia, how we continue to work on the programs and the services that we provide for people with disabilities in this province.

It is this government that has invested in people with disabilities. It’s this government that has put in policy reforms that have increased the opportunities for people with disabilities, whether it is the gifting for people with disabilities on income assistance — to not have that affect their income assistance rates — whether it’s the increase to asset limits from $5,000 to $100,000 for people with disabilities, the annualized earning exemptions or technology at work. Those are all things that this government has put in place.

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

J. Horgan: It’s a shame that the minister couldn’t be available, and it’s a bigger shame that not one single member on that side of the House could make themselves available to talk to some of their constituents on the front lawn of this Legislature. That’s a shame. Too bad for the minister. But where were the rest of you? Having lunch, I guess — having lunch.

The government talks about choices. The minister says that this is about choices. There was a choice the Premier made: to spend half a million dollars on private jets while we clawed back a bus pass from the disabled. We had $130,000, according to public accounts, to pay the camera crew, but we don’t have any money to protect the most vulnerable. We had $236 million last year….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

J. Horgan: We had 236 million bucks to give to the richest people in B.C. last year. The Minister of Health might have been here. He voted in favour of that, and he’s going to vote in favour of it again this year.

I want to ask…. I want to plead with the Minister of Social Development: listen to the people you’re supposed to represent, not the spin doctors back at public affairs, and restore the bus pass for the most vulnerable people in B.C. It’s not a federal decision; it’s your decision. Do the right thing.

Madame Speaker: I’ll remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I find it very difficult to understand how I restore something that hasn’t been cancelled. The members opposite….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Minister, we’ll just wait. Please proceed.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

As well, I’d like to point out that in the Georgia Straight today the member for Nelson-Creston was quoted as saying that she doesn’t want to make the commitment outside of the formal process for helping people with disabilities in their future election platform — also noting that in their 2013 election platform, they also didn’t have any solutions for people with disabilities.

Yet, today they bring everybody here for a photo op — a photo op — for their political gain, while they create anxiety and fear for people with disabilities around this province, when we are trying to assist them as best we can, when we can.

M. Mark: What the Minister of Social Development won’t admit is that her decisions are having real impacts on real people. Kyla lives in East Vancouver and is on disability pension. As you can imagine, she already has a pretty hard time making ends meet. Now she will have to choose between keeping her bus pass — something she relies on — or trying to keep up with the rising cost of putting food on the table.
[ Page 10952 ]

What choice does the minister think that Kyla should make?

[1405]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to acknowledge the member opposite for her first question here in the House since becoming an MLA.

The fact of the matter is that people with disabilities don’t have to make the choice between the bus pass. The bus pass is still there for them. They will still have their transportation needs met. In fact, 45,000 people who weren’t receiving supports for transportation are now receiving money in their pocket, in their hand, so they can make the right decisions.

Madame Speaker: The member on a supplemental.

M. Mark: Pashta lives here in Victoria. She has a hard time walking, and uses a cane. Needless to say, she needs her bus pass if she wants to make it to her medical appointments. But like Kyla and the hundreds of people gathered out on the lawn and in the Lower Mainland, she will now have to choose between basic transportation and trying to keep up with rising costs.

Why does the minister think that the freedom of choice she offers people on disabilities really is any choice at all?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I truly understand that people were hoping for more of an increase to their rates. As a person with a disability, I know exactly what they go through each and every day. I’ve lived it. I’ve been there. I’ve been on income assistance, so don’t tell me I don’t understand, because I do.

We are doing the best we can to support people with disabilities, on this side of the House. We are doing everything we can, whether it’s helping them with their health care, their prescription costs, their medical needs, wheelchairs, walkers, canes, transportation needs that they need met so that they can live in their communities, so they can get to school, so that they can get to their medical appointments.

Those are things that this side of the House has provided for them and will continue to provide for them.

S. Fraser: The real world in my constituency…. The Port Alberni Association for Community Living has written to the Premier, asking her to reverse this heartless decision. I trust that the association president, Susan Waldie, is pretty clear about what the effect of this minister’s changes are. According to her, people on disability pensions “will slide deeper into poverty.”

Does the Minister of Social Development really believe that Ms. Waldie, a respected disability advocate in this province and in my constituency, is fearmongering?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’ve canvassed the facts on this multiple times — last week, Monday, Tuesday, again today. I continue to support the $170 million that we’re investing to increase the rates for people with disabilities around this province.

I can’t speak to anyone’s unique circumstances. Everyone with a disability starts somewhere else in life. Everyone with a disability has their own level of function and ability. What we try to do on this side of the House is to ensure that we wrap supports around individuals so that they can be successful, so that they can reach their full potential and they can be a part of the community. That is our goal. That is our aim.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: In the real world, government’s decisions have effects, and it should get beyond the heckling and the rhetoric. Ms. Waldie’s only interest….

Interjections.

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

Just wait.

[1410]

S. Fraser: Ms. Waldie’s only interest is in speaking out for those who government do not seem to be listening to. Her message to this government is simple: “On behalf of those we represent, Community Living B.C., I ask you to raise the rates and leave our bus pass alone.”

Will the Minister of Social Development listen to Ms. Waldie, or will she just accuse her again of spreading fear?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order. This House will come to order.

Please continue.

S. Fraser: Will the Minister of Social Development listen to Ms. Waldie, who knows what she’s talking about, or will she just accuse her again of spreading fear?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: On top of the $170 million investment we’re making to increase the rates and provide a bus pass for people with disabilities around this province, CLBC is also receiving $36 million to help support….

The fact of the matter is, we are listening. On this side of the House, it is this government who went through the consultation for Accessibility 2024. It is this government who has made changes to the annualized earning
[ Page 10953 ]
exemptions, to increase the earning exemptions, to come up with technology at work to help support people so they have the tools to get back into the workforce, to help them in their training. It’s this government that continues to look forward progressively and innovatively so that we can find solutions to help support people with disabilities.

M. Mungall: I’d like to tell the minister about Tabitha Naismith. She’s a single mom with two children. One is just a baby. She lives on disability in Surrey, and she needs her bus pass to get around because she has epilepsy and she can’t drive. She has no other choice, as she puts it.

So when she sees the new monthly cost of a B.C. bus pass…. And it is a new cost, period, full stop. The Liberals can try and spin it another way, but if we’re going to tell the truth in this House…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: …it’s $52 a month, and that’s new. When she hears that, she thinks of her kids first and foremost and the choices she needs to make for them. What that means — $52 a month for her — is baby formula and diapers that she needs for her family.

Does the minister really think it’s fair to force Tabitha to choose between a bus pass that she needs to get around or the baby formula and diapers that she needs for her children?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I can assure the member again today that she simply has it wrong, and I can assure that the person that she’s speaking of will receive the bus pass in the same way, if she chooses, with a $25 rate increase to her income assistance. On top of that, the individual — I can’t speak to her specifics — receives child care subsidies, medical and optical and dental, prescription expenses covered as well. Those are all supports that we put in place to ensure that people with disabilities are supported in our province.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: If Tabitha chooses not to get the bus pass that she needs, then she gets to keep $52 a month extra, and that is something that she would use to pay for the needs for her children.

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

M. Mungall: If she chooses to get a bus pass, she will not see that $52 out of the $77. That’s the reality that she’s looking at.

[1415]

She’s also looking at the fact that she lives in B.C. Housing and her rent is based on her income. Her income is going to go up, and she’s concerned that so is her rent. So not only is she spending $52 a month now on a bus pass, but her rent’s going to go up, and she’s not going to see a dime of the increase that this government has claimed that they’ve put in place for her.

The minister can continue to get mad at those who aren’t buying her spin, or she can just do the right thing and end this bus pass clawback. Will she do that?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member opposite continues to raise the anxiety levels and the stress levels for people with disabilities, I’d like to confirm with her that the person….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: People with disabilities who are living in government housing will not see a rent increase based on this increase to people-with-disabilities income assistance rates.

I also want to recognize that the reality is that the member opposite…. Where was she when 45,000 people…? Her Twitter handle actually says that she stands up for fairness and equity. Well, this is about fairness and equity across this province for people — 45,000 people who didn’t receive the supports that everybody else received.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Where was she when she had the opportunity to advocate for her own constituents in Nelson-Creston who weren’t receiving any transportation subsidies? They now get the full $77 rate increase, and people around this province will be better off than they were yesterday.

ACCESS TO SKYTRAIN FARE GATES
BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

D. Eby: As if clawing back bus passes from people with disabilities wasn’t heartless enough, just yesterday we learned that this government is closing SkyTrain and Canada Line fare gates next month despite having no plan in place for people whose disabilities mean they can’t tap in with a Compass card. On April 4, when the fare gates close, a simple trip for someone whose disabil-
[ Page 10954 ]
ity restricts the use of their hands will look like this: call TransLink, wait on hold, arrange a meeting time, hope you’re not delayed, meet the attendant who will open the gate for you, and then take the SkyTrain. Happy red-tape-reduction-awareness day, everyone.

Now, the minister responsible has been embarrassed into action by news reports on this, but this plan has been underway for nine years. Why has this government failed to address this problem until there were news stories about their failure to support people with disabilities?

Hon. P. Fassbender: You know, I find it very difficult when the members opposite are bringing a view of the facts and twisting them to create concern and fear on the part of people who don’t deserve that.

Persons with disabilities deserve access to all of the services that this province has to offer. I can assure the members of this House and those people in the gallery that this government has made it very clear to TransLink that before any gates are closed, solutions will be in place to ensure unfettered access to persons with disabilities. That is our commitment. That is the message. And the management in the operational side of TransLink is committed to making sure that that happens.

[1420]

OMBUDSPERSON REVIEW OF
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

A. Dix: Throughout the Health firing scandal, this government has ensured that senior decision-makers responsible for the wrongful termination of researchers received vastly better treatment than researchers such as Dave Scott, Ramsay Hamdi and Roderick MacIsaac. For years, Liberals defended a botched Health Ministry investigation that cost Mr. Scott, Mr. Hamdi and Mr. MacIsaac their careers, dignity and sense of security. Mr. Scott and Mr. Hamdi lost their jobs. Mr. MacIsaac lost his job and then his life.

Those responsible for these deliberate actions, which had terrible consequences for those involved, were allowed to cover up their actions and their responsibility. That was a finding of the McNeil report. Several, including the new Deputy Minister of Finance, have been more than protected; they’ve been promoted.

Now the Minister of Justice has set up a legal indemnity program for the Ombudsperson investigation, one that offers those responsible for the misconduct access to up to 25 times the legal support as those harmed. One rule for the powerful, one for the victims.

Why is the Minister of Justice denying these researchers and Linda Kayfish access to adequate legal representation?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member well knows, this matter has been referred to the Ombudsperson, an independent officer of the Legislature, and those questions are to be posed to that office.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: It’s one thing for the Minister of Justice to deny people proper representation. It’s one thing for her to do that. According to the Ombudsman: “The government has established the indemnity policy.” That’s the Minister of Justice. She has an obligation to answer to that in the Legislative Assembly.

The inequality and injustice that the Minister of Justice is responsible for get worse. Government officials participating in this process have access to all the resources of government and to all the documents and all the emails to inform their response to the Ombudsperson. The researchers have no basic right to information and have been told that if they want to access the documents, they can try the FOI process. Good luck with that.

Even then, further hurdles have been placed in their path by the government, for which the minister is responsible in this House. Linda Kayfish, for example, has been informed that she needs to prove that her receiving the documents is in Roderick MacIsaac’s best interests. Ms. Kayfish is pursuing justice, I say to the Minister of Justice, on behalf of her brother because he is no longer alive.

Moreover, the government’s ongoing contempt for the rights of the researchers shows they’ve learned nothing from the McNeil review. Marcia McNeil, in her review of the botched investigation, found that researchers and others “did not have an adequate opportunity to review documents and respond to questions arising from them.” Now this injustice is being repeated by the Minister of Justice.

After all that has happened, why doesn’t the Minister of Justice, who is responsible in this House for the legal indemnity, responsible in this House for access to documents, ensure that the individuals whose rights have been trampled by the Liberal government get some access to justice?

Hon. T. Lake: I asked the Finance Committee to refer this matter to the Ombudsperson. The Ombudsperson is the independent officer who is responsible for administrative fairness…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Hon. T. Lake: …in dealings with the government. The Standing Committee on Finance unanimously approved a budget for the Ombudsperson. If the Ombudsperson would like to revisit that with the committee, that is within their purview. It is best left with the Ombudsperson.

[1425]

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

R. Fleming: A report that recently came out from the B.C. association of school board officials showed that B.C. school district administrative spending is 30 percent below the Canadian average and has the lowest per-pupil cost anywhere in Canada.

Sadly, the Liberals’ reward for school district efficiency is having the Premier say there’s low-hanging fruit everywhere in the school district and ordering cuts of $54 million for administrative spending. This is on top of downloaded costs, over the last decade, of $190 million.

This report came out well in advance of the B.C. Liberals’ budget last month, yet the budget slapped another $25 million cut onto school boards for so-called administrative savings, on top of the $29 million cut in the previous budget.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Has the minister even read the report? If he has read this report, has he taken the opportunity to tell his cabinet colleagues that trying to squeeze more blood from this stone is the reason why school boards across British Columbia right now are being forced to consider firing teachers and closing schools in neighbourhoods and communities in B.C.?

Hon. M. Bernier: On this side of the House, when we announced the budget this year, there are a couple of things we announced within that budget — a $110 million increase in the Education budget here in British Columbia, taking it to record levels.

I think what’s important to highlight in that is the importance we have in the education system in the province of British Columbia. We’ve increased the budget 32 percent — $1.2 billion we’ve increased the budget — while we’ve been in government. This is important for the students of British Columbia. That is funding in the classrooms. That is why we have one of the best education systems in the world — because of the funding and the importance we’ve put towards education in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege.

Tabling Documents

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise to table a report. I have the honour to present the 2015 Annual Report for the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In section B, the chamber of the assembly, I call continued committee debate on Bill 11. In section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On section 37 (continued).

L. Popham: Since we’re coming back to this after taking a break, I’m wondering if the minister could explain the intent of section 37.

Hon. N. Letnick: So 37. The inspector may seize offence-related things. An inspector may need to seize certain things as evidence that an offence has been committed. In such cases, certain requirements apply. For example, in this section, it will allow inspectors to seize things that could constitute evidence of an offence. In such cases, the following requirements apply. The inspector may detain the food or agriculture product, analyze the food or agriculture product or arrange for such analysis to be conducted, amongst other things.

V. Huntington: Could the minister just clarify? So an inspector is entitled to enter a premises without warrant just under the reasonable belief that there may be an issue?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question.

This particular section, 37, is about seizing offence-related things. This is not about entering premises. Entering premises we already covered under section 14.

[1435]

V. Huntington: Well, I guess I missed that.

I’m assuming, then, section 14 requires them to get a warrant. Is that the case? Or are they able to just enter a premise to seize? Obviously, you have to enter the premise to seize. Is there any mechanism that is required, under section 14, for them to seize and enter?
[ Page 10956 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: I need some direction from the Chair. We’ve already debated and passed 14. What’s your ruling on the procedure here?

The Chair: Is the member just seeking clarification or asking a question back on a section which we have already passed?

V. Huntington: I was seeking clarification. I’m not looking into 14. I was not in the House when 14 was discussed, so I obviously did not hear that discussion, Mr. Chair.

However, let me, then, go to subsection (3) of section 37. “If an inspector is of the opinion that seized or detained food…is not required for the purpose of a proceeding…, the inspector must (a) return the food or agricultural product to the person from whom it was seized….”

What is the expectation of the condition of that food or agricultural product that will be returned? Is the inspector under any obligation to maintain the condition of the product at the time that it was found, at seizure?

Hon. N. Letnick: A very good question. There are two parts to it. They must return the food or agricultural product or dispose of or destroy the food or agricultural product if return is not practical. So in the case of a product not being in the condition that the member is contemplating, they would dispose of or destroy the product.

V. Huntington: What I’m getting at is: if the condition of the product deteriorates while in control of the inspector, what is the obligation or liability of the inspector, should he decide that the product isn’t such that he can proceed under the act?

Hon. N. Letnick: We have to acknowledge that this is an inspector seizing products for evidence purposes. The test here would be one of reasonableness on the part of the inspector. I would just add that if the inspector is seizing for evidence, it is possible that it would be in the possession of the inspector for some time. If it’s a food that could spoil, then probably option (b) is what would happen. They would have to dispose of the evidence afterwards.

V. Huntington: I guess what I’m trying to get at, again, is this. If the inspector under subsection (2)(b) has conducted the analysis of the food or agricultural product and, under (3), determines that it is not necessary to proceed under the act, and the food, for whatever reason…. Perhaps he has made a mistake. Perhaps the analysis said there is absolutely no problem. The reasonableness of the seizure was there. There was an assumption there was a problem, some evidence there may have been a problem. In fact, there is no problem. Yet, in the care and control of that inspector, that product has deteriorated.

What is the liability, then, of the government, the inspector, the administrator? What is the liability?

Hon. N. Letnick: The short answer is none. No liability.

V. Huntington: Just to be quite clear, food can be seized. If there turns out to be absolutely no problem with the food or agricultural product that the inspector has received, the individual who owns that food or agricultural product or is storing it for distribution is then out the cost of that product? Is that the case?

[1440]

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, I have to remind the members that the inspectors would be working under the theory of reasonableness, the principle of reasonableness. So we all agree inspectors would be reasonable in how they would seize and what they would seize.

If, however, the product is determined that it’s not necessary as evidence anymore, and if the product is at a point where it cannot be returned as food because it is not healthy, then specifically to answer the hon. member’s question, 38(4), which we haven’t got to yet, clearly states that there is no right of action against the inspector.

L. Popham: My question is regarding section 37(2)(a). In my view, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The words that are used are “detain the food.” I’m assuming this means seize the food, but it still repeats the meaning in the line above.

Should it say “seize the food”? I don’t know how you detain food. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. N. Letnick: Seizure implies that we actually take possession of the food. Detained implies that we stop it from going to the next part in the value chain.

L. Popham: In this section, it seems that, in my view, there are inadequate administrative fairness provisions. The inspector is required to give a receipt for food that is seized — or detained, I guess — under section 13(2)(a) but not in this section. The seizure powers are broader in section 37, but the accountability provisions are less or else missing. Could the minister please tell me about that?

Hon. N. Letnick: Under section 37(4), the inspector “must give written notice to a person.” That would be the receipt that the member is looking for — the accountability.

L. Popham: Is written notice the same as a receipt?

Hon. N. Letnick: The written notice would have details as to what was taken and why, as opposed to a receipt, which implies that you actually purchased something.
[ Page 10957 ]

L. Popham: Is written notice defined anywhere?

Hon. N. Letnick: The written notice is common through legislation, but the form of the written notice would be determined by the minister.

L. Popham: But this is legislation. If food is seized or detained…. I think specifically for food or goods, at minimum, a receipt should be issued, and I don’t see anywhere…. The written notice idea that the minister has put forward — what is required in written notice is decided upon by a minister, but how do we know a minister would include a receipt?

I think the receipt — for the value of those goods — should be incorporated into this section, because the seizure powers are quite broad.

[1445]

As my colleague brought up, this could be a huge amount of goods adding up to quite a large receipt. So if the person whose goods were seized or detained…. If they were in some way perishable, and they were lost, I don’t know how you would move forward if you tried to get a claim on those goods if there isn’t an actual, proper receipt accounting for the value of those goods.

Hon. N. Letnick: Let’s take an example. As you said, someone goes in. An inspector goes in and finds a reason to seize a product or a bunch of products. The inspector would then provide the producer — the farmer, whomever — with a written notice. The written notice would include what was taken, the reasons for what was taken, and there wouldn’t be any need to identify the value because, under section 38(4), there is no opportunity to claim damages.

L. Popham: If there was an error, there’s no way of getting the cost of the goods back. If there was an error that was made by the person conducting the seizure, there’s no way for a farmer to regain the value of his goods.

Hon. N. Letnick: In 37(2), you detain the food or take the food. In 37(3), you decide whether or not it’s going to be used as evidence. If you decide that it’s not going to be used as evidence, you can either return the food or agricultural product or dispose of it. In either case, there is no recourse for damages under section 38, which we will get to in a minute.

L. Popham: Just getting back to the idea of a receipt or a written notice, in 13(2), it’s described as a receipt. So why wouldn’t it be continued on into this section, where we describe what the minister has described to me as written notice, which is, in his view, a receipt? Why don’t we just say “receipt”? We’ve already used the word receipt in 13(2).

Hon. N. Letnick: Going back to section 13(2)(a) “give a receipt for the records or things.” For example, they might want to take a photocopy of whether or not someone has the proper certification to sell something as organic. That’s when they would give them a receipt for taking that copy. It’s not intended for seizing agricultural products or food, as we’re talking about here.

L. Popham: Okay. Thank you. I’m still not really clear on the difference.

[1450]

You’re in receipt of a certification, certificate, or any other information that was gathered in 13(2), but you’re gathering information in this section as well.

I just would like to make a suggestion. Maybe add in a 37(5) that would read: “The inspector shall immediately give a receipt for anything seized, and such receipt shall, at a minimum, include an identifying description of the object seized, the time, the date and the location of the seizure.” Maybe that’s information that would be in a written notice, but it’s not clear.

That’s not clear. I think there’s a big difference between a receipt and a written notice. I think that if the minister is not interested in making that sort of change in this section, at minimum, it should be included in the definition so we all understand what could happen in section 37.

[1455]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for her patience.

It’s an interesting discussion as to: do we define written notice? Written notice is used in many statutes across government ministries, and as I said before, written notice is much larger than a receipt. It provides way more information than a simple receipt would ever provide, including reasons for seizure, the amounts, locations and all manner of other things. I think it’s best to leave written notice as large as possible to give flexibility to the ministry, if and when the time comes that an inspector makes seizures.

L. Popham: I understand where the minister is coming from. I guess my concern is, then: is written notice defined somewhere that it could be referred to, perhaps not in this legislation but in other legislation in B.C.? One of my concerns regarding this whole bill is that there are many instances that can be left up to the minister’s interpretation, and consistency within this bill is really important.

I think this is an opportunity. We’re merging three bills together to make one that reflects what we really want. Leaving it up to the minister’s interpretation, to me, is not strong legislation. In my view, properly written legislation should not be able to be interpreted any other way except for the intent of the legislation. So as long as there’s an area where we can take a look at a definition of written notice….
[ Page 10958 ]

What the minister has just said is that it’s a much larger scope than a receipt. That’s good news to me. But I would hate to rely on a minister with a different opinion that thinks written notices written on the back of a napkin…. “Hey, we took your stuff. Here’s your written notice.” I know that’s an extreme example, but if it’s not defined, that’s what we’re down to. My job, of course, in opposition is to think of worst-case scenarios in order to strengthen legislation. So that’s why I’m throwing that example out there.

Is there an area where we can look at a definition of written notice that clearly defines what the minister has said he thinks it needs?

Hon. N. Letnick: The member is right. Her job is to try to make the legislation even better, and I appreciate that.

Part of the outcome of that, though, is the conversation, which is recorded by Hansard, that we’re having right now where the minister has gotten up and said written notice is larger than just a receipt. It should include things like what was taken, why it was taken, where it was taken. Of course, the minister of the day would be crafting or approving written notice based on the advice of legal counsel.

V. Huntington: I’d just like to chat for a second about why I am concerned about sections of this nature. We see them every once in a while in legislation in the House.

The minister may have picked up on this over my years of questions. Often I’m asking about the what-ifs, the exceptions, the things that happen that nobody anticipates or that just result from a mistake. How does the legislation protect the individual from the mistake government makes?

I agree with the minister that flexibility in a piece of legislation like this, especially when you’re dealing with offences, is absolutely necessary. I believe that the issue of reasonableness is absolutely essential to the ability to be flexible and to operate effectively as an inspector in this case. What I don’t believe is appropriate is legislation that forgets and neglects to protect the person that is injured by the exception.

That is my concern here. You have a situation in which goods can be seized with reasonable foresight, with all the flexibility necessary. I don’t criticize the nature of the ability of the inspector to move on an issue that he feels is important.

[1500]

What we have here — and the following section, which absolutely protects government — is an inability to recognize a mistake that injures an innocent party. I do not believe that is responsible legislation. I believe the minister should be protecting individuals that fall into that category of mistake.

This could ruin an individual. It’s the exception. It probably won’t happen. If it did happen and an inspector made a mistake — there was no evidence that he could use to pursue charges under the act or an offence under the act — then what about that individual who’s left without his product? Perhaps the product is a year’s work. Perhaps the product is a harvest. It could ruin that individual, and there is no recourse permitted for that individual nor is there any protection for that individual by the state.

I believe that is poor legislation. I do not believe it is democratic. I really believe that there is too often legislation on the floor of this House that refuses to accept and protect the exception.

I wish the minister would consider that and perhaps, at some point, suggest an amendment that would protect that individual who was improperly impacted by the reasonable decision of an inspector. I’m not suggesting the inspector was wrong; it’s just that an error was made.

The Chair: Member, there was no question in that.

A. Dix: I’m very appreciative to rise in this debate. I think the issues involved — these issues of inspection, these issues of food safety, the issues brought forward under this legislation — are very important issues.

In particular, this question which the member for Delta South has expressed a point of view on, I think, is worthy of a response from the minister. I think what the member for Delta South was expressing, on behalf of her constituents, was a legitimate and reasonable question, which was to make a point about this style of legislation and what it means for the people actually dealing with it in the field.

I think there’s often a disconnect between those of us who propose legislation, which has all kinds of implications for the future for those who must, on behalf of the government, do the inspection, and their relationship to those who receive the inspection.

Since the member for Delta South has made, I think, her concerns quite eloquently, I’d be very interested, personally, in what the minister thinks of the member for Delta South’s argument in this case and whether he would do the member for Delta South the kindness of a response.

[1505]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the members opposite on this question. I think it’s important to enunciate that this is an improvement over existing legislation. In existing legislation — in the FPSA and FPGA — actually, it says to detain and destroy — period. There is no process. There is no fairness. There is no reasonableness. There’s no opportunity to return.

This legislation actually is an improvement over the previous legislation. It’s also consistent — well, at least section 38 is, which is really what we’re talking about here, which we are not on yet, but I’ll talk about 38 a little bit — with language that we’ve already passed in the
[ Page 10959 ]
House just recently with the Animal Health Act and the Fish and Seafood Act.

So it’s better language than what’s currently in play. The process is better. It’s fairer. It’s more reasonable. And the odds of something happening under this legislation that would violate all our sensibilities in this House are way less probable to happen than what the current legislation is.

Could it happen? I would have to concede that, yes, possibly — but very, very unlikely.

A. Dix: If I may understand the minister, he’s saying, “I’m from the government. We’re here to help at such time that this legislation that we care about so deeply is brought into force by regulation,” which presumably, will be some time after the next election or the one after that.

In any event, I just had a question. And I apologize to the minister because while I have been focused rapier-like on all of his responses, I may have missed his response to this. I may be asking him to repeat himself, which won’t be for the first time. But….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Mais oui. Bien sur.

Under subsection (4):”An inspector must give written notice to a person from whom food or an agricultural product is seized before taking an action under subsection (2) (a) or (3) (b)” is taken. And that’s the action both to seize and to destroy.

I wanted to just briefly explore with the minister, if he can take us through an example. I think what people who listen to this debate…. Sometimes these debates are a bit abstract, so perhaps the minister can take us through an example here of — if, for example, you were having, in that case, food initially seized or detained, which is what the first provision is, and then destroyed — what that process would be like in practice.

In other words, what happens at that point? What notice is given prior to the inspection, if any? What notice is given after? And then what notice is given prior, for example, to the destruction of the food in question?

[1510]

R. Lee: I would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: In the gallery right now, we have 24 students and, also, 12 adults from Confederation Park Elementary School. They are led by their teacher, Ms. Geetu Parmar. Earlier I talked to them regarding what’s discussed in this House today. I told them it’s about food classification. They are very interested in organic food, naturally. Would the House please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. N. Letnick: If the hon. member was here yesterday with his hon. critic and I…. We had all kinds of examples. It was a great day of providing examples for almost every possible section of the act. Actually, it took us to 6:30, if I remember correctly.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: Correct. Absolutely. Did you want this answer in French? I’m not sure if I’m allowed, based on the rules of the House. I have to actually put them in writing first and then get them translated so everybody can have it.

The Chair: Let’s get back to the answer.

Hon. N. Letnick: Here’s the example. Someone gets a tip that a producer is saying that their eggs are grade A when really they’re not, or they believe they’re not. An investigation happens. The producer gets a visit by the investigator. The investigator looks at the eggs, determines that there is a case to be made that perhaps they’re not the right grade, could take the eggs immediately or can come back later and take the eggs. They have to provide that written notice that we were talking about before.

The written notice, subject to the minister’s outline at some point, would describe why they took the eggs, how many eggs they took and the rest of it. Then there would be an analysis done on the eggs — I would presume, off site — to determine whether or not they met the grade. If they met the grade, then the producer would be advised of that, and if they didn’t make the grade, the producer would be advised.

Then the inspector has two choices, as per the section: to either return the eggs, if they are in a condition to be returned, or dispose of the eggs.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I could just say to the minister: making something better doesn’t necessarily mean you’re making it right. The issue here is protecting an innocent from the force of government.

Could I ask, perhaps, given the minister’s example right now…? Would the regulations require the inspector to take due care and attention while the product is seized and being inspected and analyzed? Could he at least tell us here that regulations will require some care be taken for that product?

I want to say here…. The minister may be too young to remember the tainted tuna issue of many years ago, where the tainted tuna wasn’t tainted. But the person
[ Page 10960 ]
who owned that tuna lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and went bankrupt, couldn’t survive. Why would the minister put an individual, a citizen of this province, in that potential risk area when he doesn’t have to?

[1515]

Will he at least tell us, if he won’t amend the act to protect the exception, that the regulations can be made so that due care and attention are made to seized goods, even though seized reasonably, until there is evidence that they are, in fact, improper?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, a very good discussion. I think we’re going to make the member happy. And I know it’s not about making the member happy. It’s about taking care of British Columbians — before she tells me that.

Under section 28(1), it says: “The minister may do, by order, one or both of the following:…(b) establish standards of practice for inspectors….” I’ll commit to you today that when we do that, the ministerial order will be to take due care to preserve the quality of food.

V. Huntington: Well, for that, I do thank the minister. That is an assurance that will be helpful in the long run, I hope, to those who have been offended by something the inspector did, and with reasonable cause. While I would prefer that the legislation protected the individual, at least the regulation will go some way to doing that.

L. Popham: My question is regarding the method of inspecting or seizing or detaining. I’m going to use an example for the minister.

If you’ve got some certified organic goods and some conventional goods, and they’re seized or detained or handled in any way by an inspector, there are very strict guidelines around conventional and certified organic goods being handled separately. Has that been taken into consideration in the procedures of inspection or seizures?

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, we haven’t set that out yet. The commitment I made is that the ministerial order would set out that they’d need to take due care and attention. When the ministerial order is crafted, that could be something that’s looked at, at that time.

L. Popham: Could the minister remind me, again, when that would be?

Hon. N. Letnick: To enlighten those that are watching, we are debating a new agricultural act. It has not passed yet. If it gets passed, once it gets passed, the regulations then, of course, would be crafted. Along with the regulations would also come the accompanying ministerial orders that go with that.

As to specific dates, we’ve committed to make sure that this is in place prior to the 2018 timeline, before organics must be certified. My assumption is that it’d be a lot before that, but if you want an outside date, that would be it.

L. Popham: While we’re talking about how the regulations will be crafted — obviously, regulations will be crafted in relation to section 37 — I think this is an appropriate time to bring this up.

[1520]

I believe that there are stakeholders that the minister has worked with up to this point, in making this legislation, who believe quite strongly that they will be very involved in the crafting of those regulations. Can the minister confirm that that’s true?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for acknowledging the consultation work that the ministry has done with several groups out there through this process. Some of the regulations, of course, would come with the old acts that are being moved into this new act, and I would imagine they’ll be tweaked and improved as they come through. Then, of course, the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. would be one of those stakeholder groups that the ministry would consult with on the regulations.

L. Popham: The regulations that are going to be tweaked and improved coming from other acts — will there be consultation on those? Will that be part of the process?

Hon. N. Letnick: I don’t think I can give an omnibus answer to that to cover everything. It would depend. If it’s something substantive, something new, then of course the ministry would want to consult with the affected parties, but a lot of it will be very basic transmission of the old regs into a format that’s acceptable under the new act.

L. Popham: Regulations, for example, that would pertain to certified organic farming and produce…. Anything that is in the purview of COABC…. As far as regulations go, will COABC be invited to give their input on every single regulation that would pertain to the “certified organic” part of this bill?

Hon. N. Letnick: As we move through the development of the regulations, those items that are directly impacting the organics sector, under the protected labels section of this act…. Those are things, of course, that we would consult with the organics sector on. But it’s possible, under protected labels, that there’d be other parts, other regulations, that aren’t specific to organics.

I can’t give you a blanket “yes, everything to do with protected labels will go to the organics,” because, quite frankly, you’d be wasting their time and their energy. We need to focus with them on those things that are specific to organics in the regulations.

[1525]

L. Popham: Do I have the minister’s assurance, then, that for everything that falls under protected labels that would have to do with certified organic products, COABC would be invited in to consult on those regulations? And if so, can the minister tell me, in his mind, is this a one-time consultation? Or do they get to walk with the minister through these regulations to make sure it’s a good fit for COABC?

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer to the first question is yes. On the second part, we would consult on the content and on the procedure of matter. When the reg is then ready to start to be drafted by the legal team, it’s at that point that we wouldn’t go back to COABC. We would have already consulted on the content and the procedure.

L. Popham: I understand that’s probably the normal process. At the point when they’ve been drafted, will there be a chance to go back to COABC to show them the legislation that’s been drafted that pertains to them to get further input to make sure that before it’s implemented, COABC understands exactly how this legislation will affect them?

Hon. N. Letnick: We can share the regulations with COABC under a confidentiality agreement.

L. Popham: I’m curious. Why would that not be an open and transparent process for everybody to participate in?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m going to read a legal text, just to make sure I get it in the record correctly for the member opposite. “It is a required procedure regarding sharing of draft legislation. Legal requirements and parliamentary practices apply.”

L. Popham: Okay, that’s fine. So those asked to participate or to review those regulations will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Fair enough.

[1530]

The group that’s asked to participate, then — and they’ve signed their agreements — how much input will they actually have? I’m asking this on behalf of an organization that believes very much in the intent the minister described this bill as having.

The concern now is that most of what the minister promised isn’t in this bill right now. We are depending on the minister to put what he promised into this bill by regulation. How can they be guaranteed that that will happen? The only way I can think of that they would be guaranteed is if they were asked to fully participate until those regulations are published.

Hon. N. Letnick: I think it’s, again, important to remember that the minister is accountable to the government, of course, and to the people of British Columbia, including the very important stakeholders like those that the hon. member is speaking about, which is the members of the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. and their supporters.

I’ve already said that the ministry would consult on issues, matters of importance, when it comes to organics, with COABC on making sure that the content is right in those regulations. It is possible — again, I can’t tie the hand of a future government — that this actually happens after the next election.

I have every hope to be the one to make sure that those regulations are in sync with what’s being advocated today. All I have to say is that we will work with COABC to make sure those regulations meet the intent that we’ve committed to, which is that by 2018, if you are advertising yourself in the province of B.C. as organic, you’ve been certified to do so.

L. Popham: I would like to have assurances in Hansard, because the minister told me earlier that Hansard was just as good as the law for holding people accountable. I would like assurances from the minister that COABC will be consulted on the regulations and that there will be full agreement by them that the regulations cover off everything that they’ve requested before the minister implements them.

Hon. N. Letnick: I think I’ve made my intentions clear, but again, I can’t fetter the responsibility and authority of a future government. Again, I would ask the members of COABC and the member opposite to look at the public record. I think I’ve been very clear on this matter.

L. Popham: I think the minister is making my point, which I tried to make yesterday. If the requirements are not written into legislation and they’re left to regulation, then the minister’s intentions are worth I’m not sure what, because he’s not even committing today to committing that he may be the minister when this happens. He may or not be the minister when these regulations are drafted.

He has made huge promises to the organics community. When he walked out with this legislation a couple of weeks ago and made an announcement, what he announced was the intention of what, perhaps, the regulations would be. Now he’s saying that he may not be the minister who actually implements the regulations.

I understand where the minister is coming from. He is in a tight spot. He can’t make those promises to me. But it’s my job to advocate for the people that I care about in the organic community who have put their trust in a minister to do what he promised them he would do, what he stood beside them in photographs and announced that he would do. That’s what I’m wanting assurances for right now.

There perhaps is a time in the future when the current Minister of Agriculture won’t be that minister. And that
[ Page 10962 ]
would be a terrible thing. [Laughter.] The minister, I believe, believes in the organic industry as much as I do.

[1535]

That’s why I think that together, we know that to strengthen this legislation, leaving most of it to regulation is, I would say, risky, because this minister might not be there, and he has just told us that. If he is not starting on these regulations tomorrow with the organic community, then I think he will have let the community down. I want the minister to walk side by side with the organic community until those regulations are released.

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s sounding more like question period than on specific legislation, but that’s okay. I’m happy to work on this with the hon. member.

Let me remind the House that the organic sector doesn’t want the legislation in right now. We’ve consulted with them. They do want the three years to transition. We are working with them to make sure they have the three years. It doesn’t mean we have to wait three years to actually get the legislation passed. I hope that we can get the legislation passed in this session and then start working on the regulations with the organic sector.

The member and the organic sector have my commitment on that. My commitment represents the commitment of this government. I certainly hope after the next election that this government will be in power once again to follow through on that commitment.

A. Dix: Just briefly on section 37. The minister described this section, I think aptly, as an improvement over the existing law. He will know — and this is of significance, I think, to all new law — that we have employment standards law in B.C. that has effectively been put in the hands of those least able to exercise power in society to enforce. We have laws on the books that are theoretically enforced but not enforced in fact.

The minister has suggested that this is an improvement, that this is, in effect, an addition of needed regulations in the agricultural economy. Is he of the view that the enforcements of such regulations, including those contained in section 37, will themselves require more resources?

Hon. N. Letnick: Most of the legislation that we find in front of us today is actually in place now under old legislation. The resources that we have available to our ministry and our partners like CFIA work together to make sure that it’s acted upon.

As we build the regulations for the protected label portion that we are planning to do in the very near future, subject to the passage of this bill, then we will determine whether or not more resources are necessary to make sure that they are enacted upon properly. Of course, then, that means I would have to advocate to government for the resources accordingly.

The other part of that is something that the hon. critic could ask me, perhaps in estimates — to do with the financial indications of this bill.

[1540]

A. Dix: Again on section 37, because I think it’s a significant point. While it’s true the regulations have not been drafted, they have been envisioned. One doesn’t create an abstraction of legislation. One has an idea where you’re going.

My understanding is that the minister, in association with this, announced $60,000 but no dollars for extension officers, no dollars for program support, no dollars for producer education and no dollars for enforcement. Given that, I assume, all of that is true, what he’s saying is, in a sense, that these amendments — some of which are based on existing law, some of which I think he described, himself, in our debate on this section of the legislation, as an improvement — would require, presumably, an improvement and an increase in the number of people involved in the process.

It makes no sense to have laws on inspections if there are no inspectors, in a sense. The laws do set a standard for people, but you also require that. On all sides, one would hope that it’s education that matters the most but that inspectors would be important.

I guess the question is: am I correct in saying that there are no dollars attached to the legislation? And does he think…? In particular, with respect to this section and the sections related to inspection, does he believe that the improvements, as he described them in our debate just a few minutes ago, are sufficient in and of themselves — like, law as public education — as opposed to requiring more people involved in their enforcement?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, section 37 is an improvement — an improvement that actually goes to help protect producers, to provide inspectors with more of a process that they have to go through to achieve our common goals as legislators here. But it doesn’t require more inspectors to do that. So the answer is no. There are no extra resources that would be required to achieve the laudable goals of section 37.

A. Dix: Just to be clear, what the minister is saying is that the time and effort per inspection is longer. Is that what he’s saying? Is that what he’s suggesting? I just want to fully understand the depth of his response.

Hon. N. Letnick: With the extra clarity that’s provided under section 37, actually, it’ll make the whole job of the inspectors more efficient. Therefore, you would not need more inspectors to achieve the same outcomes.

A. Dix: I’m just interested because the minister said in one response that more steps are required as a result
[ Page 10963 ]
of these sections and then, in the next response, that it was more efficient. The minister is taking part in his own théâtre de l’absurde over there. In any event, that doesn’t seem reasonable. In fact, if you are increasing the time required, then presumably, that has impacts on employment and on the process of inspection. So I think it’s a reasonable question to ask.

The minister has, I gather, given the assurance that the increased regulatory burden that he’s suggesting will not require more agricultural inspectors. I think that’s a very interesting point of view — given the cuts, over the last number of years, to the ministry — and presumably, one that he’s interested in. It’s one that…. I guess we’ll be forced to wait and see in Agriculture estimates, under this minister or…. You know, you never know. If you wait three months, there might be another one.

[1545]

Hon. N. Letnick: Just to make sure that the record is correct, since I became minister, there’s been a 23 percent increase in the budget of this ministry. I know the hon. member might be thinking of a different ministry or a different time — to say there have been cuts in this ministry. Actually, in fact, the budget for this ministry has gone up by 23 percent since I was first appointed minister in 2012.

A. Dix: The record of the government on this question is pretty clear. The priority they’ve given is pretty clear.

This is not a question of self-absorption. The reality is, as has been fully detailed by my colleague from Saanich South again and again, that support for agriculture has been missing year after year after year. What we are doing now, to the extent we’re doing it — and we’re happy to be involved in this debate — is playing catch-up.

With that, I’ll be happy to, unless the minister would like to say more, close the debate on section 37, one of his favourite sections of the bill.

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, I think the results speak for themselves. We had a record year last year — $12.3 billion in agrifood sales, 5.9 percent more than the year before. The year before was a record year as well — $3 billion in exports, another record year. We had a record year in cherries. We have more products in B.C. in many classifications, not only year to year but forever.

I think if the member would like to travel with me around the province this summer, maybe spend a month on the road and talk to farmers and ranchers, he will find that agriculture is alive and well in B.C. We are looking forward to achieving $15 billion in agrifood sales by 2020, thanks to a great plan that we have, a five-year plan that people in the industry helped to craft.

Once again, I have to remind the member opposite that we increased the budget for the land commission. We’ve increased the budget for BCFIRB. We continue to put more resources in this ministry because it is a priority of government, and it’ll continue to be my priority and the priority of all the people involved in this ministry — for as long as I live, anyway. Let’s put it that way.

If he wants to rebuttal that, I can have more stuff to throw at him.

The Chair: Member on section 37.

A. Dix: On section 37. Of course, the minister is not on the section, but I appreciate that he wants to extend the debate.

I’d just make this point. We’ve lost 2,000 jobs in mining in the last year. You want to throw statistics? If he’s saying that improvements in agriculture are to the credit of the government, then the minister responsible for mining is responsible for those failures. He wants to take credit? The 35,000 jobs we’ve lost in forestry that have hurt rural B.C. are the responsibility of the Minister of Forests. He can take responsibility for that.

My point is that over time, the government has failed. We have been encouraging and making this an issue. My colleague from Saanich South has done a superb job of doing that, and the result of that is that, finally, we’re getting a little bit of response on this important area from the government.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m happy to close debate on section 37.

My point is just one to correct the record. The hon. member stood up and said that we had cutbacks in Agriculture in our budget. It’s not true. We’ve had an increase of 23 percent since 2012. That is significant, given the challenges that we have, of course….

Interjections.

The Chair: The Chair would like to hear the answer, please.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair.

L. Popham: It’s hard for me to listen to the minister boast about an increase to the budget of the Agricultural Land Commission when we know exactly what’s happening in that commission. We know exactly what’s happened with the agricultural land reserve. So the minister’s argument is absolutely lost on me.

It is also lost on me when I hear about the lofty goals of the minister, when he continues to build a house of cards around agriculture by not having extension services and field services built into this ministry. One of the foundations of a strong agriculture economy in a province is having a government that supports extension services and field services, which this government absolutely does not.
[ Page 10964 ]

The house of cards will continue to be built until we realize that our crop productions are dropping in areas, and we don’t know why. That’s already happening, and it’s all to do with underfunding of field services. That’s a debate we’re probably going to have in estimates and not in section 37. Obviously, we’re all very eager to get there.

[1550]

The minister mentioned, about section 37, that some of this legislation has already come into effect in the Animal Health Act. So I’d like to hear an example in the Animal Health Act of how a section like section 37 in this act has worked or an example of how it’s been used.

Hon. N. Letnick: A $1.1 million increase in the base budget for the Agricultural Land Commission — that’s a 33 percent increase. A twenty-five percent tax credit for people who are donating food to registered non-profits. PST exemptions for telescopic handlers, skid steers and other things. We continue to fund B.C. ag in the classroom. Eight million dollars over the last four years for the Buy Local program. And the list goes on and on.

We’ve seen record growth in asparagus, beets, cauliflower, peppers, cattle, milk, chicken, salmon. And one that’s really close to the member’s heart — honey — has gone from just over two million pounds to almost four million pounds last year.

We can continue in estimates, absolutely. But I can throw back anything the hon. member has when it comes to how good agriculture is doing.

To specifically answer her question on the legislation, the answer is none.

L. Popham: So this legislation, which the minister touted as being in another act and as working great, has no examples?

Hon. N. Letnick: There has been no occasion to use it at this point.

L. Popham: So we actually have no idea if it’s good legislation at all. We have absolutely no idea. That’s a problem for me.

But if the minister wants to talk about the general agricultural support in this province, he’s really opened the door up. We’re supposed to be on section 37, but it relates to funds, and I would like to just mention about the Agricultural Land Commission and his supposed increase.

One of the reasons why we see an increase in the Agricultural Land Commission is because he’s created a commission which costs more to operate and is less effective. We’ve created two zones so that he and his pals may take land out of the agricultural land reserve a lot easier in a zone that some cabinet members don’t believe in.

Interjection.

L. Popham: A member in the room said he hopes so. There you go. That’s where we’re coming from.

Let’s be honest about agriculture. The minister is going to talk to me about the support for apiculture and honeybees in this province. We don’t have enough inspectors. Here’s his house of cards that he’s building, and it’s like ten storeys high at this point, because we’re not tracking diseases in apiculture the way that we should. If you don’t have the supports for agriculture in place, it’s great for a photo op to go out there with a honeybee. But seriously, that bee is going to sting you in the end if you don’t start treating that part of agriculture properly. We need pollinators.

Here we are in 37. The minister said that this works great in other acts. We have no examples. I guess we’re going to have to just keep our fingers crossed, and perhaps it works or perhaps it doesn’t.

What we should be concerned about if we’re concerned about the strength of agriculture is: how does this affect a farmer? In the end, this is about farming, this bill.

Inspections of agricultural goods on farms — we need to know if this works. We need to know if it’s fair.

We need to know, if their goods are seized or detained, if this is a fair process for the farmers. And if the farmers are not being treated fair, is there a proper appeal process? Is there a proper process that keeps track of the goods that are being seized? That’s all we want to know.

Does it work? We don’t know if it works, so I think this discussion is very important.

If the minister at any point could tell us, in the future, if a section like this in any act is used and if it works well or doesn’t work well, we would appreciate some information on something that we’re going to have to pass, because we don’t have enough members on this side of the House to stop any legislation that there may be questions about. We have to trust the minister. I’m trusting the minister that he actually has researched this act to make sure it works and farmers are treated fairly. That’s my point.

[1555]

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, I could lob the ball back and talk about the land commission and all the other things that are going well in our province, but then I’ll probably get the ball lobbed back and we’ll be here forever. So I’ll tell you what. We’ll just save this for estimates, and we’ll continue discussing how both sides of the House are passionate about agriculture in British Columbia.

Getting back to the legislation, if I may, this section 37 is about having a reasonable belief that an offence has occurred. It’s standard language in legislation. What we try to do is to try to work with the producers and the farmers to never get to the point where we’re actually seizing these products in preparation for a day in court. That’s the good work that the ministry has done, and we will continue to try to follow that outline.

Section 37 approved on division.
[ Page 10965 ]

On section 38.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of section 38?

Hon. N. Letnick: The rationale for this section. It clarifies that all costs associated with seizure are to be borne by the person from whom things were seized.

This is mostly a new provision from the FSA and AHA, modified to fit the FAPCA legislation, with some crossover from one of the other acts, the ACQA. The section is also found in the Animal Health Act and the Fish and Seafood Act.

It requires the person responsible for anything seized, disposed of or destroyed to be responsible for all costs. Government may recover these costs through the courts. Persons for whom these things are seized, disposed of or destroyed cannot sue government to compensate for the loss of the value of things seized, disposed of or destroyed.

L. Popham: The minister mentioned…. This is a change in legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is a change. This is a new provision from FSA and AHA, but it is modified to fit FAPCA, with some crossover from one of the other pieces of legislation.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It is found in the Animal Health Act already, which passed through the House recently, and the Fish and Seafood Act, which also recently passed through the House.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what he’s attempting to remedy with this change in legislation?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair. You missed an exciting 15 minutes, but that’s okay. We’ll try to make this exciting for you.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, yes. Maybe he can chair estimates. I’m sure that’ll be exciting as well.

[1600]

On section 38. Basically, if something happens in 37, where a product is detained or taken, section 38 says that the government will not be responsible for the costs.

The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Kensington.

A. Dix: Close. Vancouver-Kingsway. But that’s excellent. They’re both places where these issues are important.

Just specifically to the minister, because his ministry will have, no doubt, kept statistics around the cost of seizures annually, under existing legislation: what are those costs?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. As I said just a few minutes ago, this section is the last resort. The government tries to do everything possible to avoid getting to a place where it has to seize for evidence. Given that the ministry has been successful in working through the program and not getting to this point, there are no records because there have been none. No seizures.

A. Dix: Just to understand, there have been no seizures and therefore no costs of seizures in 2015. Have there been seizures in the last ten years?

Hon. N. Letnick: Not as far as the memory of those people that are with me, no.

A. Dix: I see. That’s fascinating.

V. Huntington: Could the minister perhaps tell us how he intends to protect the innocent from this overtly punitive section if the individual didn’t do anything wrong, if the inspector made a mistake in his reasonable seizure?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. This is about evidence that is seized potentially for court action. In that particular case, under section 38, we are basically protecting the government from having to recover those costs.

V. Huntington: What is there specifically in this section that says an individual whose product was seized but the product turned out not to be tainted, not to be something that the inspector would have evidence to pursue…? What is it in this section that protects that individual from the costs of the seizure, the analysis and the cost of disposal if it’s necessary to dispose?

Hon. N. Letnick: I have to say, once again, this particular section is about protecting the government.

V. Huntington: I’m here to protect the innocent. I can’t believe that the government would pursue a section that doesn’t look at the exception. How could the minister possibly represent a piece of legislation that could penalize somebody for not doing anything wrong?

[1605-1610]

Hon. N. Letnick: I really do understand the concern, and I appreciate where the member is coming from. But this is standard language in the acts. You can find it in the new Fish Act. You can find it in the Animal Health
[ Page 10966 ]
Act. You can find it in the Food Safety Act, which is not an act from Agriculture.

It says in the Food Safety Act, section 12, subsection 7, that: “The owner and any person entitled to or in possession of food seized, detained, marked, condemned, quarantined, decontaminated, denatured, disposed of, destroyed or recalled under this section are jointly and severally liable to the government for all expenses incurred in doing any of those things.” It’s there to make sure that government is protected when it does its work under section 37.

Having said that, we have already committed to putting into practice the requirement that the inspectors handle the products with due care and attention. I’m not too sure if those were the words that we used before. Whatever the words were before are the right ones. We’ve have already made sure that that’s in there. The written document that will be provided will have a lot of detail as to the conditions of the seizure and the amounts of the seizure, the place and things of that nature.

While I do understand where the member is coming from, this provision is common in several acts to make sure that the costs associated with seizing are to be borne by the person from whom things are seized.

V. Huntington: Well, I understand that. Again, my concern is with the exception. While the minister’s job is, I suppose, to protect the government from the citizen, my job is to protect the citizen from the government.

I just find it unfortunate that there is not some way to recognize the exception and the innocence of an individual who did nothing wrong. This requires the government to obtain the costs of all the seizure and, I assume, the analysis and the storage of the product from that individual. It’s, I think, just a very unfortunate piece of legislation.

[1615]

It doesn’t matter if it’s in other pieces of legislation. The fact is there should be an exception built into all of these sections. If you go back to the seafood one, I think I said the same thing to the same type of section at that time.

I just, again, reiterate. I’m disappointed when I see this type of legislation anywhere, and it’s unfortunate that that we continue to see it come forward.

Section 38 approved on division.

Section 39 approved.

On section 40.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain section 40?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 40 says: “Operator not to be subject to both administrative penalty and offence.” The rationale here ensures that persons cannot be convicted of the same offence twice.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of 41?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, I can.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you for all the advice from the members opposite.

This particular section sets out how moneys may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown. “An administrative penalty…may be recovered as a debt due to the government.” All administrative penalties must be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

On section 43.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain section 43 now?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 43 sets out procedural matters pertaining to legal proceedings. These provisions are modelled from the AHA and the FSA.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of that?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Under this, it would set out the limitation period during which offences may be prosecuted — for example, two years from the date the facts are known to the minister.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an agricultural example of what happens if a farm is related to this?

Hon. N. Letnick: Let’s use the egg example from before. Someone is found in contravention of the grading act. Their property is seized. Evidence is put into an evidence container of some kind. They would have up to two years for the offence to be prosecuted.

L. Popham: In a prior section, a person was not able to be fined and prosecuted for the same act. But if it’s two different acts over two different timelines, you can have two different types of penalties?

[1620]

Hon. N. Letnick: If you are convicted — for example, on an administrative penalty — you can’t then go be convicted under the courts, and vice versa. So if you’re con-
[ Page 10967 ]
victed in the courts, we can’t then give you a penalty for the same offence.

L. Popham: Would FIRB follow this legislation if they’re looking into an animal abuse case? If you’re being convicted, which law overrides which law?

Hon. N. Letnick: The B.C. Farm Industry Review Board, also known as FIRB, operates under its own legislation. It has nothing to do with this piece of legislation.

L. Popham: That’s what I thought. Can both bills affect one farm at the same time? Or does FIRB legislation…? Can both happen at the same time?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of how that would happen?

Hon. N. Letnick: You could have a farmer who’s offside on the grading regulations, as per this legislation. Also, part of the farm could be growing blueberries, and under the regulations, they might be doing something offside on the blueberry cannons, and then that would be subject to FIRB’s intervention. So yes, you can have both at the same time.

L. Popham: I’m just thinking about protected labels. If somebody is claiming to be certified organic and they’re a chick producer, but the standards that they’re growing the chicks are not — they’re conventional over certified organic standards — can any seizures that happen under this act be live animal seizures? Or does that fall under FIRB when it’s a live animal?

Hon. N. Letnick: Under this act, you would most likely be looking to seize the eggs, because it’s a food, not the chickens. So I still don’t see the relationship with B.C. FIRB. Perhaps the member would like to enlighten us.

[1625]

L. Popham: I’m basing my assumption that this is complaint-driven. Somebody complains that a chick hatchery is claiming to be certified organic, but they’re not. So the practices of hatching and selling the chicks under false pretences would be reported to the government enforcement officer around protected labels, I guess, but also because it’s a live animal product.

Some of the practices of doing certified organic chick hatching and conventional chick hatching are much different in a lot of ways. So there would be the act of tipping the beaks. There would be the act of immunizing them, which would be put into question in some ways. Animal husbandry practices…. It’s complicated, but you could actually have two acts coming down on one farm. I’m just wondering: at what point does it become a FIRB issue, and at what point does it stay the ministry issue?

Hon. N. Letnick: If I understand the scenario correctly, and it’s a very case-specific scenario, perhaps a farmer was not taking proper care of their animals and at the same time also claiming to purport that they were graded in a certain way when they weren’t — for instance, saying that they were organic when they were not.

In the former case, you would not actually have FIRB initially. You would potentially have the BCSPCA that would come in and adjudicate whether or not the case is true on the harm to animals. Then, on the other piece, as to saying you’re organic when you’re not, that’s when our inspection regime would kick in. So yes, it’s possible that both happen at the same time.

Sections 43 and 44 approved.

On section 45.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me if the penalties discussed in section 45 are different than penalties in the past?

Hon. N. Letnick: The penalties are set out in the statute, as the member so keenly has mentioned. They are maximum that can be assessed upon successful conviction through court proceedings. Of course, they are a maximum. The court could apply a lesser penalty.

[1630]

The penalties apply to each day that the offence occurs or continues. Specifically for those that are watching, the maximum penalty is $5,000 or six months in prison or both, for offences by individuals, and a maximum penalty of $20,000 for offences by corporations. The penalty amounts are the same as currently exist under the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act, which was enacted in 2000, and the Food Products Standards Act, enacted in 1990.

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

On section 47.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether subsection 47(2)(i)(ii) is a conflict with the definition of agricultural product, which is a product that “is not intended for human consumption”?

[1635]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for her detailed analysis of the legislation. I will admit that it could have been worded better. However, it still works from a legal sense. You have to look at it as “(i)(i) ungraded food, and…on grading, are found to be unfit for use as food.” That applies to the first (i). The “agricul-
[ Page 10968 ]
tural products” here is still consistent with the definition of “agricultural product” in section 1.

V. Huntington: I’m sorry, Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, but I don’t understand what he just said. To me, the only way that makes sense and doesn’t conflict with the definition is to strike the words “that, on grading, are found to be unfit for use as food,” because agricultural products, by definition, are products not intended for human consumption. You couldn’t grade an agricultural product and then declare it unfit for human consumption, because it is by definition not intended for human consumption.

I, personally, see no way around it except to put a period after “agricultural products” and strike “that, on grading, are found to be unfit for use as food.”

Hon. N. Letnick: In the spirit of cooperation, to make sure that we have the best legislation possible, we are going to check with the drafters of the legislation to see if our interpretation is different and if it requires different wording. We’ll come back to this before the end of this legislation if that’s okay.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair.

[1640]

L. Popham: Mine is just a general question. Can the minister see, in any way, farmers markets being affected by these regulations? Has he consulted the farmers market association?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ve been advised that we did consult with farmers markets when we came up with the certified organic regime that this legislation is working on, but we didn’t actually consult with them on this piece of legislation itself.

L. Popham: Well, some of the items in the regulations, I think, would possibly pertain to them. So I’m just wondering if the minister could maybe communicate with them at some point soon to make sure that they’ve gone over the regulations that are going to be moved into this legislation.

Hon. N. Letnick: As I said before, we will consult with those stakeholder groups that are necessary to consult with and that are impacted by the regulations in a significant manner. If it turns out there is something in there that the farmers markets would be able to provide us with some advice on through the regulations, we will endeavour to do so.

V. Huntington: I’m wondering if you can, perhaps, give me some advice here. I’m not sure how the process would work here. If we move to pass this section, then are we not passing the language as indicated, unless there is an amendment on the floor that we can speak to?

Could you or, perhaps, the minister further explain the process?

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, the intent is to…. I will move that we stand down section 47, and we’ll pick it up off the table before we complete the bill, if possible. We’ll stand down section 47 for now, once all the questions are done on section 47.

Section 47 stood down.

Sections 48 and 49 approved.

On section 50.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain this section to us?

Hon. N. Letnick: The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations for the recovery of administrative penalties.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting penalties authorizing the imposition of administrative penalties; prescribing the sections of the act or regs for which administrative penalties may be imposed; respecting the amount of the administrative penalty that may be imposed, including “(i) providing for greater penalties for subsequent contraventions, (ii) setting the maximum and minimum penalties…(iii) providing, if the penalty is expressed as a range, factors to be considered in the determination of the appropriate penalty, and (iv) prescribing the grounds on which the penalty may be reduced”; respecting notices for administrative penalties, including the form, content and service of the notice; prescribing the time in which an administrative penalty must be paid, disputed or made subject of an agreement; and providing for payment of an administrative penalty by instalments.

I would think that’s adequate at this point.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me which act this is coming forward from?

Hon. N. Letnick: Administrative penalties are a feature of many modern pieces of legislation. You’ll find it in the Forest Practices Act, the Fish and Seafood Act, the Animal Health Act and others.

[1645]

L. Popham: Is there already a schedule of penalties laid out by other acts?

Hon. N. Letnick: The legislation says, under section 52, that the penalty prescribed in this section, section (1)(c),
[ Page 10969 ]
must be not be greater than $5,000. Specifically, a schedule of penalties would be something that we would be looking to create as we create the regulations.

L. Popham: So there’s not currently a schedule that we’re going to be using coming from a different act?

Hon. N. Letnick: No, there’s currently not a schedule of penalties.

Section 50 approved.

On section 51.

L. Popham: In this section, “Other regulation-making powers,” can the minister explain to me the intent of this section and if it’s unusual from any other bill that we have seen?

Hon. N. Letnick: So some aspects of the act require supporting regulations to better enable its implementation. Perhaps exemptions would be regulations that are made to exempt a class of persons, foods, agriculture products, facilities or things from one or more parts of the regulations.

Exemptions are necessary in situations where a regulation should be limited in its application. Service and deemed receipt of a notice…. Regulations may be made respecting service and deemed receipt of a notice, which is necessary in situations where giving notice has legal ramifications, such as compliance and enforcement, inspection, seizure and destruction.

It could also be under powers respecting administrators and audit of certification programs. It could also provide information, so you would, in the regulations, prescribe types of information that can be disclosed. And other powers.

L. Popham: So in part (1): “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting a class of persons, food, agricultural products, facilities or things from one or more provisions of the regulations.”

This, to me, seems similar to section 35, where the minister may make exemptions as well. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, they are similar. One is section 35: “The minister may exempt by order”. And here: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting….” Both exempt. One is by order, and one is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

L. Popham: So is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council…? Would that be something that would be transparent to the public?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes. All regulations are public, so therefore it would be accessible.

L. Popham: So if an exemption was made, how would we find out about that?

[1650]

Hon. N. Letnick: All regulations are packaged together with the law. She could find it, or the public could find it, under B.C. Laws website.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of an exemption that might take place?

[1655]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for asking for an example. We’ve come up with a few, but I think the easiest one is…. It says: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting a class of persons, food, agricultural products, facilities or things from one or more provisions of the regulations.”

Let’s say we come up with a regulation for fish, applying a grade to fish, and we exempt any fish that’s inspected at a federally regulated plant. So that would be exempt from the regulation, applying to fish, regarding grading. I’m not saying that that would happen. I’m just saying that it provides some colour to the legislation, an example.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what is considered a class of persons?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite. The legal term is a class of persons. In common language, we could substitute the word “group” — a group of persons, some people that have something in common when it comes to agriculture — for instance, all egg producers, all wine producers. Those could be a class of persons.

L. Popham: I appreciated the minister’s example. He said he had a couple more. Could he give me an example of an exemption as far as a class of persons goes, a real-life example of why you would do an exemption? I’m not quite clear, if you’re making regulations, on how somebody would be exempt. I get the federal part of this. Are we just exempting any federal slaughterhouses, federally licensed fish farms, anything with a federal licence? Is this mainly what we’re talking about for exemptions?

Hon. N. Letnick: Maybe another example would help. If someone is producing eggs, as long as they’re producing it for animal food, they wouldn’t have to go through the grading provisions. That’s, again, a hypothetical example. Hypothetically, you could say that the difference, as I said before, between fish that’s graded…. But if it’s coming through a federal plant, it doesn’t have to be through here.

Again, these are just hypothetical examples to try to put some life into the legislation. I don’t believe that we are using this currently. The new legislation will come
[ Page 10970 ]
in, plus the regulations to accompany it. As we consult again — with COABC, for example — if something is found, through that consultation, that needs this provision, then the provision is already in the legislation, and it gives us the ability to bring in the regulation at that point.

[1700]

L. Popham: I guess I’m wondering about the protected label and how…. In the minister’s mind, can he see any examples how there would be an exemption from production around the protected label part of this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: No, I can’t think of any right now.

Section 51 approved.

On section 52.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me: are there any powers given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that are different than in any other acts or bills that we see?

Hon. N. Letnick: I think she’s referring to section 52(1). That is in every statute.

L. Popham: I don’t understand that. Could the minister explain that to me?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll try to say it a different way. It’s a standard provision that’s common amongst all the acts under the requirements under the Interpretation Act.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether subsection (3)(a) could apply to a class of persons who owned or distributed product that was seized and for which, subsequently, there was no evidence found by the inspector to proceed under the act. Could a regulation under this section be developed that would excuse that individual from the costs of the seizure and disposal?

Hon. N. Letnick: Just for clarity, if I can paraphrase what I think I heard so that I can get a right answer. Are you saying that you’re wondering whether section 52(3)(a) would give the government the ability to create a regulation that would exempt a class of people from the provision of payment of costs that we discussed just a few minutes ago? Yes? Okay. The answer is no. It can’t happen.

V. Huntington: Could the minister explain to me why that is not the case, why people found innocent — there was no evidence that the product ought to have been seized in the first place or no evidence that permits proceeding under the act…? Why cannot that be treated as a class of persons or a class of product or food?

[1705]

Hon. N. Letnick: As we were going back and forth with different scenarios, it occurred to me that this is regulation. The other is section 35; it’s the legislation. You can’t adopt something in regulation that thwarts the intent of the legislation. That’s one of the reasons why you couldn’t adopt a regulation that would basically overrule what’s already in the legislation.

V. Huntington: Well, normally I would have thought that, too, except that this is a very particular wording in this subsection. Unlike all the others, it refers to regulations that may establish classes of persons to which this act applies. Everywhere else you see regulations that apply to regulations that are developed. But this is specifically a regulation that allows them — the minister or Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — to establish a class of persons to which the act applies.

Thus, I ask whether you could create a class of persons who were innocent of any wrongdoing and therefore would not be subject to the costs of a seizure.

[1710]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Just to advise the member, we are looking at the provision — the wording issue that we talked about a little while ago. I think staff have come up with some change to the wording that will satisfy everyone. As we’ve said, the wording is legally correct but unclear so we’ll try to make it clearer, to the satisfaction of everyone here.

While we’re doing that, this particular one, (3)(a), is there to help interpret section 2, “Application,” and it’s only on section 2, the application. It says in the text: “(3) A regulation made under this Act may (a) establish classes of persons, food, agricultural products, facilities or things to which this Act applies….”

The key words here are “Act applies,” which sends you back, if you are a lawyer, to section 2. It says: “This Act applies to food and agricultural products….” The regulations, if enacted, would be there to help interpret that. For example, in 2(b), it says: “in respect of which a grading program….” There you could have: it only applies to apples and not oranges.

L. Popham: My question is on Section 52(4)(a), which highlights geographic areas. I’m wondering why that would be in there — and an example of what that would mean.

[1715]

Hon. N. Letnick: A good example of this is the VQA system, where we use appellations like…. Well, last year I was at the Golden Mile Bench celebrating the new appellation there, in the southern Okanagan. It’s already present in the ACQA, and it’s coming over to this act as well.
[ Page 10971 ]

L. Popham: “A regulation made under this Act may limit the application of the regulation to one or more…geographic areas.” It might be just that we’ve been doing this for a while, but could the minister explain that in plain English so I get what that means?

My instant reaction to this is: are we going to be looking at regulations in different zones of the province — some zones apply and some don’t? Of course, I’m thinking of our new zone system within the agricultural land reserve. I just want to make sure that this has nothing to do with some activities being allowed by regulation in one zone and not the other.

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, we’re already doing this in the ACQA. I’m going to try to rephrase the example I gave before, because it’s one I’m very familiar with, as I was there.

The Golden Mile Bench is in the Okanagan. It’s in the south part of the Okanagan — actually one of the most beautiful places in the world for wine, not only the consumption of B.C. wine but also the [French was spoken]. It is, as I said in French, one of the best places in the world to not only drink the wine but to experience wine. The Golden Mile Bench is a great geographic area.

The legislation anticipates that we might want to say: you can only label yourself as the Golden Mile Bench if you’re in this geographic area.

I do remember being at Quails’ Gate Winery, oh, six years ago. It was getting to dusk — just the beautiful orchards over the lake. It’s not the Golden Mile Bench area, obviously. This is a little further north in West Kelowna. I turned to a colleague of mine and said: “Doesn’t this remind you of the south of France?” My colleague turned to me and said: “It reminds me of British Columbia.” That was one of my first lessons in how beautiful and how rare this is.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, I did. I did get re-elected after that one.

That’s what it’s used for. It’s used to identify certain geographic areas.

Again, I’d like to thank all the farmers and ranchers and fishers out there for the opportunity to look at specific areas in our province, like the Golden Mile Bench, to make sure the world knows that we have some of the best products right here in British Columbia.

[1720]

L. Popham: I have a background in the wine industry myself, and I’ve been part of that discussion for over a decade, when appellations started to come into the discussion around wine labelling.

Does the minister consider this to be really specific to the wine industry, or are we going to see labelling…? I don’t know of anything that restricts an agricultural product from identifying itself in its region now, so I’m just wondering.

I’m thinking about Vancouver Island potatoes, for example. Is this to restrict somebody from — I don’t know — Cranbrook from saying they’re growing Vancouver Island potatoes? Are we just trying to break this down so that the identifier on the labelling is accurate to where it’s coming from?

Hon. N. Letnick: I appreciate the member’s knowledge of the wine industry and the honey industry — and, actually, agriculture in general. I’m sure her knowledge is extensive.

Also, I understand that the member does represent Saanich South and, therefore, has an intimate knowledge of Vancouver Island. I would suggest that perhaps the people of Vancouver Island might some day want to promote a product that is only a Vancouver Island product and use that as a way of marketing their product. If they did, they could apply to government for some protection under a protected product label, like this act envisions, and then the geography issue would be one that would apply to Vancouver Island only — similar to the example we were discussing before for the wonderful southern Okanagan and the Golden Mile Bench.

L. Popham: Basically, we can do that now. We can advertise ourselves from any region that we want and use it to market our products. But this would be stopping other people from using our geographical label?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes.

L. Popham: Okay, so then thinking about the province as a whole province. On the discussion of wine, when we see wine that’s bottled in B.C. and not grown and produced in B.C., is there any way of using that possible regulation so that wine actually can’t have “B.C.” on it at all? If it’s just being brought in and bottled here, is there a way that we could geographically protect our province from wine that’s not really B.C. wine so that it’s actually a lot more transparent to consumers?

Currently wine like that has a special section in our liquor stores that says “Bottled in B.C.,” and I believe that it has to say on the back of the bottle that it’s bottled in B.C. rather than grown and bottled in B.C. Would this type of regulation make consumers be less confused about that specific issue?

[1725]

Hon. N. Letnick: As the example we have now with organics, you come up with a protected label that says if you are going to advertise as organic, you must be certified to do so. That comes in with the regulations.

The same thing could happen with wine. You could come up with a protected label that says “100 percent B.C.
[ Page 10972 ]
wine,” and then with that would come the companion regulations that would determine what the conditions are to be able to use that moniker of 100 percent B.C. wine. I would imagine, with 100 percent B.C. wine, you would say that the grapes were grown in British Columbia. But again, that’s speculative right now.

The protected label gives the government, through regulation, the ability to provide that label.

L. Popham: I guess I’m thinking that if we had a different administrator and their main job was to certify that products from B.C. were B.C. and that’s it, could a regulation be made under section 52 that defined one geographical region as British Columbia?

The reason why I’m bringing this up is if you’re having certified-B.C…. That is a very big possibility. I mean, almost anybody could set up a new administrator that would certify products from B.C., and that’s the only stipulation, really. For example, beef could be started in B.C., finished in Alberta and sold back into B.C. Is there any way that this geographical identifier would hamper any of that marketability?

Hon. N. Letnick: The notion of the protected label is that it applies provincewide already. If you’re looking for something that goes out of the province and comes back or something that defines a protected label for wine or something that defines a protected label for organics, it’s already for the whole province.

What this does is it gives you the potential to limit it to certain areas of the province, if you want. From the examples the hon. member has provided, I think what she would want is for this not to be enacted on those examples that she brought. She would want it to apply to the whole province. But I won’t presume to answer for her.

L. Popham: I wasn’t saying I wanted it one way or the other. I was just trying to understand it.

Section 52 approved.

On section 53.

[1730]

L. Popham: I’m assuming this might indicate the three-year transition the minister was discussing earlier, but perhaps he could explain it to me in case it doesn’t.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, this enables the orderly transition from the old to the new legislation. One section allows for licences to continue to have legal effect until the new licensing regime under the Animal Health Act is operational. Another one directs that directions from an inspector under the existing statutes continue to have legal effect under the new act.

Another shows that the regulations may be made as required to provide for the orderly transition to the new act for a period of three years after the date the new act comes into force. In the event that a previous regulation or licence is not consistent with the new act, the old regulation or licence is deemed to be valid until an appropriate amendment can be made under the new act.

L. Popham: So in section (4), “…ends 3 years after the date on which that subsection comes into force,” that’s to be determined by the minister?

Hon. N. Letnick: Other than bringing the regulations to cabinet for consideration, the minister has no role to play in section (4). It’s pretty de facto. The authority to make or amend regulations ends in three years. It’s not that at some point the minister can come in with something in the meantime.

Let me just read this section again: “The authority to make or amend a regulation under subsection (3), but not the authority to repeal a regulation made under that subsection, ends 3 years after the date on which that subsection comes into force.” There’s no leeway here. It ends after three years.

L. Popham: So after it comes into force, three years later, everything has to be transitioned?

While we’re waiting for the answer, my point is: we don’t know the start date yet. Correct?

[1735]

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 53(3) gives us the authority to make regulations to help with the orderly transition from the old acts to the new act. That authority ends three years after the act is passed — if the act is passed, of course, which we hope will happen in the near future.

Sections 53 to 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

L. Popham: I would like to propose an amendment to this section. The amendment reads as follows:

[SECTION 60, is amended by deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough and adding the following text highlighted by underline:

60 This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on or before January 1, 2018.]

On the amendment.

L. Popham: The reason why I’m putting this amendment forward is because I think that if it is such an important piece of legislation and if the minister is very serious about the amendments that he’s putting forward…. He has himself stated that they are to protect consumers and enhance the certified organic farm-
[ Page 10973 ]
ing industry. He has also stated that he wants this to be working by 2018. That’s his goal. He did a press release around that goal.

In order to show my support for what he’s trying to do, I think we should put a date into the legislation so that at least that part is set in stone. Then we have a job ahead of us of meeting that goal. If that’s a serious goal, I want the minister to consider this amendment.

Hon. N. Letnick: Hon. Chair, could I get a five-minute recess, please?

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:37 p.m. to 5:46 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Hon. N. Letnick: On the proposed amendment to section 60, I’d just like to reiterate that the government is very serious about bringing in this new act. This new act modernizes three acts that are quite dated. It will help in including the provisions that would provide for people who are going to advertise their products as organic to be certified, which would make sure that the public has a greater confidence in the organic food that they’re eating — that it has actually been certified.

The government will move with relative speed, I’m sure, to get this act passed, should the House vote in favour of the act. I understand the members opposite desire to have a commitment in here that the act comes into force on or before January 1, 2018, but I have to remind the member that in our consultations with the organic community, the vast majority of them said they needed some time for transition. They want that time for transition.

The act, if things work out well with the House and the act gets approval, would be passed, and then sometime between now and the 2018 timeline that the industry has asked for, we would bring in the regulations — in consultation with the affected stakeholders, as we’ve already discussed — so that we can have protected labels in place for that 2018 timeline. So I don’t see the need for this proposed amendment.

The government has made it very clear. It has the same desire as the organic community does to see this brought into effect in an appropriate, timely manner, and that’s exactly the intention that we have. I do not support the amendment that’s been proposed.

A. Dix: I’m happy to speak in favour of the, I think, very thoughtful and supportive amendment by my colleague from Saanich South.

The Minister of Agriculture suggests that the purpose of the amendment may, in some way, interfere with providing adequate time for the production of regulations. Of course, nothing could be farther from the case. In fact, the member for Saanich South has used the benchmarks put forward by the minister himself in forming the amendment.

What the purpose of this is…. We understand, as legislators, that there is an increasing tendency on the part of government to use the regulatory process, as opposed to the legislative process, to be specific. This is partly a reflection, I suppose, of the complexity of modern government. But nonetheless, in a section such as this, a section bringing into force a piece of legislation, it is by no means necessary.

[1750]

In fact, I think what the very elegant and artful amendment by the member for Saanich South does is provide, specifically, a time limit to that process of regulation. It gives certainty to the industry. This is when, after all is said and done, we are going to have this act — which is very important to them, which they fought for, for years — brought into force.

I think that’s a very reasonable thing to say. It says today, here in March of 2016, that in January of 2018, which was plenty of time to go through the regulatory process…. In that time, we will have a new regime in place, a regime that people have called for. It provides plenty of time. That’s exactly what the member for Saanich South has proposed.

This has been called for. Action in this area has been called for. I recall back in 2012 attending a meeting of the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia with the member for Saanich South when she was leading on these very issues. The government had laid off people in this area. The member for Saanich South led on these questions, and the government was finally engaged in consultations in January 2015.

Now people are saying that a provision that says the act that flows from those consultations and that will be put into place on January 1, 2018, is too restrictive on the government? It provides plenty of time, and it also provides necessary certainty. I might add that is something, when you’re in business…. In any agriculture-related business, whether it’s farming or others, that kind of certainty, I think, would be very helpful.

The member for Saanich South, who has led on this question, has put forward a very thoughtful amendment. It’s an amendment that I think all people in the House should consider supporting. It provides no undue restriction on government. The only thing it restricts is government’s ability to take longer than 21 months to proceed in this process — that 21 months is not enough to produce regulations that people have been calling for, for years.

I think one of the purposes of debate in this place, one of the purposes of passing legislation, is to provide exactly the kind of certainty that the member for Saanich South is proposing here. People in British Columbia — not just in areas that are generally thought of as agricultural but in my very constituency — are fundamentally
[ Page 10974 ]
interested in issues of food security, issues of organic food. My constituency is the home of the Trout Lake Farmers Market.

At Windermere School, they’ve put forward innovative programs, which I know the minister knows about, in support of food production. They do innovative and interesting things about these very questions, and I think they and everybody would be interested in and supportive of the idea that we have certainty on this question.

It’s not a question of providing time. The minister has suggested the industry wants time. January 1, 2018, provides time. What it also provides, if we support and we vote as legislators for this amendment, is certainty. It’s a declaration of our common commitment, whether we’re the Minister of Agriculture or a member of the opposition side or an independent member of this Legislature, to the direction that we are going in today.

When you leave these matters to administration…. The Minister of Agriculture knows this. He knows that being Minister of Agriculture in a Liberal government is like being the drummer for Spinal Tap. In fact, we have seen consistently, over time, initiatives taken by ministers, and they go away. Initiatives taken by ministers, and they go away.

Let’s commit to this together in common cause — to bring in this amendment, to bring in this legislation on January 1, 2018.

Hon. N. Letnick: I hate to say to the world that I’m not very familiar with what it’s like to be a drummer with Spinal Tap. I’m sure I’m going to get some Facebook postings right now to tell me what it’s like to be a drummer with Spinal Tap.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: The hon. member says it’s like being the leader of the NDP. I wouldn’t know what that’s like either. God willing, I’ll never find out, for obvious, obvious reasons. But you know what? Being the leader of the NDP is pretty good. Apparently, it gets you a front seat. There are several that have that honour.

[1755]

The hon. member likes to get up and say how great agriculture is and how their critic is a leader in agriculture and is out there championing all the causes. I would like to say that this government supports agriculture. It was in our throne speech. It is consistently seeing increases in the budget. We’ve had a 23 percent increase in the budget over the last three years, over my term as the Minister of Agriculture here in British Columbia.

We’ve seen great advances in the number of agrifood sales throughout British Columbia, not only domestically with our Buy Local program — $8 million that’s been leveraged to almost $20 million over the course of the four years — but also great advances in our export markets.

I can go on about all the features and benefits that agriculture brings to British Columbia. Quite frankly, I think everybody in this House can stand up and talk about agriculture and how important it is to not only British Columbians today but British Columbians in the future.

If we can get back to this legislation. The intention is to bring the act into force in 2016, once we have the regulations developed that are coming over from the old three acts. The piece that we are going to wait on is the piece on protected labels, specifically because the organic sector has asked for that time to transition. We will work with them, as I’ve stated before, to come up with the proper and appropriate set of regulations to work on the organic piece under protected labels.

I want the public to rest assured that it’s the government’s intent to move expeditiously on this act and to bring it into force in 2016, once we have the regulations developed.

So, again, I’m speaking against the amendment, and I look forward to forward to voting on it.

L. Popham: I’d like to speak on the amendment, and I’d like to respond to the minister.

What the minister says — the words that he just spoke in this Legislature — is exactly the reason why we need an amendment like this to bring this legislation into effect by regulation on the date the minister claimed to be the date that he also believes would be the date that would be in the best interest of agriculture.

The minister said something very interesting. He said we all like to talk about agriculture. And you know what? On this side of the House, we like to talk about it because we believe in it. On that side of the House, the talk is cheap around agriculture.

We saw people stand up — every one of these members stand up — and talk about how much they believed in agriculture when we were debating Bill 24, a bill that destroyed the agricultural land reserve in this province.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

So, yes, the government side of the House loves to talk about it. But you know what? When push comes to shove…. We are putting an amendment forward that supports legislation that the government put forward. In fact, we’re supporting it in a way. We’re supporting the minister and walking with him, side by side, on this legislation, taking his words, making an amendment from opposition — the minister’s words, putting them forward as an amendment. The Minister of Agriculture can stand up and give us the reasons why that’s not going to happen. His own words. The minister just argued against his own commitment to agriculture.

The problem with this legislation is that it’s a skeleton bill, skeleton legislation. Every commitment this minister has made may or may not come into effect by regulation.
[ Page 10975 ]
The regulations may or may not get written. The minister may or may not be the Agriculture Minister by the time this happens or doesn’t happen.

All we were trying to do is use the minister’s own words to support this legislation. That’s all we were trying to do on this side of the House. We went through the bill clause by clause. Credit to the staff who work hard at creating legislation and using thoughtful words in the process. We looked at everything that they contributed. Our scrutiny of the bill is certainly not a criticism of staff. It’s making sure we do our due diligence in this House, and we do our jobs.

[1800]

At the end of bill, the final clause and the amendment that was submitted…. I took the minister’s own words and put it back to him as an amendment to encourage him to make sure this bill comes into effect when he wanted it to, supporting his decision and the date. And he says no.

It makes me feel very worried that the intent of this bill is not what the minister said. So I am in support of this amendment. I disagree with the minister’s words, and him disagreeing with the amendment makes me curious to know if his heart really is in the right place. I know that he can talk about agriculture because he talks about it. But let’s do something for agriculture and accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 60 approved.

On section 47 (continued).

Hon. N. Letnick: As we were discussing before, the language around section 47(2), while legally correct, needs to be amended slightly to make it clearer. Therefore, I would like to propose an amendment, which has been circulated to the table and to the members of the Legislature. If I can propose that amendment now:

[Section 47(2)(i) be amended to:

Section 47(2)

(i) Respecting the processing, storing, transporting, distributing, marketing or disposing of

(i) ungraded food, and

(ii) food that, on grading, is found to be unfit for human consumption.]

On the amendment.

V. Huntington: I’d just like to speak to the minister’s amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I do believe the original wording…. I’m not sure how it could have been legal when it was completely contradictory. I’ll take the minister’s word for that, but I think this wording makes it clear and makes it a better section.

The only thing that I might have preferred is that the amendment read: “The member for Delta South to move in committee….” That would have made me very happy, but I do thank the minister for taking my comments to heart.

Amendment approved.

Section 47 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete as amended.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 11 — FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION ACT

Bill 11, Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act, reported complete with amendment.

[1805]

Madame Speaker: When will the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. N. Letnick: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION ACT

Bill 11, Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 8, intituled the Mines Amendment Act, 2016.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. B. Bennett: I move that Bill 8 be read for a second time.

The Mount Polley tailings breach focused attention on mining in British Columbia and damaged confidence in the industry and in government’s regulation of the mining sector.
[ Page 10976 ]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This legislation that we’ve introduced is part of government’s ongoing implementation of the 26 recommendations of the independent panel and the chief inspector of mines following their respective investigations into the Mount Polley tailings storage facility failure.

Work to implement a number of these recommendations is either substantially underway or complete, including improving corporate governance, improving professional engineering practices and strengthening current regulatory operations. I’d like to provide just a brief update on actions to date and the context of this legislation.

Immediately following the failure at Mount Polley, the chief inspector of mines ordered inspections and third-party reviews of tailings facilities at all permanent mines in B.C. The inspections and reviews that were done did not identify any immediate safety concerns and are available to the public on the ministry’s website.

In addition, last January in response to the independent panel’s recommendations to strengthen current regulatory operations, the chief inspector of mines ordered mines to confirm whether foundation materials similar to those at Mount Polley existed below any of their dams. This work was also completed in June. No immediate risks or safety concerns were identified.

As well, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. is developing new guidelines to improve professional engineering practices for dam site characterization assessments. These new guidelines will be released by summer of 2016.

There has been a lot of commentary since the accident at Mount Polley in August of 2014 about British Columbia having moved to “a professional reliance model.” In fact, there’s been no massive move to professional reliance in mining. What we’re doing with the professional engineers is asking them to tighten up their practices, but there is no more or no less reliance on engineers in the mining industry today than there was 20 years ago or 30 years ago.

In response to the independent panel’s recommendation to improve corporate governance, the Mining Association of Canada last year initiated an independent multi-stakeholder expert task force review of its own, specifically of tailings management requirements and guidance documents under something it calls the Towards Sustainable Mining program. Last December the Mining Association of Canada released a final report from this task force and is working to implement its recommendations.

The province also committed to implement a new requirement that all operating mines with tailings facilities in B.C. establish independent tailings dam review boards. These boards will support improved engineering practices by providing third-party advice on the design, construction, operation and closure of tailings facilities.

Remaining recommendations from the independent panel and from the chief inspector of mines are being addressed through the ongoing review of the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in B.C., which for the first time ever includes First Nations technical representatives. The tailings storage facility portion of that code review is expected to be completed this spring, and we hope that revisions will be legally enforced by mid-2016.

Government will also work with the industry and professional organizations to ensure recommendations directed at them are implemented. It is anticipated this work will be completed by the spring of 2017.

[1810]

The legislation I’m introducing today will strengthen government’s regulatory oversight of the mining industry by providing the ministry with additional compliance and enforcement tools. Compliance and enforcement tools under the Mines Act are currently quite limited. Mines can be shut down through the cancellation of a permit or the issuance of a stop-work order or prosecutions can be pursued, but tools for less serious non-compliance are quite limited.

The proposed legislation amends the Mines Act to, first of all, enable administrative monetary penalties to be imposed under the Mines Act, something we can’t do currently, and two, to increase fines available from prosecution from $100,000 to $1 million and increase possible imprisonment from one to three years. That would bring us into line with other natural resource legislation in this province.

Administrative monetary penalties are financial penalties that can be imposed for the contravention of a regulatory scheme without involving the court. They are an efficient and effective compliance tool that’s well tested and extensively used by many regulatory agencies within B.C. and across Canada. If passed, the proposed changes would bring the Mines Act in line with the other natural resource legislation, including the Environmental Management Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Oil and Gas Activities Act, all of which include administrative monetary penalties.

The penalties could apply to any activity under the Mines Act, including the metal and coal mines, industrial minerals operations and aggregate pits and quarries, at all stages of development and exploration activities. The penalties would also provide an effective tool for mines that are closed or not operating because, in such cases, obviously, a stop-work order or cancelled permit is not going to be effective.

This legislation is enabling legislation to make sure it’s a fair system. We will consult in developing the regulation that will set out the specific contraventions and administrative penalty amounts. Implementing an administrative monetary penalties program under the Mines Act will modernize B.C.’s mining regulatory regime and position the province as a leader in this area. It will contrib-
[ Page 10977 ]
ute — along with the other measures that are underway, some of which I referred to — to restoring First Nations and public confidence in mining and mining regulations.

Our goal is that B.C.’s regulatory regime for health and safety on minesites is the best in the world. We will get there by implementing all of the recommendations of the independent expert panel and of the chief inspector of mines, one of which we are doing here today.

I move second reading of the bill.

N. Macdonald: I’m pleased to rise to address Bill 8, the Mines Amendment Act.

Mining is very important to British Columbia, particularly to rural British Columbia, but these are difficult times for mining in B.C. The minister responsible for mining was mandated by the Premier to, I believe, open eight mines and expand nine. While I believe three have been opened, 16 have closed, and 2,380 miners have lost their jobs; 7,500, of course, remain employed.

The realities of the world commodity prices are what they are, and political agendas are subject to those forces. That is just the way that it is. It is a downturn that is not new to mining families, who are most impacted by these downturns because we understand the cyclical nature of commodity prices. The reality is that governments cannot control those commodity prices. I accept that. In 2014, probably many, many people thought that commodity prices would be in a different place than they are now.

What government is responsible for is making rules and regulations for the operation of mines. They are also responsible for the oversight of mining operations to ensure the public interest is protected. The public interest in this case would be having the mine operate safely and to minimize negative impacts on the environment. In this regard, the B.C. Liberals are failing British Columbians, and they have themselves to blame, frankly.

[1815]

This bill puts in place administrative penalties that would be significant if applied. The big question is whether they would ever be applied because the structure of the system created by this bill for applying penalties is the same that we’ve had in forestry since 2003. The minister highlighted that in his speech, but it’s true. This is the same structure that we have had in place in this province for 13 years, since 2003.

Now, at that time, if you go back and you look at Hansard, it was the current Minister of Finance who was making the speech, and then many of the members who are still here to this day piled on with the assertions that there would be million-dollar fines and jail time for rulebreakers. But the reality, over these past dozen-odd years, is that those penalties have never been applied in that way at all. That’s ultimately the concern that I have, once this bill is passed.

Now, my intention is to vote for this bill, and my advice to my opposition colleagues is to support the bill. I believe, however, that British Columbians will remain — and properly so — highly skeptical that the tools created in this bill will ever be used by this government. Now, the reason this bill is here is because of Mount Polley. So let’s just pause for awhile and actually put again in Hansard exactly what took place there.

Early on August 4, 2014, we had a collapse of the northern flank of the perimeter embankment at the massive Mount Polley tailings storage facility. And we had nearly 24 million cubic metres of water and tailings rushing into Quesnel Lake through Hazelton Creek. As well, there was flow. In fact, the flow first went into Polley Lake and then backed up on itself and went down Hazelton into Quesnel Lake.

Now, the expert panel report stated that there have been seven failures of tailings storage facilities, where there was a release of water and tailings, in B.C. since 1969. But here’s the key part. They said that with current practice here in British Columbia, we should expect two failures every ten years. They are saying that if we keep doing things the way we have done them, you can expect more of these failures — two every ten years.

Well, that is a call to action and one of many calls to action in the expert panel report. The expert panel’s conclusion firmly — and this is their word — rejects that business as usual can continue. The panel does not accept the concept of tolerable failure rates at tailings storage facilities. They say that to do that would be to institutionalize failure. These are strong words from professionals who are not in any way trying to make alarming commentary. Yet, when you read the words, they could not express it, as professionals, in a stronger way. Now, that’s from — if people want to look — page 118 of the Report on Mount Polley Tailings Storage Facility Breach by that independent, expert, engineering investigation and review panel.

The perspective that I have — and I think the perspective that most British Columbians have — is that the ministry and the minister are responsible for the laws, the regulations and the codes that are created to ensure safe and responsible mining in the province. This ministry and this minister have a crucial role, as well, in ensuring that those laws, codes and regulations are followed.

At Mount Polley, from 1995 to 2011, the engineer of record was KP or Knight Piésold. AMEC was the engineer of record from 2011, and they were passing over to BGC as the engineer of record as the Mount Polley failure took place. And of course, the Ministry of Energy and Mines is the regulator. Now, as the government has repeated many, many times and what is true is…. According to this expert panel — and I have no reason to think that they’re wrong on this — the base of the dam was built unknowingly on a continuous glaciolacustrine layer and in several areas, including at the foundation, where the Mount Polley tailings storage dam failed.

So you have this layer. The panel found that the foundation shifted, and it slid on this glaciolacustrine layer,
[ Page 10978 ]
much like slipping on a banana peel. There was a shift, and it slid. It slid and rotated enough to lower the top of the dam by 3.3 metres.

[1820]

That’s what took place early in the morning on August 4, 2014. The base slid on this layer, which was unknown to both the engineers and to the ministry, and it lowered the top of the dam, as I said, by 3.3 metres.

This isn’t a great deal, but it’s enough, because of where the water was. The panel describes this as the “loaded gun,” which sat loaded since the structure was first built in 1996. But with the 3.3-metre lowering of the dam wall, we had a problem because there were ten million cubic metres of water that was contained behind this dam. And the fact was that the water was 2.2 metres below the top of the dam. So when the wall came down 3.3 metres, you have this vast body of water that now has a channel that it moved through, and you have this vast amount of water suddenly uncontained.

It is that rushing out that created the massive failure that the world saw, frankly, on TV, with 24 million cubic metres of water and tailings rushing first, as I said, into Polley Lake, then backing up on itself and then rushing down Hazeltine into Quesnel Lake.

The expert panel was clear that the dam failed because of slipping at its base, but the result we witnessed — the massive movement of 24 million cubic metres of water and tailings — happened because there was too much water. The tailings storage facility, the report says, was not designed to hold it, and there were failures with it. There was no beach. The dam was too steep. There was no buttressing. All of these were key factors in the Mount Polley disaster.

I think the other key piece here is that if the glaciolacustrine layer did not exist, this dam could easily have collapsed from overtopping, which it nearly did in May of 2014. So even if there wasn’t that layer and it hadn’t slipped, it almost collapsed from overtopping a mere ten weeks before. As well, it could have also collapsed from internal erosion, which was happening. There was evidence of internal erosion, which could have led to the massive failure as well. This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the expert panel chosen by this minister. Those are the facts on the table.

So far, nobody has been held responsible. This wasn’t an act of God. It was an engineered structure — built according to rules and regulations set by this government and with its operation overseen by this government — that failed spectacularly, and so far, no one is responsible. It’s not the minister; it’s not the ministry. It’s not the company; it’s not the engineers. Even if this legislation was in place, then there would still need to be political will to hold people responsible and accountable.

We have structures like this all over the province. It’s an earth-filled dam. We have them all over the province. They are all over the world, in Europe, India, China. People have built structures like this for thousands of years. Properly built, they operate; they do not fall down. In fact, there is a dam in India that’s over 1,200 years old, still operating. These are not particularly complex engineering projects to run properly.

This was the most spectacular mining failure in the world in 2014 — far and away. It was a huge black eye to this province, to this jurisdiction. It happened here in B.C. It didn’t happen in Manitoba or in Newfoundland. It didn’t happen in Alabama. It didn’t happen in Guyana or in Congo. It happened here, and so far, there is nobody that’s accountable.

[1825]

There’s a lot on line. I like Norm Farrell and the Straight and Bob Mackin and that, but there are some very good journalists here at the Legislature. One of the best pieces of work that was done right after the report came out was a series of three columns done by Vaughn Palmer. Now, Vaughn Palmer is sort of the dean of the legislative gallery here, and he does some very good work. I’ll just quote from some of the things that he said.

He called the tailings dam “ill-fated” at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley mine. It was “an improvised work in progress, built higher every year to hold back the growing volumes of water behind it. ‘For years, dam-raising had managed to stay one step ahead of the rising water…’” — this was a quote from the actual report — “‘but on May 24, 2014, the water caught up.’”

It goes on to say that there was a conversation between engineers. One of the engineers was the geotechnical engineer Dmitri Ostritchenko. He came and found all sorts of reasons to be concerned. There were wet spots on the embankment, seepage here and there, and a pond almost level with the core of the dam.

“Two days later he reported by email to the company’s senior geotechnical engineer, Andrew Witte, that the situation had not much improved. ‘At the end of the day, the freeboard level is basically zero,’ wrote the on-site engineer, referring to the gap between the water level and the crest of the dam.

“Despite some efforts to reduce the amount of water behind the dam, tailings were still being added to the pond because the mine was continuing to operate. ‘Basically, there has not been much dewatering,’ Witte wrote, ‘as they are still focused on making sure the mine can operate.’

“This was too much for Witte. The safe operating standard was 9/10 of a metre of freeboard at bare minimum. Mining operations had to take a back seat until that was restored. So he directed Ostritchenko to remind the company of its obligation.”

Again, this is from emails that were part of the package. We didn’t get the complete package, but we had some of the emails that were released at the time of the expert panel’s report.

This is what was in the email.

“Under this type of scenario, they are supposed to stop discharging tailings and focus on dewatering to get back to that 0.9 metre of freeboard again.”

This is the senior engineer writing.

“If they are not removing water, they’re in direct contravention of what the province expects. That’s a dangerous game to
[ Page 10979 ]
play, and we need to make sure that our ass is covered by telling them to pump water out of the tailings storage facility. We cannot support the ‘just keep operating in the danger zone attitude.’ Remember, if we lose the dam, the mine can’t operate anyways.”

These are the types of discussions that are going on here in B.C. when the dam is in danger of overtopping just ten weeks before it actually collapses. We have the senior engineers talking about ass-covering and the mine still operating. These are direct quotes from the engineer’s email.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

N. Macdonald: Another reason for concern, area of concern, was the failure to maintain a separating barrier of tailings, known as a beach, to prevent erosion of the earth and embankment from the rising water behind it — critically important, because the structure was not designed as a water-retaining dam, though, increasingly, that’s what it was used for. “The report is replete with references to ‘chronic problems with maintaining the tailings beach.’”

What Mr. Palmer ends up with as his conclusion and what, of course, mirrors what was said by the expert panel is this.

“The root cause was an undetected flaw under the section that breached. But overly steep slopes on the embankment, neglected beaches, inadequate safety margins, ad hoc planning and the hefty volume of water behind the dam all contributed to making the failure much worse than it needed to be.

“‘The panel was disconcerted to find” — and this is a direct quote — “‘that…the Mount Polley tailings dam failed because of an undetected weakness in the foundation, but it could easily have failed by overtopping, which it almost did in May 2014. Or it could have failed by internal erosion, for which evidence was discovered.

“‘Clearly, multiple failure modes were in progress, and they differed mainly in how far they had progressed down their respective future pathways.’

[1830]

“Mount Polley was not a story of one flaw that went undetected for years, with nothing to be done about it. Rather, it was characterized by a pattern of dubious behaviour, margins of safety that skirted the edge of the cliff, little thought of worst-case scenarios — all factors in a disaster waiting to happen.”

Well, that is what took place under this ministry with this minister, and that should be shocking to everyone. The goal should be that we would not let that happen again, that we as legislators would all take responsibility for ensuring — having no ability to go back in time and stop what took place — to learn the lessons and to actually make sure that it didn’t happen again.

The expert panel says that it cannot be business as usual here in B.C., or we will have two tailings storage facility collapses every ten years. So this bill is going to provide administrative penalties and increased penalties overall, but the political will and the capacity within the ministry to oversee are still ongoing concerns.

Now, I spent a lot of time on the report and what actually was taking place, because the government has spun very hard the idea that this was a freak. “Who could know about the layer?” And indeed, the layer was the cause, but there were other things going on. This was a deeply problematic set of circumstances, and if they are duplicated in other mine sites, we have a tremendous amount to be concerned about.

My point here is that political will is the problem, was the problem, and, in my view, will continue to be the problem even with the changes in this bill. And let’s be clear here. What are the underlying factors that are rarely talked about but are actually the bigger factors on what drives behaviour at the government level?

One of the owners of Mount Polley organized a $1 million private fundraiser for the B.C. Liberals in 2013 in Calgary. It was attended by the Deputy Premier and was attended by the Minister of Mines. Now, most people would hear that and would correctly assume that that has an impact on political will. It was $1 million.

Hon. B. Bennett: That’s not right.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister can correct me. What was the amount?

Hon. B. Bennett: That’s not correct.

N. Macdonald: It wasn’t $1 million?

Hon. B. Bennett: I wasn’t there for that.

N. Macdonald: I thought I saw your picture. I apologize. I did see the Deputy Premier. I thought I saw your picture there.

The Minister of Energy and Mines says he wasn’t there. Certainly the Deputy Premier was. Nevertheless, a $1 million private fundraiser organized by the owners of Mount Polley in Calgary just prior to the election.

Mount Polley donated another $50,000, and really, all mine companies do much the same — significant money. Teck, for instance, has given $1.7 million to the B.C. Liberals. These are things I think any normal person would look at and not be surprised that a mine could be responsible for 24 million cubic metres of mine tailings going into pristine Quesnel Lake and receive no fine or sanctions at all.

The B.C. Liberals are deeply beholden to these mining corporations, and over the 15 years of B.C. Liberal rule, they have consistently shown leniency and lack of proper oversight. That is the reality, and most normal people would look at that set of circumstances and put the two together and see that that’s what has taken place.

These new proposed penalties change none of that dynamic. Not giving a $100,000 fine is no different than not giving a $1 million fine. That’s the reality of it. If you’re not going to give a fine, it doesn’t matter what the upper level is. It’s just not going to happen without political will.

Now, the minister said, and it’s correct, that forestry has had a penalty structure very much like what is now
[ Page 10980 ]
being proposed for mining. In 2003, it was brought in, and B.C. Liberals promised million-dollar fines and jail time — three years in jail, possibly.

[1835]

Go back and read Hansard. There was huge fanfare about: “This is going to happen. If there’s anything that forest companies do that is damaging to the environment or breaks the regulations or rules, there’s going to be jail time. There are going to be massive fines with a structure just like this.” But we’ve had experience with that.

Now, forest companies, as well, are big donors, and there are, not surprisingly, no million-dollar fines, and there is certainly no jail time. It just does not happen.

I’ll just give you an example. It’s not that far since we had this discussion in the House. It was from question period. It’s there in Hansard — question period, 2013. The question that I put to the Minister of Forests was: “In the middle of a growing timber supply crisis, this government has allowed two large companies to massively overcut healthy trees and non-pine species.” It was actually one million cubic metres of wood they weren’t supposed to cut.

You would think that there would be a penalty, and in fact there was. There was a penalty that was going to be applied, and the penalty was that there would be up to a $1 million fine plus the cost of the stumpage. That’s a significant fine and would be the first example that I could find of where it would actually be an imposition of a fine.

But just a week prior to the election in 2013, the Minister of Forests himself intervened to stop that fine and the pain of stumpage taking place. So even though there is a huge problem with the mid-term and short-term timber supply, there is a need to get rid of the pine beetle wood, and there is a reason that they have been given a heightened cut, instead, the companies go into greenwood, take it out. They are supposed to be penalized, but as one would expect, neither company was penalized, and the minister interceded to make sure that the penalty and the pain of stumpage did not take place.

That is an example of why, without political will…. You can have a $1 million fine, $10 million. If you’re not going to apply it, if you don’t have the political will, it is not going to make any difference.

There also needs to be oversight. There need to be people out on the site ensuring practices are up to standard. There were no dam engineers working for the Ministry of Mines for years at a time. The minister himself criticized that — quite correctly. To his credit, he said that it was ridiculous that they did not have personnel with any expertise.

At a time when we know Mount Polley had trouble, had problems, was being operated poorly, there was no inspection by government. They had no expertise sent from government to actually look at what was going on — not in 2009, not in 2010, not in 2011.

If you don’t have the political will to impose penalties and you have a deliberate blindness about what is going on, you can be sure that you’re setting up a scenario that will repeat itself. It will repeat itself. We’ve been told that by the expert panel. It will happen twice again this decade unless we significantly change things.

Now, I was…. The Ministry of Forests with the Burns Lake explosion — that was very difficult. The way we handled it as an opposition was to try to be as careful as possible — in a way that I really regret now, because we should have identified the problems there in a much more aggressive way. Burns Lake, the explosion, should never have happened. It happened with a cause that’s well known, and the buildup of dust was identified. There is no excuse for it, and we shouldn’t have been part of letting it happen a second time in Prince George. I think that’s what we have to look at when we look at Mount Polley.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Fortunately, no one was killed. They could easily have been, but they weren’t. But we need to do our job here as legislators to make sure that we do not allow it to happen again.

[1840]

That second part is having people on the ground, having people that are actually going to go and oversee these facilities and make sure that they’re doing what they need to do.

Now, Banks Island is a remote mine, very remote. It’s probably one of the most remote that we have, or it was. They were operating unsafely and degrading the environment. I don’t think anybody disagrees with that. I was told by someone…. They phoned me. They said that the Mines Ministry had been told there was a problem. I have no way of knowing if that’s true or not. I don’t know. What I do know is that it was accompanied shortly thereafter with pictures that showed significant safety and environmental issues.

I’ll be the designated speaker, although I won’t take two hours. I’ll just continue beyond, just so I finish my thoughts here.

I emailed the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Mines immediately, because it was a serious safety issue. To the credit of the ministers involved…. I think it was actually the Ministry of Environment that went and shut down the operation and, of course, subsequent to that was the Ministry of Mines. I look for…. Was it the Ministry of Mines? I don’t know. I think it was the Ministry of Environment. But both ministers acted quickly on it — there’s no question. Now they’ve moved into bankruptcy.

The point is that what is true in Mines is true in Forestry, and it’s true in Environment. There are just not the people on the ground that there used to be. There is not the ability for government to know what is going on. What I would say, and I think what most would under-
[ Page 10981 ]
stand, is it’s government being purposely blind towards what corporations are doing on public lands. That’s what is going on.

This bill — the intention of the opposition is to support it, unless there is something dramatic that we haven’t identified in the legislation. It’s a pretty straightforward bill, so our intention is to support it. We will, of course, look in detail in the committee stage.

It is a bill that is linked to bigger issues, such as the need to ban corporate and union donations, because no regulation or system of penalties makes any difference at all if there’s no political will to enforce them or if there’s no capacity within government to properly oversee and investigate.

With that, I’ll take my seat, and I look forward to my colleague across the way — his comments.

D. Plecas: I rise today on behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South and to speak on Bill 8, the Mines Amendment Act, 2016. Well, what are we talking about here? We’re talking about an act which will strengthen the government’s oversight of the mining industry and give the ministry additional compliance and enforcement tools.

It’s an act which will enable government to include administrative monetary penalties as an additional compliance and enforcement tool under the Mines Act. This helps to modernize B.C.’s mining regulatory regime, and it positions the government as a leader in this area.

Currently, the compliance and enforcement tools under the act are quite limited. They are limited to shutting down a mine through the cancellation of a permit, issuance of a stop-work order or pursuing prosecutions.

This legislation does two things. It enables an administrative monetary program — a key compliance and enforcement tool not currently available — and it increases the penalties available on convictions of an offence. The maximum fines increase from $100,000 to $1 million, and the maximum term of imprisonment increases from one year to three years.

Administrative monetary penalties can be imposed for contraventions without involving the courts. This type of penalty is already used by other ministries and has proven to be an effective and efficient compliance tool.

[1845]

For example, the Environmental Management Act, Forest and Range Practices Act and Oil and Gas Activities Act all include administrative monetary penalties and more severe penalties for court convictions.

These changes to the Mines Act will bring it in line with other provincial and natural resource legislation. These administrative monetary penalties will fill a regulatory gap in the Mines Act by providing an effective alternative to shutting down a mine or seeking a conviction in court.

They have a flexible nature, which allows government to apply them to a range of non-compliance matters. The penalties range or scale reflect the seriousness of the contraventions. They are an effective and efficient compliance tool that is well tested and extensively used by many regulatory agencies within B.C. and across Canada.

Under the proposed legislation, the chief inspector of mines will have the authority to determine whether a contravention has occurred and set and impose administrative monetary penalties for the contravention. The legislation will allow penalties to be imposed for any contravention of a prescribed provision of the Mines Act, the regulations, the health and safety code, the provisions of an order made under the Mines Act or a term of conditions of a Mines Act permit.

I do want to clarify that the purpose of the administrative monetary penalties is to provide the ministry with better tools for compliance and enforcement. It is not intended to be used as a means to generate revenue for government.

One of the challenges, historically, with the Mines Act was that the time limit for starting a prosecution was very short — six months to one year, depending on the offence involved. That didn’t leave much time to investigate the matter to the standard required for prosecution. In 2014, our government extended the time limit to start prosecutions under the Mines Act to three years, giving investigators more time to gather and assess evidence.

When the tailings pond at Mount Polley failed, we were all shocked. We all value the beauty of our province, and we want to make sure that mining practices are safe. Immediately following the failure of the tailings pond, the chief inspector of mines ordered inspections and third-party reviews of tailings storage facilities at all permitted mines in British Columbia.

The chief inspector of mines investigation found — as did the independent expert panel last January — that the dam failed because the strength and location of a layer of clay beneath the dam was not taken into account in the design or subsequent dam raises.

These amendments are part of an ongoing government action to implement the 26 recommendations of the independent panel and the chief inspector of mines, following the respective investigations into the Mount Polley tailings storage facility failure. We continue to work to implement a number of these recommendations.

Once the recommendations of this bill are passed, government will begin consultations to develop the regulations that set out the specific contraventions and penalties. There is no time frame set for the consultation process, though the government would like to see them in force within a year.

The mining industry is one of the key sectors of our diverse economy. We want to ensure that the mining industry is even safer and more sustainable. These legislative changes will strengthen a regulatory framework so that we can build a safer mining industry.
[ Page 10982 ]

D. Donaldson: I rise to take my spot in second reading debate of Bill 8, the Mines Amendment Act, 2016, that will alter the Mines Act by allowing for financial penalties for transgression of permits.

The minister, in his introduction of the bill and in his introductory comments for second reading, pointed out that the Mount Polley tailings breach focused attention on mining in British Columbia and damaged confidence in the industry and government’s regulation of the mining sector — damaged confidence.

[1850]

I’m really pleased to be able to rise in the House and speak to a bill that addresses the mining industry, because I understand, and we on this side understand, the importance of mining and are supportive of mineral exploration and mining. I really enjoy the people who work in the industry and the sector. I’ve been to many roundups and other conferences and enjoy their enthusiasm. They’re very positive people. I’m sure the minister will agree with that. I’m also happy because I have an additional role now as deputy spokesperson for mining, in connection with my colleague, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

This bill, as the minister has pointed out, is intended to address confidence, or the damaged confidence, in the government and in the industry. I just want to point out that we on this side are very, very supportive of the industry, demonstrating that confidence by the fact that we’ve supported extending the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit, which was a personal tax credit in the past. It’s worth about $4 million in this current budget. We’ve also been supportive of extending the mineral exploration tax credit. That’s a corporate tax credit. It has about a $10 million taxpayer impact in this budget.

We’ve also demonstrated our confidence in the industry by supporting Geoscience B.C. The government supported it in 2014 with $3 million and in 2015 with $5 million, and we’ve been supportive of that.

In fact, I was at the roundup in January of the Association for Mineral Exploration conference when they revealed the results of an airborne magnetic survey, actually close to my neck of the woods between Terrace, Kitimat and Smithers. The earth science data that they are able to collect means a lot. It means a lot, and the money is well spent by us supporting Geoscience B.C., because they turn around and multiply that over and over again. I’m looking forward to 2016, when they will do additional airborne magnetic surveys between Smithers and Vanderhoof.

Again, speaking to the confidence that we have and the importance of this sector, I personally know many people working in the mineral exploration sector and in the mining sector. I know the impact it has when people get laid off when mines are shut down. We’ve just had a shutdown of a mine close to my area, in the area of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, the Huckleberry mine. Two hundred people have been put out of work with the closure of that mine. Previous to that, again, in the Minister of Aboriginal Relations’ constituency, at the Endako mine in 2014, 347 people were laid off.

There are projects coming on line, as well, in Stikine. This is why I have a keen interest in this sector. We have the Red Chris mine, which has recently come on line, and we’re hoping to see another project that has all its permits in place, the Brucejack project of Pretium. There are many people in my constituency already working at that site.

It’s also important around exploration work — not just operating mines, but exploration work as well. Although that exploration work and the money spent in exploration was $388 million in 2014, that was a drop of about $300 million from a high of 2012, when $680 million was spent. I’m very, very troubled with the erosion of public investor confidence under this government, which this bill is attempting to address in part.

I’m going to continue along those lines until I get an indication from you, Madame Speaker, that we want to wrap things up. I’m getting that indication from many people in the Legislature now. So I’m going to move adjournment of this debate and reserve my position at the next opportunity to continue my remarks.

D. Donaldson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

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

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $426,148,000.
[ Page 10983 ]

The Chair: Mr. Minister, would you like to make opening comments and introductions?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair. I’m very pleased to rise today to talk about the budget of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and I look forward to the hours or days ahead of us as we go through. I appreciate the advice from the member opposite and the critic around the general themes that they will be canvassing in their questions and discussions.

We will obviously be moving staff, as required, in to support. Initially, to start, I have my deputy minister, Tim Sheldan, and our assistant deputy minister of corporate services, Trish Dohan, with me. Diane Nicholls, our newly appointed chief forester, is joining us here as well. I know there will be other staff that we’ll need to bring in, and I’ll try to stay on top of introducing them as they join as required.

I wanted to talk just a couple of minutes about some of the significant additions to the budget. I know the members opposite will go through in detail the budget and the operations of the ministry and the various responsibilities that we have, but I did want to highlight a couple of very significant additions to the budget that we have for 2016-17 and beyond in the fiscal plan.

As announced at UBCM last fall, balanced budget 2016 commits $75 million over the next three years for the rural dividend program — $25 million per year.

[1440]

This program will be run out of our ministry, and it will help rural communities — smaller communities with populations of 25,000 or less — to grow, to assist them in building capacity and to strengthening and reinvigorating and diversifying their economies in their communities. Ministry staff are currently in the process of finalizing the application process and the criteria, with the view to meeting the commitment that the program will be operational and ready for launch in April.

Part of what makes B.C. a great place to live and work is the natural beauty that surrounds us in every corner of the province. That same natural beauty represents risks to our community and its safety if we don’t take appropriate steps of prevention. That’s why, in the balanced budget 2016, we’ve built in or included significant investments in community safety. This is relating to taking greater steps to address wildfire preparedness, wildfire mitigation, and forest health and forest rehabilitation.

While some wildfire activity is natural and, in some cases, will be beneficial, people need to feel safe in their communities. We need to do our utmost to prevent interface fires that put lives, communities, and infrastructure at risk.

The budget commits $85 million to establish the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. This society will advance wildfire prevention and mitigation objectives through fuel management, reforestation and habitat restoration. This will ensure safer communities, healthier forests and will complement the $10 million in this budget that is being added to this strategic wildfire prevention initiative.

The strategic wildfire prevention initiative, as you know, helps communities with wildfire protection plans, FireSmart planning activities and fuel management projects. As of December 31, 2015, a total of 288 community wildfire protection plans have been completed by local governments and First Nations, and another 50 are in progress. Together, this additional funding will help this work continue and will ensure that the programs and initiatives are complementary and support each other.

Together, wildfire and mountain pine beetle have had some serious effects on our forests. We’re working hard to ensure the sustainability of our forests so that future generations can continue to enjoy recreational and economic opportunities that we enjoy today. That’s why I’m also pleased to see the uplift in this year’s budget of $12 million, to $74.84 million, to the land-based investment strategy. This additional investment will allow us, across the wide range of initiatives that take place under the land-based investment strategy, to continue to support meeting those objectives, and it will set the stage for us to plant seedlings, annually — 28 million seedlings annually by 2019-20.

Since 2005, we’ve invested over $400 million in Forests for Tomorrow and have surveyed approximately 1.5 million hectares in mountain pine beetle–affected areas and planted more than 175 million seedlings on over 128,000 hectares. The new Forest Enhancement Society of B.C.’s activities will complement those under the land-based strategy and those of the strategic wildfire prevention initiative.

Additionally, we’ve also received additional funding support within the budget to implement the requirements of the Water Sustainability Act and the new regulations as they come into force — an additional $3.9 million. And in addition to the funding being provided to ensure community safety and wildfire response, we have also got an additional $1.7 million investment in provincially owned heritage sites.

All of this additional funding support will be critical to us continuing to meet the objectives of the ministry, continuing to build a healthy and vital sector and continuing to support rural and urban economies around the province.

In closing, I look forward to the discussions. I know, as we go through this process, that we will work to provide as many of the answers as we can to the questions. I expect there will be information as we go through it that we’ll need, as we have in the past, where we don’t have all the detail down to the very technical questions that sometimes get asked. We’ll undertake to make sure that we look at those and provide follow-up information, as appropriate, as we go through all of the discussion here.

[1445]

I look forward to it, and thank you very much. As I said, we’ll be shifting staff support that we have here.
[ Page 10984 ]

Our ministry staff do a great job here and out in rural communities across the province. Appreciate their support, and I know we’re all looking forward to the discussion over the next hours and days. Thank you very much.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure to speak, once again this year, about a natural resource that I think we all appreciate in British Columbia, not only today but going back 150 years when British Columbia started to emerge. I think the forest industry has been good to British Columbia, to all the residents of British Columbia — before us, today and in the future, I’m sure.

Before I get into more detailed questioning, I also want to acknowledge the staff that is here: the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister. I think that many of the staff are in-house today for assisting the minister in providing the answers that we will be asking for.

I want to say to them again this year — make it clear — that when we are talking about, and questioning the minister about, certain policies and how British Columbia’s forest industry is doing or not doing, it is not intended to be reflected on the staff. I think they are only delivering based on what they are given, and I think, if you look at the history of this government in the last 15 years, they haven’t been given the support that they deserve in order to make the forest industry what it can be.

We’re missing a huge opportunity. We missed it for the last 15 years. We’re missing it today, and I think there’s no direction for the future to turn that thing around so that we can once again proudly say that British Columbia still is the engine of our economy. We haven’t been able to say that.

I can’t blame everything about that on this government. There are some external forces and issues that have some negative effect on our industry and jobs in the forest industry, but I think there are many government policies that clearly are responsible for our forest industry not performing the way it should be. I want to just clear that — that the staff isn’t to be blamed for all of that. It is the government and the government policies.

I must say that just other like other British Columbians, I’m quite disappointed that we are squandering away the huge potential that exists out there in our forest industry, whether it is revenue for the government or jobs for communities — many of the forestry workers that could be employed at those high-paying, family-supporting jobs that are not there today. They don’t see any hope in the future either.

I would say that our forests are suffering as a result of it. Our forests, that fed British Columbian families for 150 years, are ill. The government isn’t looking after those forests when it comes to forest health investment.

Forestry-dependent communities are hurting because of those job losses. Workers are hurting because they once had jobs and no longer have jobs in the forest industry. There were workers and families that were there for generations that depended on the forest industry jobs, and then they had to uproot and go elsewhere. So where their ancestors actually settled themselves — and they were hoping to be there for generations to come — that opportunity isn’t there.

I would say that the province is suffering as a result of that because the revenues that we potentially should be getting, we are not getting. All of our social programs are hurting as a result of that. I think it’s all because of …. Much is to do with the government policies.

[1450]

If you recall 2003…. I was still out there working in the forest industry when the Forestry Revitalization Act — so-called revitalization — was brought in. It was brought in, essentially, with the promise from the industry that they would be investing billions of dollars on the coast and in the Interior to modernize our mills so that they were competitive with the rest of the world and so that those jobs that were there would be there for generations to come.

Look at the facts after that. They got everything they wanted — as far as the forest industry is concerned. The social contract is almost gone — hardly any social contract left there. Appurtenancy clause, the cut control, you name it — they’re all gone. Now the companies are given the right to do whatever they want to do with our forests.

We see the results: the highest amount of raw log exports. People will argue, the government will argue: “Well, that is necessary. We have to do this.”

I say to them: “Look into our history of 150 years.” We never had to depend on log exports. Our industry did well without log exports. We created jobs, as they were supposed to. When the social contract was signed 100 years ago with the companies, they would be given access to our raw material, but they would be processing those logs here in British Columbia to create jobs for British Columbians so that we would all benefit. That contract is completely gone.

Now, the companies that were given the revitalization act that was brought in, under the promise of reinvestment…. Guess what happened. They are investing but not in British Columbia. B.C. companies are fleeing British Columbia. That just shows that this government has neglected the forest industry. They have shown no direction, no leadership for B.C. forest companies. They’re fleeing British Columbia.

We had, 15 years ago when this Liberal government took power, maybe two, maybe three mills owned by British Columbia companies across the line. What do we have today? Over 40, and they’re growing. They’re investing across the line. Why? Because I don’t think they see a future in British Columbia and because the government simply opened it up for them to do whatever they want to do. Industry will do what’s best for them, for their shareholders, and that’s what they feel is best. So I don’t blame them.
[ Page 10985 ]

It’s the government that is not helping our forest industry. The result: we have 31,000 fewer workers working in the forest industry today than when the Liberal government took power — 31,000. According to government’s own numbers, 150 mills less today than when this government took power. More mills are shutting down here, and B.C. companies are buying mills in the United States.

I don’t see any sign of investment coming into British Columbia from B.C. companies or otherwise, especially on the coast. We have an excess of fibre on the coast than our capacity. We have eight or nine million cubic metres of excess fibre on the coast than our capacity for milling. Most of that is exported.

Why would anybody invest here when they could get our raw material — China, Taiwan, Korea? We’ll get into that more in detail — how raw log export is increasing to those countries compared to 15 years ago. They are thanking us. They are thanking this government for allowing our raw material to be available to them so that they can create jobs in their countries for their people. So we’re failing British Columbians. They are benefiting as a result of our failure.

There is a threat of more mills to be shut down in the Interior. There’s a short supply of fibre in the Interior. So there are two different problems we have. I don’t see any direction coming from the government to ensure that those mills will continue to operate by doing the right thing, investing in forest health so that we have the fibre available to them in coming years when those trees grow again.

[1455]

I think it’s all about priorities. You’ve heard in the budget speech, you’ve heard in all those speeches, that the priority of this government….

I will just do a little contrast here. We’ve been asking about inventory year after year — investment in inventory, investment in forest health — and it’s not coming. What they chose to do, though, is they found, easily, $236 million last year, $236 million this year to give tax breaks to the richest 2 percent of British Columbians. So it’s a choice that they made.

They could have invested part of that into forest health and provided help to our forestry officials who are struggling. They’re stretched for resources. We know that in the last 15 years, regional forestry offices have been shut down. Hundreds of workers have been laid off from the forestry offices. So how do you expect…? Compliance and enforcement is down because of lack of resources.

Clearly, the direction is that they want to make political decisions over four years. You’re talking about a $1 billion tax break to the top 2 percent, the richest 2 percent of British Columbians. That’s the priority that they have. I think that is something that we will be exploring. When the government is making political decisions rather than policies that would be beneficial to the province, to British Columbians, I think that’s when we lose. And I think that’s what we see in this government.

Now, I can’t blame everything on this current minister. I think we’ve had a pretty good relationship with this minister. He does understand the file, and he tries his best. But like all other ministers, he’s also governed by the west wing over there. There’s the Premier, who will send her lieutenants to advise the minister: “This you can, and this you cannot do.”

The resources are decided by the west wing. The ministers have to decide, basically, based on what they are given and that reflect…. It trickles down to the deputy minister, the assistant and all the other staff that are out there.

I think it’s a pretty sad state, in my view, despite the fact that everyone out there in the forest industry, all the staff, are doing everything that they can. But the policy, driven by the Premier, isn’t beneficial to the province. We can do a lot better, and we should do a lot better because we owe it to the people of the province.

I hope that by going through some of these questions, we would lay our case, and we will draw government attention, the minister’s attention, to where they’re failing.

Before we go into the questions, I forwarded material — I wasn’t sure it was that big — passed it on to the minister. When we printed it, it was about three inches thick. I thought it was passed on to the minister a couple of days ago.

It’s about our response to the letter that was written by my predecessor the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. His written questions were put to the minister after the 2014 estimates, and then the written reply came. There’s some critique done on that — that’s what it is — in a number of different areas.

I just want to have the minister acknowledge that they have received it.

Hon. S. Thomson: I can acknowledge we’ve received it. We received it yesterday, and as the member opposite notes, it’s a very significant amount of information. We are looking at it. I’m not sure whether the member opposite intends to go through that in detail. Having just received it yesterday, we may be able to provide some higher-level responses to some of it as we go through the questioning.

Again, it’s very technical information that will require some analysis in order to provide a full response, but we can see how the questioning is going. But we have received it.

[1500]

H. Bains: I don’t think my intention was to ask any questions on it today. You have a whole day. I think you have a very capable staff, and I’m sure they have the answers on those issues anyway. At least, they are expected to have all those answers. But I will not be going into those questions today. We’ll just go into the general
[ Page 10986 ]
budgetary questions today, and then we’ll get into that and some of the other areas.

My first question today would be: can the minister confirm that for this fiscal year, the revenue projection is $812 million and that the updated actual revenue for 2015-16 is $833 million? This budget talks about a projection of $812 million, but the actual for 2015-16 is $833 million. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: I believe the member opposite asked for the revised forecast. For ’15-16, in revenue, it’s $833 million, and the 2016-17 budget forecast is $812 million. I believe that’s what he wanted confirmation of, so I can confirm that he’s correct in that, in noting those numbers.

H. Bains: Will the minister confirm that the projected revenue from Forests in 2017-18 is $814 million and in ’18-19, $828 million?

Hon. S. Thomson: Correct.

H. Bains: What are the projected adjusted average stumpages for the Interior and for the coast in 2016-17 and 2017-18?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: I apologize. The staff are just working to get the numbers in the format that the member opposite asked for. We’ll endeavour to provide it shortly. I didn’t want to take too much more time. So we will get the numbers. If the member opposite wants to pose the next question while I’m getting that information, we will be able to provide it. But maybe we could move to the next question, and I’ll pop back up and provide the information.

To confirm, that was for the revenue forecast going forward for the average stumpage for coast and interior for the out-years.

H. Bains: For 2016-17 and ’17-18.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, okay.

H. Bains: I’ll wait for the answer for that. My next question, then, would be: what would be the real, all-inclusive revenue for the ministry for the fiscal years 2016-17, ’17-18, ’18-19 and ’19-20?

Hon. S. Thomson: For the revenue, we don’t have ’19-20. It’s a three-year fiscal plan. So for the ’16-17 target, the budget forecast is $1.422 million; for the ’17-18 target, $1.412 million; and for the ’18-19 target, $1.403 million.

The Chair: I think there’s a correction coming. That didn’t sound right to me, either.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to correct for the record, those should be billions, not millions — $1.422 billion, $1.412 billion and $1.403 billion.

H. Bains: How does that compare to the service plan? I’m looking at page 15. I thought those would be the numbers that we are looking at. It says that the total ministry revenue for ’15-16 is 1.34; ’16-17, 1.333; ’17-18, 1.313; and for ’18-19, it’s 1.28.

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: As we refine the numbers as we go into the final budgeting process — the assumptions and the forecast — revenues and assumptions get refined. So the correct numbers are the numbers that I talked about previously — the budget forecast, the target for ’17-18, the target for ’18-19. These are updated projections that are in the budget documents. The revenue budget forecast is $1.422 billion, $1.412 billion and $1.403 billion.

H. Bains: It seems like it’s a moving target. I could understand, because I would go back to last year’s projections, and I see some differences. I can understand that year over year, things change.

But we are talking about…. When was the budget tabled — a week ago, two weeks ago? — and things have changed since that time. I mean, that’s quite a change.

[1515]

For ’16-17, it’s 1.422, and according to your service plan, ’16-17 shows 1.333. So you’re talking about a $100 million change, and then every year thereafter.

Can you explain how you arrived at those numbers now? You didn’t have those numbers before the budget was tabled. What had changed?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, because I want to make sure that the member opposite understands, the numbers that I noted around $1.422 billion and $1.412 billion and $1.403 billion are the numbers that are in the fiscal plan, the numbers that are tabled in the budget. The service plan is developed some time before the actual final budget numbers are locked into the fiscal plan.

We continue to refine forecast numbers, continue to refine assumptions, and as we finalize the budget, we look at the latest projections, the latest assumptions and use those numbers for the fiscal plan. The numbers that are in the fiscal plan are the budget forecast and the targets going forward for years ’17-18 and ’18-19.

H. Bains: My read of all the budget documents — I could be wrong; the minister could correct me — was that the budget or revenue for forestry is supposed to be declining going forward. Here I’m seeing the minister saying that from ’16-17, from $1.422 billion, it already has increased from the service plan that was put together — $100 million. Then ’17-18, again, is higher than ’16-17.
[ Page 10987 ]

Where are these assumptions going? Anywhere you read these budgetary documents that give you forecasts, forestry revenue is to decline for the next three years. Maybe the minister could show me, on the fiscal plan, where these numbers are listed.

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: If the member would refer to it, it’s on table A9, which is in the fiscal plan — the “Revenue by source.” So if you will, under “Natural resource revenue,” there is the forest revenue listed there, $812 million; budget estimate plan ’17-18, $814 million; and plan ’18-19, $828 million; on other natural resource revenue, $502 million, $466 million and $472 million; and that makes up the totals that we mentioned here, the $1.4 billion, $1.452 billion and $1.443 billion.

H. Bains: And if I add $812 million to $502 million, I don’t come up with $1.402 billion. Can you explain that, please?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: Hopefully I can clear up the information here. The number that I referred the member to on table A9, which shows forest revenue and other natural resource operations revenue in here, is part of what makes up the total revenue numbers that we reference here, which are made up of the forest revenue, the other natural resource operation revenues that are included in there.

As part of our overall revenue, we also have Crown land revenue and land registry fees, which are in a different part of the “Revenue by source” table here. That gives you the total ministry revenue of 1.46, 1.452 and 1.443.

H. Bains: I’m trying to understand this. I’ve got the table here from the service plan, and I’m looking at the fiscal plan. The service plan does include, when we are talking about total revenue, forests, Crown lands, natural resource operations. Then there’s a total revenue. That’s in the service plan.

Then I’m looking at the fiscal plan. As the minister…. That’s where those numbers came from: 1.442, 1.412. Then I’m trying to add these. Unless there’s something else that is missing, I’m adding those two — forests and other natural resource resources for ’16-17. The forests are listed here: $812 million. Other natural resources are listed here at 502. When you add them up, I come up with 1.314. But the minister’s number here is 1.422.

I’m just trying to figure out: where is this $100 million? What is missing here?

[J. Yap in the chair.]

[1530]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

As I mentioned, table A9, which refers to forest revenue and other natural resource revenue, is a component of the overall revenue of the ministry. There is other revenue that is in other revenue — because this lists revenue by source. The forest revenue, as it points out: 812, 814 and 828. Other revenue that is in the plan: 502, 466, 472, which are in table A9, are components of the overall revenue. There is additional revenue — Crown land revenue and land registry fees — that are part of the overall ministry revenue, which makes up the total of the 1.467, 1.452 and 1.443.

What I can do, because we’re looking at…. The tables are constructed in different ways. We can provide a reconciliation of these tables, the numbers I have provided, the linkage back to the service plan.

As I said, the service plan was forecasted assumptions and, as we’ve developed the final budget plan, have been refined. The numbers that are in the fiscal plan, the numbers that I have talked about here, are the ministry revenue numbers.

H. Bains: I still don’t get a clear answer. I’m looking at this…. First, we were going by the service plan. The minister gave the explanation that it was put together ahead of time, and then the projection changed, so that should not be considered as complete calculations — if I put it that way — based on from when they were put together, compared to when the fiscal plan was put together.

Now, I’m still looking at the fiscal plan. The minister has to give me the breakdown of 1.402— how you arrived at 1.402 for ’16-17 and how you arrived at 1.412 and how you arrived at $1.403 billion.

When I’m adding…. I thought the fiscal plan completes, when it says the total revenue from the forest and other natural resources…. You would think that the other natural resources are captured in those numbers — $502 million, $466 million and $472 million — unless they’re not, unless there’s something outside of that. I’d like to know that.

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, we’re looking at one table, table A9, which talks about revenue by source. It does indicate the forest revenue and the other natural resource revenue that make up the $812 million and the $502 million. There is additional revenue that is other natural resource revenues that is not in those two numbers, which are the Crown lands revenue, $121 million in ’16-17, and land registry fees of $32 million.

If you take the forests revenue, the natural resource operations revenue — which includes water revenue, recoveries, fish and wildlife revenue, and other recoveries — that makes up the $502 million, and then you take in the Crown land revenue and land registry fees, which gives you the total. There are a couple of other adjust-
[ Page 10988 ]
ments that then give you the numbers I was mentioning, the $1.403 billion, the $1.467 billion, the $1.452 billion and $1.443 billion.

Again, it would probably be beneficial if the offer that we provided is providing the full reconciliation between those documents, the numbers here that we’re talking about. As I said, we’ve indicated that we can do that, and we will provide that as soon as we can, later this afternoon or as we resume tomorrow morning.

I just wanted to go back to the earlier question on the information that the member asked for in terms of average stumpage calculations. For ’16-17, coast, $9.32; and ’17-18 projections, $9.57. In the Interior, $11.89 for ’16-17, $11.97 for ’17-18. Those are weighted averages, and they include B.C. Timber Sales.

H. Bains: I guess the minister said he will give us a proper breakdown so that we know how he arrived at those numbers. With all due respect, I thought this would be the easiest answer — that we would just go through this, breeze through these numbers. It’s easy stuff — the total revenue for the ministry, total expenses of the ministry, a little breakdown here, a breakdown there. Those should be the numbers that should be easily understood and listed here someplace. We seem to have spent so much time just to confirm the number that the minister gave us.

When the minister was given these numbers, there must be a table that the minister was reading from, and that table would include all revenues from different sources. That’s probably what you need to read from, that “this is how I arrived at $1.422 billion, $1.412 billion, $1.403 billion.”

I mean, if the minister has that table that adds up to these numbers, then we could start talking about why that table is different than the fiscal plan. Then on the fiscal plan, we will say: “Well, those numbers are here, but there are some other revenues that are missing from those, and how did we arrive at those?” That’s the difficulty I’m having. I think it’s simple stuff.

[1540]

If the minister could give us those numbers maybe later, or if he could read it from the table that he was handed when he give me those numbers originally, and what the table reads about how you add up to that total.

Hon. S. Thomson: For clarity, to get to the number that I indicated was our revenue numbers for ’16-17 then, the budget forecast, for total forest revenue…. I can break it down for the member opposite, if that’s helpful.

So timber tenures is $448 million, and this is for the ’16-17 budget forecast; B.C. Timber Sales, $277 million; other forecast revenues, $19 million; recoveries of $23 million. That gives a subtotal of $767 million. Logging tax added to that gives $812 million in forest revenue, and that’s the number that is in the natural resource revenue table on A9 in the document — the $812 million that is noted under natural resource revenue for forestry.

Additionally, there is other natural resource revenue — water revenue of $430 million, recoveries of $50 million, fish and wildlife revenue of $11 million, recoveries of $11 million — for a total $502 million. That is in the natural resource operations revenue.

Additionally, there is Crown lands revenue and land registry fees of $121 million, and $32 million in land registry fees, and that gives you the total of $1.467 million. Then if you go to the forecast on the other side, there is a… Sorry, I don’t need to go to the other side. So that gives you the total of $1.467 million.

H. Bains: Thank you, Minister, but it’s becoming more and more confusing.

Unless I wrote them wrong, the numbers that you read originally for ’16-17 was 1.422; for ’17-18, I wrote down 1.412; and for ’18-19, it was 1.403.

Now we are getting some different numbers, so it’s not matching. The fiscal plan has different numbers. The minister originally read me some different numbers. Now we’re adding up your table, and we come up with different numbers. How is that?

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry. Just to look to the difference between the 1.467 that I mentioned, which is how I…

H. Bains: What year?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is ’16-17. So the budget forecast, and that was the breakdown that I just went through to get to the $1.467 million. The number I referenced when I talked about total ministry revenue, before, of 1.422, 1.412, and 1.413 — the difference between the 1.467 is $45 million in logging tax. That is a tax that is administered by the Ministry of Finance and not to direct Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations revenue.

When the first question came up about total ministry revenue, I took the numbers that did not include the logging tax, so the difference between the 1.422 and the 1.467 is $45 million of logging tax in ’16-17, $40 million in ’17-18 and $40 million in ’18-19.

So I apologize for the difference between those two numbers. The first one did not include the logging tax. The numbers that I read out in total included that, so that should be netted out, because that is actually Ministry of Finance tax. We don’t administer it, even though it comes from logging operations.

H. Bains: So is the logging tax considered to be your ministry revenue?

[1545]

My question was…. Let me read that question again: what is the real, all-inclusive revenue for the ministry for the fiscal years ’16-17, ’17-18 and ’18-19? And your an-
[ Page 10989 ]
swer was: ’16-17 would be 1.422; ’17-18 would be 1.412; and ’18-19 would be 1.413.

Now I’m hearing that the numbers are, again, different than that, because $45 million for ’16-17 logging tax was not included in that. Now, if that is part of your total revenue, why wasn’t it included in that and why did you consider to leave it out? Perhaps you could give me, now, final numbers — real, all-inclusive revenue for the ministry for those fiscal years that I talked about.

Hon. S. Thomson: So to confirm, the numbers, when you asked the first question…. Before we got into comparison to the fiscal plan, before we got into the fact that the service plan number is different…. I hope I’ve explained, to some degree, that difference. The correct numbers are the 1.422, the 1.412, and the 1.403, which are the numbers I provided in response to the first time the question was asked.

When I went through the summary table — the breakdown of how we got to that — I did include the logging tax in that, when it makes up those numbers.

But to reflect what is actually our revenue. Since that tax is administered by the Ministry of Finance — it is not a direct Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations revenue — I netted that back out to get to the $1.422 billion. The total revenue related to forestry and natural resources…. That number of 1.467 did include the logging tax. I netted it out in giving you the first answer, because it is not a direct Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations revenue. It is in the Ministry of Finance.

H. Bains: Perhaps I would make it a little easier for the minister. If the minister could table a breakdown of what is the real answer to my question. Because when I’m adding up some of the numbers that you are giving us, we all come up with different numbers.

When you add “forest” from A9, fiscal plan, and “other natural resources” for ’16-17 — 812 and 502 — I come up with 1.314. Then you say that there are Crown lands for that year, $121 million. You add that, and I come up with 1.435.

Something is not adding up. Perhaps the minister could table the document so that we could rely on, could go to…. Right now this is what we have — the fiscal plan. Or we have your service plan numbers to go by.

Now it seems to be there are third numbers someplace. We need to know where you come up with those numbers, how you arrive at those numbers. If you could document an official document here — perhaps later on today, or maybe tomorrow, so that we know….

What basically I’m trying to do is not to embarrass anybody but just establish some baselines so that we can go on and look at and compare those numbers for my future references so that I know what I’m referring to.

[1550]

There will be more questions coming based on our revenue and expenses, so I need to know the real numbers. It’s so that we know — and you know, and your ministry people know — what number we are working with.

Hon. S. Thomson: Certainly, we will table that. The difference in what you’ve just referenced where you talked about $121 million — I think I gave it in the number, the $32 million in land registry fees that makes up that total.

But, you know, perhaps the best thing to do is to provide the table that we consider the direct revenue for the ministry, which is $1.422 billion in ’16-17. We talked about logging tax. We will provide the reconciliation between the revenue by source on A9 and that number. But for purposes of our operations, consider our revenue to be $1.422 billion for ’16-17.

The Chair: To be clear, Minister, you’ll be providing a table to the member and not technically tabling to the committee. Just to be clear — you’re providing a table.

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry, thank you, Chair. My intention is to provide it through this process to the member opposite. We will provide it. We can confirm it in the record, if necessary. I seek direction.

But what we want to do is to make sure that the member opposite has the correct figure that we determine is our revenue, how it’s derived — the components that make up that total — for the three years that he requested, and how it reconciles with A9.

Whatever is the most appropriate way to provide that, we’ll provide it.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I’ll read from the standing order: “In Committee of the Whole, neither minister nor private member is permitted to table a document.”

But you can provide the information. It’s not technically tabling a document.

H. Bains: What we’re dealing with here is public information. If it’s permissible, I would like the minister to table that document so that it becomes a public document. Because right now, this is the public document — and this was tabled in the House — which is a fiscal plan and the total budget.

Now, if the numbers are something different than the fiscal plan, I think we need to table them. So that’s what I would be requesting.

The Chair: The minister has the latitude to table this in the House or in any other way but not tabling at this committee.

B. Routley: I know this is my first entry into it. It wasn’t quite how I imagined it, but I want to ask this question anyway. It may or may not be helpful.
[ Page 10990 ]

What we’re trying to get at is all of the revenue sources that eventually the ministry, your ministry, has some say or control over. So if there are pockets — bags full — of money in other ministries, we’re trying to figure out if you can collect those together.

I’m aware, for example, with water…. I assume that some of the water pieces or bags full of money in the province are held with Hydro. I don’t know whether they’re held with Hydro or whether the total amount is shown in your budget. I guess it would be helpful to know if there are other ministries that have money also that are, in some way, related to your ministry.

[1555]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just again, as I committed, I will provide the numbers, the breakdown on those numbers. We will provide the reconciliation to the A9.

In terms of how the Ministry of Finance rolls up all of the numbers of the various sources of revenues, whether it is natural resource revenue or taxation revenue or any of those revenue sources in the total basis, those questions would be appropriately directed to the Ministry of Finance. But we will provide that breakdown for our ministry, which, for example, does include water licensing revenue as part of that revenue source in the ministry, as I read through those numbers.

H. Bains: We’ll move on, with that commitment from the minister that we will be provided a breakdown to arrive at the total numbers that the minister provided so that we know what we are working with.

We’ll move on to the next question. If the minister could give us a breakdown about the real numbers for ’15-16 and the revenue estimates for ’16-17, ’17-18 and ’18-19 for water resources…. If the minister wants to go over them with me one by one, we can do that. I could list you the list, but perhaps it’s better that I go one by one. First would be the water resources.

Hon. S. Thomson: For water, which is part of the total revenue that we’ve just been talking about, for ’15-16 revised forecast, $441 million; for the ’16-17 budget forecast, $480 million; ’17-18 target of $444 million; and ’18-19 target of $450 million.

H. Bains: If I could just make sure that I have got the right numbers, ’15-16, $441 million; ’16-17, $480 million; ’17-18, $444 million; and ’18-19, $450 million. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: That’s correct.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister would give us now the same numbers, same years, for Wildlife Act fees and licences.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: The number for ’15-16, $22 million; in the ’16-17 forecast, $22 million; $22 million for the ’17-18 target; and $22 million for the ’18-19 target.

H. Bains: And Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act licences and permits, same years?

Hon. S. Thomson: The ATV licensing registration fees that are part of the new regime are not in our revenue. Those are licensing registration fees that are under Ministry of Transportation, and ICBC, so those numbers, the request for that, would be more correctly directed to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

If, at some point, you would like to get an update on the amount of registration — you know, the total numbers of vehicles that have been registered — I’m sure we can provide that.

H. Bains: So the ministry revenue does not include any revenue from the Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act?

Interjection.

H. Bains: The minister said yes. How about land registry fees?

Hon. S. Thomson: Land registry fees forecast for ’15-16 are $35 million. The budget forecast for ’16-17 is $32 million; the ’17-18 target, $32 million; and the ’18-19 target, $32 million.

H. Bains: And land tenure revenue and other income and interest earned in relation to those?

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: The ’15-16 revised forecast, $72 million; the budget forecast for ’16-17, $121 million; the ’17-18 target, $140 million; and the ’18-19 target, $111 million.

H. Bains: Let me go back a bit here for water resources. The minister mentioned that the adjusted numbers for ’15-16 were $441 million.

Can the minister explain what they are adjusted from? What was the forecast, and how did he arrive at $441 million?

Hon. S. Thomson: I just wanted to clarify that the number we provided was $441 million. You were looking for….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Thomson: The revised. Okay. We will provide you…. We’ve asked for it. It would be the number that was the budget forecast for ’15-16 and how the actual revenue compared to the budgeted revenue from the pre-
[ Page 10991 ]
vious fiscal plan. I think that’s what you’re looking for, because it isn’t ’15-16 you’re looking for. That’s the past year.

There would have been a forecasted amount for ’15-16, and then there would be the revised forecast for ’15-16. It’s the actual revenue collected.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could provide me the numbers of what they were forecasted and adjusted.

Again, if I’m looking at these numbers — $441 million for ’15-16 — I presume those are actual numbers. For ’16-17, $480 million is forecasted, but then it’s down $444 million for ’17-18 and then a little bit up to $450 for ’18-19.

What are the reasons for this fluctuation? Why is it that the ministry is projecting less revenue for ’17-18 than ’16-17?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: The forecast, as we pointed out, is $441 million for ’15-16; for ’16-17, a budget forecast of $480 million. The increase there is due to…. As you know, with the new licensing regime coming in for groundwater licensing under the Water Sustainability Act, that provides for the increase.

For ’16-17, there are also a number of new hydro power plants scheduled to begin operations over the next several years, which have secured energy purchase agreements with B.C. Hydro and are either under construction or are in commissioning phases. So that’s for the increase from ’15-16 to ’16-17.

H. Bains: I appreciate that answer. But I think my question was, then, for ’17-18, the revenue is forecast to be dropped. We’re back to what we were in ’15-16, almost. What is the reason for dropping the revenue for ’17-18 from ’16-17? And it continues on — I might as well ask — for ’18-19 at the same level.

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: The forecasts in the out-year…. As you know, they’re based on projections which are based on water use, particularly by the major users. The decrease in ’17-18 is due to a tier 3 revenue-pricing policy which ends on December 31, 2017. That pricing policy related to major uses is in the policy with respect to Energy and Mines. That’s the reason for the forecast revenue in the licensing revenue, which we administer, for those out-years.

H. Bains: Let’s get this thing clear. There was price adjustment upward, so we got $441 million. Sorry, $441 million was ’15-16, but then there’s a price adjustment upward, and our revenue rose to $480 million. Now there’s another price adjustment — for water uses — downward? And as a result, the total revenue is again back to where we started. Is that what the minister is saying?

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, within the projections, there are licensing revenue increases coming in as a result of the groundwater licensing regime that is coming in under the Water Sustainability Act — additional revenue in the forecast and through the budget forecast going forward.

The adjustment down in ’17-18 is as a result of a policy pricing regime with B.C. Hydro, which is 90 percent of the water revenues from major power producers. That policy decision is appropriately canvassed with the Minister of Energy. We administer the fee and the policy, and it’s reflected in our revenue.

H. Bains: So that we can get this thing clear: there was a price adjustment for water uses, the rental, that gave us extra revenue for ’17-18, compared to ’15-16. But now are we saying that the Minister of Energy, through B.C. Hydro, has decided, for water uses for the private power producers, that the rent will be lower, going forward?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as we indicated in projecting for the revenue, the new groundwater licensing regime under the Water Sustainability Act brings in the additional revenue in the plan, going forward.

[1625]

There is, in ’17-18, a change in pricing regime for what is called the tier 3 level, where B.C. Hydro pays more per megawatt hour than any other producers because tier 3 only applied to them. This will level the rates that only apply to B.C. Hydro, and then that reflects in a reduced revenue in ’17-18 and ’18-19 that is built into the projections, or the forecast, that we referenced.

H. Bains: The revenue reduction going forward…. We want to make sure. Is this all due to B.C. Hydro rates that the ministry charges? Or does it include other water uses? The Nestlés of the world, other areas of the forest industry — that they use fracking….

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

My question. Perhaps the minister could tell us, maybe simplify things a little bit here. What was the unit price charged for ’15-16 to arrive at $441 million? What is the unit price for ’16-17 to arrive at $480 million? What will be the unit price for ’17-18 and ’18-19? Maybe that would simplify.

Also, if the minister could maybe clarify. The change in those prices — is it only applicable to B.C. Hydro? What else is included? What else is being affected by that price-change regime, as the minister put it?

The Chair: Good afternoon, Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Good afternoon, Chair. Welcome to the chair.
[ Page 10992 ]

I don’t have the specific numbers handy. We are undertaking to get those numbers, and we’ll provide them to the member opposite.

The Chair: The member for Surrey-Newton.

H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the chair.

I’ll just warn you. The movie so far has been pretty boring. I would say that you came at a time where you’d think that we would be moving a little faster.

It is a bit frustrating. There are some simple questions being asked. It’s all budgetary questions, and there is so much talent and expertise in this room. You would think that those numbers would be at their fingertips. But we’ll take it. Maybe the minister could advise: can we get them by tomorrow maybe, those numbers?

Interjection.

H. Bains: Yes? Okay. I’ll move on, then. Let’s go to the next question.

[1630]

The question then, again, would be: can the minister explain why some major water users in the province — for example, the pulp and paper industry and the Nestlé corporation — are not required, and the minister will know that, to meter their actual water uses. Does the new Water Sustainability Act require all users to meter their water uses, including groundwater, or not?

Hon. S. Thomson: As you know, the new groundwater licensing regulation is going to be coming into force. The implementation of that will be implemented as we move forward with it. The new fees and rentals will be designed to generate the revenue to recover the cost to necessarily fully implement the scheme. That will require….

The approximately 20,000 existing non-domestic groundwater users will be transitioned into the licensing system over time. Approximately 600 new applications will be expected annually. The fees and rentals will apply to surface and groundwater users. Domestic groundwater users will be exempt from the licensing and fees.

[1635]

As it’s implemented, the operations that will be required to be licensed under the new groundwater licensing scheme will be required to monitor and report water use, because that’ll be the basis for how the fees will be applied.

H. Bains: My question was actually a bit more precise than that.

The question was: under the Water Sustainability Act, are all major water users — such as the pulp and paper industry, the Nestlé corporation — required to meter their actual water uses?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I mentioned, we will be moving forward over a period of time with the implementation of the new groundwater licensing requirements. The basis for those will be….

We’re not going to be looking to charge or to ensure or to require, for example, cattlemen to necessarily meter. But what we will be doing is to ensure that as we move forward with the implementation, the systems are in place to ensure that the volumes that are being used are the ones that are being licensed and paid for and monitored and reported.

H. Bains: I wasn’t talking about cattlemen and farmers. I’m talking about the major water users. I’m talking about the pulp and paper industry. I’m talking about Nestlé.

Are they required, actually, to meter their uses — that’s the question — under the Water Sustainability Act or not?

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: As part of the legislation, as part of the regulations for groundwater licensing, all major users will be required to monitor and publicly report. The requirement for ensuring that the volumes that are reported are accurate can be set under the conditions of the licence. It could include metering.

As I said, we’re in the process of developing the implementation, the regulation around the compliance and auditing process to ensure that the volumes that are required to be paid for under the licensing are accurate. In some cases, that could require metering, but at this point, it’s not a specific requirement for all. Those will be developed as part of the conditions of the licence.

H. Bains: The answer I got is that they are not required under the Water Sustainability Act right now to meter the uses of water — corporations like Nestlé and pulp and paper and all of those. If I’m incorrect in my understanding of the minister’s answer, then the minister could correct me. But right now the minister’s answer is that the major corporations like pulp and paper and Nestlé are not required to meter their water usage under the Water Sustainability Act.

My next question would be about…. Could the minister confirm if the ministry gives fee exemptions for hydraulic fracking if non-potable water is used?

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, they will not be charged as part of this regime for the deep saline water use.

H. Bains: Would the minister provide actual and forecast water rents from the oil and gas sector for hydraulic fracking in 2015 and 2016?

Hon. S. Thomson: I don’t have that information specifically, but we will provide it.
[ Page 10993 ]

H. Bains: I hope maybe during estimates, maybe tomorrow?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, we’ll undertake to attempt to do that. I’m sure the information is available, and we can provide it as quickly as we can.

H. Bains: I mean, the information is needed for these estimates. I hope later we will get that, during this time.

I must say that the statutory law requires that the government act in the financial interest of the Crown. So my question is: why aren’t we maximizing the benefit from the water uses, the water revenue, for all the uses that I mentioned earlier?

They’re not required to meter, so we don’t know. We’re just depending on what they tell us. I’m not questioning their honesty, but I’m just saying that you’re allowing — just like everything else in the forest industry — self-reliance and self-policing. We’ve seen the results, and the results are not very good. It’s the same here.

It’s the responsibility of the minister to maximize the benefits on behalf of the Crown. Why are we making decisions and policies that clearly show that on one hand, the water use revenue goes up, and on the other hand, next year, it goes down, and we bring it back to about what ’15-16 used to bring in. There is still no requirement for the minister to know what actually is used, other than: just trust us.

I will leave it at that. I don’t think that’s the way to run a government. That’s not the way to make the best use for the public. The next question I will allow the member from Cowichan to ask — a few questions on the staffing side.

B. Routley: We’re looking for some updating on the full-time-equivalents. First, would the minister please provide from his briefing package the full-time-equivalent positions with a position number that’s excluding the auxiliary and seasonal staff in the fiscal year ’15-16?

Number 1 is the ministry as a whole. Two is the minister’s office. Three is the executive and support service. Four is corporate initiative division; five, the integrated resource operations; six, resource stewardship; seven, tenure competitiveness and innovation; eight, timber operations, pricing and First Nations; nine, coast area region; ten, south area region. Eleven is north area region.

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: Recognizing that the information we can provide here…. It’s a little bit of a point in time, because it changes, adjusts. It’s quite fluid in terms of when you’re dealing with an integrated approach to the ministry and dealing with retirements and all of those…. But I think I can provide, hopefully, what the member opposite is looking for.

As of January 22 — the end of January — our staff complement was 3,804 employees — 3,235 in FLNRO proper and 569 in what we call the corporate services for natural resources, which provides services across all of the natural resource ministries from the corporate perspective.

In terms of a general breakdown — and I don’t know whether this is exactly what the member opposite asked; I think it covers most of it — I’ll just read through these quickly: minister’s office, four; deputy minister’s office, 19; corporate initiatives, 47; integrated resource operations, 628; regional operations, coast, 415; north, 474; south, 634; resource stewardship, 254; tenures, competitiveness and innovation, 83; timber operations, pricing and First Nations, 677; and then the corporate services component, 569.

B. Routley: The second part of the full-time-equivalence is…. We would like the minister to please provide the number of full-time-equivalent positions within the resource stewardship division. That’s for resource practices branch; the tree improvement branch; the forest analysis and inventory branch; resource management objectives branch; the water management branch; water stewardship branch; and fish, wildlife and habitat branch.

And, if you have it, if you could give us, in addition to the overall number, a summary for that group as a whole. And if you have a comparison of how these numbers relate to last year…. Is it up or down?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the breakdown that the member opposite is asking for more specifically, that’s information we’ll have to provide. I don’t have that directly handy, but we will provide. I did indicate it in the breakdown that I provided in response to the first question around the resource stewardship branch, 254. But what needs to be recognized, for example, is in the south, in the north and the coast, we will have people in those regional operations that are in fish and wildlife responsibilities that link back to the fish and wildlife branch, for example. It’s not as simple as just saying they’re all in one branch or one division.

What we will do is undertake to provide an estimate or a rough calculation of that kind of breakdown. I think we provided it previously to the member opposite last year, and we’ll undertake to try to do it in the same way so that a comparison could be made. But I don’t have it here specifically.

The nature of our ministry is that it has a very integrated approach to it with responsibility for components of it in our regional operations and even within some of the timber operations and things — all kind of cover off a number of those responsibilities. But we will try to get the rough breakdown that the member asked for in much the same way that we provided it previously.
[ Page 10994 ]

B. Routley: The one thing that I am aware of — and I think you brought it to mind with your response — is that over time old jobs become re-created into new configurations and new combinations and even new names. In addition to giving us the numbers that I’ve asked you to provide — kind of a comparison between 2014-15 numbers to 2015-16 numbers of full-time-equivalents — if you could also give us the new categories that I didn’t name in my listing off of the categories….

If there are some redundancies, as well, if you can go through the listing that I’ve laid out here and say, “Okay, well, these categories have now transitioned to something else,” that would be helpful to give us a better updated picture of what has transpired over the last couple of years. If you want to respond to that.

Hon. S. Thomson: We’ll attempt to do it consistent with the way we provided the information last time. I think the member opposite covered, probably, most of the categories in his question. I think we will be able to provide the information in a pretty consistent manner as previously.

B. Routley: Would the minister confirm that the 2016-2017 operating expenses for resource stewardship are $107.6 million? And would the minister please also confirm that this represents a $12.4 million increase over the $95.2 million allocation 2015-16?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: I can confirm that the numbers the member referenced are correct. This reflects the additional funding that I’d mentioned in my opening comments — about the additional funding into the land-based investment program — the over $12 million in the program.

We committed last year in the plan that we would restore that funding and are pleased that the budget ’16-17 includes that additional funding, which is going to assist the resource stewardship branch in the broad range of programs that are funded and supported under the LBIS.

B. Routley: Would the minister please provide operating expenses including the land-based investment funding for each of the branches within the resource stewardship division? That is for the resource practices branch; tree improvement branch; forest analysis and inventory branch; resource management objectives branch; water management branch; water stewardship branch; and the fish, wildlife and habitat branch.

Hon. S. Thomson: So I, maybe, just need to confirm whether the member opposite is asking specifically about the LBIS strategy and the program funding which spreads across components of the branch, or whether you’re looking for the specific breakdown around the total operations in the resource stewardship division and branch and operations. I don’t have that specifically. We can provide that.

But if it’s specific to the LBIS, I can provide, sort of, a general breakdown of where the LBIS funding goes. Although it will be important to point out in providing that, that final decisions have not yet been made on all of the allocation through the LBIS program, because we look at where the priorities are and where the funding needs to go for habitat or for inventory work or those kinds of things.

I just want to clarify what specifically the member opposite was looking for.

B. Routley: If it’s not too much trouble, it’s both.

[1705]

I’m certainly prepared to wait and have a written response in due course, but we’re looking for the total operating expenses and certainly interested in the LBIS.

The land base funding — could you give us what that is? Is that really the same….? Do you have, right now, the land base funding for 2016-17?

Hon. S. Thomson: The total for the land-based investment strategy funding for the previous year, $62.84 million; for ’16-17, $74.84 million.

B. Routley: We’re going to turn to waste now. There’s a waste indicator of the poor regulation of the giveaway stumpage rates and waste levies and of unsustainable forest management. The amounts of fibre and good timber that are left in piles at logging sites to be burned are really a scandal of international and national proportions.

Over three million cubic metres of perfectly good sawlogs are wasted by logging companies and just burned every year. It might be a great deal more than that, given a recent study that found government waste procedures underestimate by half or more that cull volume. Ironically, the ministry staff attested, during the hearings of the Special Committee on Timber Supply, that we face a shortfall of timber supply in the Interior.

Would the minister please tell the House what this ministry is doing to reduce the wastefulness, improve estimating procedures and ensure a thrifty use of our forest to keep jobs in rural British Columbia?

[1710]

Hon. S. Thomson: As a ministry, we are aware that levels of residue, waste volumes have increased since 2004. But it’s important to point out that the take-or-pay waste-billing policy requires licensees to pay for merchantable timber, whether it is taken to the mill or whether it is left. The policy requires payment on those.

As a result of the work coming out of the mid-timber supply committee and recommendations, increased fibre utilization, lower waste is an objective. We’ve been work-
[ Page 10995 ]
ing with all segments of the industry through a forestry fibre action plan, a number of legislative and policy changes to increase fuller utilization.

We recognize that as we face timber supply challenges, we need to make sure that we’re getting full utilization as part of the mandate requirement for our ministry. We’ve been working very closely with the ministry, through the forestry fibre action plan, to ensure that we get greater levels of fibre utilization from the land base.

B. Routley: Well, I’m disappointed in that I’ve watched so much wood waste in the province of British Columbia, and we’ve heard the same commitments that we’re making some kind of progress. Maybe take-or-pay isn’t what we need. Maybe what we need is use it or lose it, some kind of policy change to ensure…. I know the minister has tried before to come up with some kind of policy rationale.

But it still boggles my mind when I hear people that want to put in a pellet plant. We actually talked to a First Nations chief in Haida Gwaii who said he couldn’t get enough waste wood for the plant that he needs, in Haida Gwaii, to run 24-7. He was told that there was going to be the waste, but it’s just not coming to his plant, for whatever reason. He’s not able to get sufficient sources. When you see all the wood waste, and particularly when you see all of the piles burned all over British Columbia, it’s outrageous.

My question to the minister: is there any progress whatsoever on dealing with the wood waste that is there in transmission lines, in pipelines, in new roads? I’ve talked to contractors who were at one point instructed to just push it up in a pile and burn it. “Don’t bother hauling it,” because the hauling costs are too high.

Has the minister made any progress, or does he care about improving the full utilization of wood products? Has he thought about asking his staff to develop some kind of tougher guidelines along the lines of use it or lose it?

It’s just unacceptable to the people of British Columbia any longer, to sit around twiddling our thumbs while more and more wood is just being wasted in British Columbia. It’s totally unacceptable.

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the comments of the member opposite. If he’s asking whether I recognize the issue, whether I care about this situation, the answer is yes, I recognize the issue, and yes, I do care. Yes, I want to see the greater utilization of waste.

We recognize, and I’m sure the member opposite will recognize, as well, that economics are a big factor in trying to find the policy levers that make all of this work. The important steps we’ve taken are that we put all the groups together — primary industry, secondary manufacturers, pulp industry, pellet industry, value-added components — and asked them to come forward with an action plan.

They’ve done that — a forest fibre action plan, 13 policy-related action items that focus on improving the utilization, with specific objectives. The interesting part of all of this was that the recommendations and the policy action that came out of this were from a consensus-based approach. All of those interests agreed that these were the policy recommendations that would move towards greater utilization and get that increased efficiency of fibre utilization.

So 13 policy-related action items. They deal with encouraging and providing the mechanisms that encourage stronger business-to-business relationships. Tools that if those business-to-business relationships don’t generate…. Other tools, tenure opportunities, to remove harvest residuals when those business-to-business relationships do not exist….

I think we are making progress. Have we got more work do? I would acknowledge and agree that we do, but I think what I’ve noted is that, while we have an issue to address, the waste percentage by year has levelled off. We are making improvement, so the increases in percentages that you were seeing are now levelling off.

We are getting more waste utilization. In one district, we had 300,000 cubic metres of waste facilitated through that process, brought in. We’re going to continue to push on this, continue to work with the recommendations out of the action plan and continue to ensure that, as all the interests are looking for additional fibre and full utilization, we will continue to look at the tools and work with the industry — all the members, through the forest fibre working group, to address this.

[1720]

B. Routley: It sounds like you’ve got a number of recommendations. Are we doing these things, and if not, why not?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to point out again, the process that was undertaken here, as I said, involved that broad cross-section of the industry, all the various interests. The fibre action plan has 13 specific actions that are requested. We’re working with that collective group to implement all of the recommendations — so recommendations around implementing a fibre recovery process; biomass handling guidelines; amending the fibre recovery tenures, around road and landing tenures, as an example; entering into supplemental forest licences where appropriate — and move on those.

There are a number of activities that are continuing to be worked on: looking at the fibre utilization baseline; reviewing the proposal to expand the use of cruise-based billing; pricing mechanisms; reviewing the waste benchmarks — looking at all of those recommendations that are in the action plan.

All of the people are at the table. They’re all endorsed. We are working very hard on these. I’ve asked the fibre
[ Page 10996 ]
action working group. The plan is to make sure that we move forward on these and address the overall issue.

As I’ve said, over the last while, the percentages have levelled off, but again, I will acknowledge that we need to do more. We need to look at how we make sure these tools and actions that they’ve put here all work, collectively, together to make sure that we can continue to get the maximum utilization off the land base. I know industry is committed to it.

I agree that we shouldn’t see, and don’t want to see, a high level of waste left on the landscape when it could be utilized for other purposes.

[1725]

B. Routley: I’m not clear whether there are targets and timelines involved in what you’ve just said. It does sound like there’s some work being done. But are there targets and timelines?

The other part of my question would be: does this include…? When you mention stakeholder groups, what about the oil and gas industry, transmission lines, new or improved or changed roads where there are huge volumes wasted or pushed up and just burnt that could be accessed by mills that are in desperate need of timber supply?

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: The answer to the first part of the question around: are there timelines and direction around all the recommendations? The answer is yes. The action plan from all of those recommendations is up. Actually, it is posted. It’s up on our website for each of the 13 actions or 13 recommendations that have come out of that work.

We do work with the Oil and Gas Commission, for example, on that. As an example, with the pipeline licensing, where they are required to have a plan, they must look at the marketability of the timber. The plan must include but is not limited to the volume estimates, the marketing commitments, the salvage activities for the timber, the reconciliation report that reconciles between the harvest and the scale volume and all that. We do work and ensure that where there is an economic use of the fibre coming off those activities, whether it be pipelines or roads, it’s made available. That’s all part of the focus of the fibre action working group as well.

H. Bains: I think the minister mentioned that they met with major industry and all the players and came up with these recommendations. My question would be: was anybody from the workers’ side representing on this advisory group?

[1730]

Hon. S. Thomson: As part of all of that work, the contracting industry was part of those discussions. It had representation.

The other key part of this is that the licensee obligations, the contractual obligations, are really with all the licensees. That’s where we need to direct and ensure the focus on the action plans in terms of…. That’s who we’ve been engaging with in the process. Contractors have been at the table as part of the process. All of the sectors in the industry — whether it’s the pellet sector, whether it’s the pulp sector, whether it’s the value-added manufacturers, whether it’s secondary manufacturers, primary industry — were all at the table in the discussions, including the contracting industry.

H. Bains: Let’s not forget that it’s the workers who actually can give you the true picture of what is going on in the field. They’re the ones who are working, and they see it every day. They could also advise the minister and the government what actually is being done if the rules aren’t being followed.

You can have all these recommendations, and if they’re not followed through — as we’ve seen with self-regulating regimes and self-policing — I have my doubts that anything will be done. Let’s face it: this is nothing new.

The forest industry. You know the problem that we have about waste here? You can go back to the 1940s and ’50s and you can read about the waste that is left behind in the forest by those who are in the industry. And all of a sudden, the minister says that we realized there’s waste, we put together this group, and they came up with a number of recommendations.

It clearly is the result of failure of this government because of the cutbacks in enforcement in the last 15 years. That’s the result, and who’s paying for it? The workers are paying, as I said earlier, with their job losses. Three million. That’s just the Interior. That was brought to our attention when we were going around, as the bi-party committee, to talk about the timber supply in the Interior.

You come to the coast — same situation, same picture. Here, actually, it’s a different problem. If you listen to the workers, they’ll tell you. The logs that are destined for export? Just go and take a look at what’s going on with those logs. There used to be bulk loading in the ships. Now they are going into the containers, and in order to fit the containers, the flare at the bottom is being sawed off now and left behind. No one is paying for that.

The log export alone itself is a huge problem in our industry and job growth and the industry going down. But leaving some other problems to go along with it…. That is, additional waste, in addition to what used to be the normal waste, as we talked about in the Interior, where good logs are being burned.

[1735]

In the meantime, we’re talking about — at that time — ten sawmills go down because of lack of fibre. And three million? How many sawmills is that? That’s minimum three mills, I would say. So there’s the fibre.
[ Page 10997 ]

If the minister and this government want to show some leadership, say: “Look, we have given those forests to you to utilize to the maximum utilization of the fibre. If you’re not going to use it, don’t burn it.” Let’s find a way to utilize it so that those mills that are destined to go down, aren’t going down and the jobs will be maintained.

That’s where it is. We’ve been drawing this to the minister’s attention, year after year after year — not only here in the estimates but in the House and outside as well. I don’t know when this government will wake up. The industry that built this province — we’re ignoring it still. All of a sudden: “Let’s put another panel together. Let’s put another advisory committee together. Let’s put these recommendations together somehow. We still don’t know what we’re going to do with it, but those are the recommendations. Somehow we’ll make it look like we’re doing something.”

I think that is a serious problem. As I said before, it’s a statutory law that we get the maximum on behalf of the Crown from our natural resources, and we’re failing. The government is failing.

I think it’s high time that at least this minister…. I have a lot more respect for this minister than the ministers before. Because they simply…. One of them stood up in the House and said: “We are the spectators.” Remember that? “The industry will do whatever the industry wants to do. We’re the spectators.” Well, here it was coming from the Minister of Forests: “We’re the spectators.”

No wonder the industry is in the shape that they’re in. It just frustrates us — those who care about the industry, those who grew up in the industry. There are so many families out there who are still hoping that they will continue to depend on the forest industry, but their futures start to look a little darker and darker under this regime.

I’ll leave it at that, but I think that’s very, very frustrating. The minister talks about: it’s all about economics. So who decides economics? Where’s the government in this? Why don’t we put together an economic panel who could determine all of this? But anyway, it’s frustrating.

Let me go to the next area, about pest control — if I could ask you some of the questions on that. Would the minister please tell the House: what is the actual budget for pest management or forest health, broken down by monitoring and treatment for the year ’14-15, ’15-16. And going forward, I will be asking the next question for ’16-17 and ’17-18. Again, if you could break it down by monitoring and treatment — the budget, please.

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: I have the information here. I just want to respond, firstly, though, to the comments of the member opposite around the waste issue. I certainly want to indicate that it’s not my intention or desire here to be a spectator in the process. We are working very, very hard with the forest fibre action group.

That’s why we formed the group. That’s why we brought all of the interests together. This is really being driven, to a great degree, by the interests of the other users — the pellet industry, the value-added sector, the biomass energy users and everything like that — around wanting to find the right policy framework that gets full utilization.

As I said, there’s an action plan. We brought the groups together, made sure it included all of those interests, made sure that the recommendations that came from them were consensus recommendations that they all agreed to. In fact, at one point during the process, there were some recommendations that didn’t have all of that consensus. I sent them back and said: “No, that’s not going to work. You need to come with recommendations that all are going to support and can work, and then there’s an action plan that goes with it and a timeline.”

We are making progress. I recognize that economics are a factor in it. We’ve got different qualities. We’ve had the mountain pine beetle infestations and dealing with that. The quality of what’s there is a factor. In the end, if it is left, they’re required to pay for it. We do get rent from it — you know, the economic rent from that through the billing. But that is probably not the most preferable thing to happen.

We can get more value out of that by bringing it in and providing the fibre for those other uses, and that’s the focus of the fibre action plan. We’re making progress. It’s a key priority. I’ve directed and asked staff, the industry and all the players to make sure they move forward with all of that, so we’re committed to do that.

Ultimately, I’m interested in looking at strengthening the provisions that I have as a minister around “do not destroy.” I think, ultimately, that’s the tool that can be used. If we can strengthen that tool, which I’m hoping to do, that’s the ultimate process — to say, “If you can’t come to these arrangements and you can’t get the business-to-business and you can’t find the way….” That’s a tool that I think we need to look at more seriously to be able to strengthen our policy framework and our ability to do that. I hope to be bringing some initiatives forward that are going to allow me to do that.

[1745]

I just want to indicate to the members opposite that it’s part of my mandate. I take it seriously. It’s complex. There’s lots of work do in it, but we’re not standing idly by and pretending there’s not an issue or that we’re not working on it. We’re working very diligently on it, and I believe we’re making progress.

Now I’ve probably forgotten what the specific question was. I think the member asked around spending on pest monitoring or pest control.

Spending in ’16-17 is estimated to be approximately $6 million. Each year we spend about $1 million to complete provincial aerial surveys to monitor for forest health issues. So $2 million has been allocated out of that six to provide for increased surveillance, and this year we’re planning to spend about $4 million to treat the highest-priority areas for pests.
[ Page 10998 ]

H. Bains: I neglected — and I apologize — earlier on to congratulate Diane Nicholls for being appointed as the chief forester, and I withdraw my remarks earlier where I said no progress was being made by this government. It’s the first woman, I understand, in this position. I say, yes, there is progress in one area, and I congratulate the government and the minister for that. I say that is a step in the right direction.

I think the question here…. The pest management — you cannot treat this as a fixed-cost item because of the pest cycle, the insect cycle and the climate change and all that. It moves. It changes. So why not treat this as a wildfire management, where you…?

We’ll talk about that a little later on, on how the government is trying to show how much they’re allocating. It’s $63 million, going back I don’t know how many years, when they know clearly that the cost of fighting fires, going back the last ten years….

I think there was only one year it was under $63 million. Then the average cost is over $150 million, I believe, and has gone as high as $300 million, and last year it was $270 million. So they know that the cost is higher, every year, than $63 million. But they always allocate $63 million.

So my question here is…. The minister always says that we have the ability to dip into the forecast allowances, but here, I think, it should be the same way — this area. It is so important for forest health that we treat this seriously and that we are able to dip into other areas to fight fires — and for monitoring and controlling pests.

Would the minister agree that that’s the way it should be treated?

[1750]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, what’s important to point out here is that we have overall resources, an overall budget, within the fiscal plan and the work to achieve balanced budget imperatives around providing that fiscal climate and investment climate for the overall province, for the overall economy.

With respect to pest health, what we do is work within…. There’s a plan, but you can make adjustments within that plan to reflect, depending on the survey work and monitoring that takes place…. You can adjust within the plan. For example, last year, as a result of the monitoring work, specific action needed to be taken with respect to gypsy moth. The funding was there. That action was taken. It worked. This year it’s not in the plan because we monitored. The problem manifested itself, it was addressed, and we don’t have to do it this year. If monitoring shows that we do, then the plan would be adjusted.

Within the overall funding, we believe we have the ability to treat the highest priority for pests. We’ve got additional resources, as I pointed out, for monitoring, and that’s on the basis that there is an acknowledgment that things are changing. Out there on the landscape, we need to do the monitoring to make sure that we address those. If emergency situations develop that would not be covered within the plan, then we will need to address that at that time. That would be looking for a contingency approach to address it. With the commitment of resources we’ve got — the increased monitoring, the $4 million for the highest-priority areas — we believe we have the resources to address the issues that may be ahead of us for the next year.

H. Bains: Again, like I said before, the minister confirms every time he stands up that it’s just political decisions rather than what are practical decisions, what is necessary for our forest health. We’re paying the big price for it.

Perhaps we can move on to the other area, the research and development area. Would the minister provide descriptive numbers for research within the ministry in fiscal year ’16-17? Perhaps he could break it down — salary budget, full-time equivalent positions; operating budget; and funding from external sources, such as FPInnovations.

[1755]

Hon. S. Thomson: For 2016-17, the salary budget for research is anticipated to be about $6.2 million. The operating budget in research is anticipated to be about $5.2 million. For external purposes, we have about $2.2 million in external research through FPInnovations and about $750,000 through the B.C. Innovation Council.

D. Routley: As it’s my first opportunity to stand up and participate, I would like to thank the minister and all the staff for their willingness and help with these important questions.

My questions will focus on reforestation. Before I start, I’d like to say how important the industry is from my own personal perspective, as well as, obviously, to the province and our economy, with $12½ billion worth of wood products exported from this province last year. It’s obviously one of our key industries, but it’s also, in contrast to all of our other resource industries, renewable.

I, personally, in high school had a job washing wood waste out of barges by a mill. I later became a logger chokerman. I planted trees for five years, worked in a sawmill, worked in a lumberyard and built houses. So it’s been a really big part of my life.

I’m proud of our industry, and I think British Columbians should be proud of it. We can make a significant global contribution to climate change adaptation and the fight against increased climate change by having healthy, thriving forests that are the heart of a thriving economy but also the lungs of the planet if we manage them well. That is the context or the perspective from which I come at this issue.

I think that we’ve not done nearly what we could to guard the health of our forests and at the same time cre-
[ Page 10999 ]
ate wealth and employment. When we see figures that tell us that in Quebec, the jobs per cubic metre are two times greater than in B.C., and Ontario three times, or vice versa…. In any case, it’s obviously not a good outcome for B.C.

We on Vancouver Island see such a massive exodus of our wood offshore and away from job-creating potential industry here in B.C. Pulp mills in my constituency — I have two — are both starving of fibre. At the same time, we see millions upon millions of cubic metres exported from our forests.

We’ll have questions later about the annual allowable cut and whether it’s realistically determined, whether it, in fact, is sustainable at the levels it is because of the lack of information about the forest. But these questions will focus on our investment in the future, in protecting the public wealth and public interest in the forest. There’s probably no more function that ranks higher in the public’s consciousness than an indicator of how well the ministry is performing in its job of monitoring reforestation.

[1800]

From what we see, there’s a minimum of two million hectares of public Crown lands working for us that are not sufficiently restocked. I’d like the minister to confirm that number for me, if possible, and update us on what the number is now.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the current NSR…. As of September 17, 2015, approximately 672,000 hectares of current NSR are reported in the ministry’s results database. This includes tenure areas, which are approximately 555,000 hectares of recently harvested areas that are managed by tenure holders and B.C. Timber Sales as part of their ongoing legal obligation to reforest.

And natural agents — wildfire, mountain pine beetle, other…. Approximately 117,000 hectares resulting from those impacts have been identified so far through field surveys. These areas are the government’s responsibility to manage. We don’t have a legal obligation, but those are the areas that we are focusing our efforts on. Of the 555,000 hectares of harvested area managed by tenure holders and B.C. Timber Sales — as you know, they have the legal obligation to reforest.

D. Routley: Could the minister please tell us what the actual budgets are for Forests for Tomorrow, their reforestation program, excluding the fertilization budget — what the budgets were for fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16 and what the targets are this fiscal year, 2016-17, and the next, 2017-18?

[1805]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member asked…. I think I’ve got the years that he referenced here: ’14-15, $30 million; ’15-16, $35.6 million; and ’16-17, $40 million.

D. Routley: The Forest Practices Board report, How Much of British Columbia’s Forest Is Not Satisfactorily Restocked? — that report was done in June 2012 — indicates the total timber-harvesting land base at 22 million hectares with 2 million or more of that not sufficiently restocked. In their definition, they do not include any wildfire- or pest-damaged stocks outside the timber-harvest land base. Even inside the timber-harvest land base, there must be surveys done to establish the state of land before it can be included in the numbers.

Is the minister telling me that 1.4 million hectares have been restocked since 2012?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, we have had this discussion previously around the numbers in the report.

[1810]

The important point, and we’ve made this before, is: as part of our ongoing program, we continually assess the areas that have the highest and the best potential for reforestation. That’s where the investments go, through the Forests for Tomorrow program and the replanting and reforestation initiatives. As was pointed out in the previous question, we’re continuing to add resources to that to continue to increase the amount of seedlings planted in that.

In doing all of that work, there are areas that we believe, as part of the ongoing survey monitoring, will naturally regenerate. We need to allow those processes to continue in those areas where we believe that the resources are more efficiently deployed — into those areas that have the highest potential for good use of those dollars. We define the not satisfactorily restocked land as areas within the land base that don’t have the sufficient number of well-spaced trees.

I’ve gone through the numbers before, in terms of the results database for NSR land. We continue to make progress. We continue to make additional investments in Forests for Tomorrow, increasing the amount of seedlings planted, and continue to look to increased numbers — up to 28 million seedlings planted annually.

D. Routley: It seems to me that the government is defining itself out of the problem. In other words, we have to ask ourselves what really is NSR, not satisfactorily restocked. My understanding is that it means that it’s inside the timber-harvesting land base. The area has been surveyed, and the results have been compared to a stocking standard. The industry has a legal obligation to restock the area, or government has determined that the area is feasible to stock.

Understanding that — and seeing that there were, I think, more than 2 million hectares previously acknowledged by the government as being not satisfactorily restocked — NSR is not meant to indicate the level of stock or the volume of an area but simply, really, is an indication of the government’s intention to restock.
[ Page 11000 ]

It seems to me that the government has simply changed its definition or applied a formula that allowed it to come to the conclusion that, I think, from all indications, 1.5 million hectares of Crown land won’t be restocked. In order for the government to say, “Well, it’s an area that we think will be naturally restocked and naturally seeded, and we won’t be treating that area,” I think they need to provide justification for such an enormous change in the estimation. Can the minister comment?

[1815]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the work that we do is designed to ensure that the resources, the dollars that are in the program are focused on the highest and best areas for reforestation — and, as we said, moving to 28 million seedlings planted per year. On the other lands, survey work and other work continues to determine the priority areas for reforestation.

It seems as though the member opposite may be disputing the fact that natural regeneration in areas is not a valid approach. We disagree with that. We feel that in those areas, having the natural regeneration in those areas is maybe the best strategy and best approach. That’s why, with the advice of professional foresters and others, we focus those efforts on the highest-priority planting areas.

As I said, there are about 672,000 hectares of current NSR in the database. Of that, 555,000 are the responsibility of tenure holders, including B.C. Timber Sales, to replant. And 117,000 hectares of NSR is resulting from wildlife, mountain pine beetle impacts and other agents that have been identified through the field surveys. That’s our responsibility to manage, and that is where we are focusing resources.

We’re continuing to address what was the identified backlog in NSRs, as part of the 2008 throne speech commitment to eliminate that by 2015 — the identified backlog at that time. There’s a minor portion of that that was impractical to treat because it was in scattered patches, uneconomical areas.

We have addressed the backlog. We’re continuing to focus our efforts on those high-priority areas where it makes the most sense for the effective utilization of taxpayer dollars towards reforestation efforts, and we’re continuing to increase the amount of funding available for that purpose.

[1820]

D. Routley: It seems like we’re using public policy to determine what the reality is out on the forest land base. We’re saying that we’re going to recognize only this much.

It’s a bit like a school district when they have a budget to only do assessments on 25 children that month to assess special needs. So they’re going to have 25 children who are designated as having special needs — not 50 but 25 because that’s how many we’re prepared to assess. You’ve got the Forest Practices Board report indicating over two million hectares of lands not sufficiently restocked. The efficiency of using the budget in the most productive and effective ways in areas should not determine how much NSR there is, just simply that portion which is target 1, 2, 3 along the line.

The rolling balance of NSR lands over the past ten years has been approximately 200,000 hectares — in other words, lands that come into the NSR designation and go out in a year, as a year passes. I’d like to understand how we’ve arrived at 600-some-odd-thousand hectares NSR from 2.2 million when the rolling balance is 200,000 and the government has not radically increased the amount of work it’s doing.

Is this an indication that the NSR has been redefined? Or that, indeed, so much work has been done that we now understand the NSR is only less than 700,000 hectares? If so, will the minister provide that work that would support that?

[1825]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I know we’ve had these discussions before, and it’s probably fair to say that our starting point on all of this is different.

We maintain the survey information. We maintain the results database. We continue to do the assessments around the area that is best suited for manual reforestation in the reforestation efforts or natural regeneration.

The member opposite seems to be continuing to assert, out of those numbers, that all of that is what should be manually reforested. We continue to work through the results database, through the ongoing input into that. I can restate the numbers, although it would just be restating what I previously said around the NSR land.

What I can commit…. I’ve just been talking to the chief forester here. What we can do is provide a table and a chart that will provide all of that information — the puts and takes and the numbers on an annual basis, and what is suitable for manual and what is suitable for natural regeneration. We can provide that to the member opposite for tomorrow.

D. Routley: I still have a problem understanding where the missing 1.4 million hectares of land went.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

The minister indicates that there’s been some kind of assessment that says that it would not be efficient or economical to restock them and that there’s an expectation of natural regrowth. But then for lands to be considered not satisfactorily restocked in the first place, they can only be classified that way — or declassified as now being restocked — if the land has been surveyed and compared to a stocking standard. Obviously, this is more problematic for government than it is for industry, who do routine assessments of their inventory.
[ Page 11001 ]

There must have been some mechanism that removed those lands from that definition, either an entirely new definition of what that means or the work that would be done in order to remove it — in other words, the surveying and comparison to the stocking standard in other areas. So somehow it sounds a little bit like not science-based forestry, as my colleague from Cowichan Valley pointed out, but more politically-based forestry policy.

[1830]

Can the minister tell me exactly what mechanism removed all those lands from definition, if it wasn’t replanting? You’ve got 200,000 hectares coming into the definition each year and going out. So the restocking would have to have been over the 200,000-hectare level to make any progress at all. To make such a huge change….

At the 200,000 rate, we’re not making any change. If we planted 100,000 extra hectares, it would have taken 15 years to achieve this change in a matter of a year or two. So which is it? Have we planted millions upon millions more seedlings than we did a couple of years ago, or have we indeed redefined those lands?

Hon. S. Thomson: The debate here, or the discussion, really starts from a starting point that was a number that was based on an estimate that we don’t necessarily agree with as the starting point for doing the calculation. What we do is the survey work. We’ve surveyed over 1.5 million hectares in mountain pine beetle–impacted areas.

[1835]

When we do the survey, we determine whether it is NSR. We determine whether it is a candidate for manual reforestation, whether it should be naturally regenerated. Then it’s put into the database. What we do is do the work to make sure that where we’re going to invest those resources, we’ll get the highest and best return for the reforestation activities.

What I did commit and which would, I think, benefit the overall discussion is that chart or information that we will provide for tomorrow which has the numbers — the in and out, the areas that, as part of that, are candidates for the manual reforestation areas that are from that work that would be for natural regeneration. I think that will provide clarity for the numbers.

But we are coming from a starting point here, in all of this, where the numbers that the member opposite is starting with are not the numbers that we start with. I can remember the discussion at the time as to how you defined NSR and whether that estimate of NSR at that point was a correct number or not. We don’t agree that that was the starting point, but we will provide the clarity by providing the information that I committed to in the previous answer.

D. Routley: There are basically two definitions, the estimated NSR and the confirmed NSR. The minister has never disputed the number of approximately two million hectares in the past. In order for it to be defined as not satisfactorily restocked, there’s a presumption that survey work and comparison work has already been done in order for it to wind up in that definition.

My problem is with the sudden change in the number. I’m not disputing the fact that some of that land may be less productive or a less worthy candidate for restocking, but there has to be more to it than disputing an estimate when, in fact, the disparity in numbers is so great.

If the minister is disagreeing with the Forest Practices Board report, I think you should say that. But even if we consider that there is a different of opinion, well, a difference of opinion isn’t usually between 600,000 and two million. That’s beyond a different interpretation of fact. I think we need to be told what changes have been made in order to achieve that new total.

I’m going to ask questions related to the fiscal years 2014-15, 2015-16 and targets for ’16-17 and ’17-18, and I’m going to ask the four of them together so that it might be easier and more efficient. That’s my effort at satisfactory restocking of the question bin.

I would like the total spent budgets and spent on fertilization through Forests for Tomorrow, the total number of hectares Forests for Tomorrow planted in those fiscal years and plans to plant in the other two, and how many seedlings Forests for Tomorrow planted in those previous two years and the two years going forward. Some of those numbers I know the minister has already touched on.

[1840]

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of fertilization funding, for ’15-16, $3 million; for ’16-17, $9.26 million. There is not an estimate currently for ’17-18, because that work still has to be done to determine what would be planned for ’17-18 through survey work. So we’ve got ’15-16 and ’16-17.

On the seedlings planted, for ’15-16, 19.7 million seedlings; for ’16-17, 17 million; for ’17-18, 25 million; and, as we indicated previously, moving towards 28 million for ’19-20.

In terms of hectares planted, in ’15-16, 14,000 hectares; in ’16-17, 12,000 hectares; and in ’17-18, 17,000 hectares.

D. Routley: If we assume that 200,000 hectares of land is coming into the definition and going out — this is a rolling balance — are these numbers that the minister gave me in excess of that work, or how do we use these numbers to get a picture of how long it’s going to take to address the problem?

[1845]

Hon. S. Thomson: A quick answer. We continue to build on the plan of setting the targets for the reforestation program in terms of seedlings, growing to, as I said, a target of 28 million seedlings by 2019. We con-
[ Page 11002 ]
tinue to assess the highest-priority lands for the planting. If the member is driving the point of, “When will we be completely caught up on NSR?” there will always be, in the database, NSR lands as we continue to survey and assess.

Our focus is to ensure that we take the resources, continue to increase the resources that are available for this purpose, continue to increase the amount of seedlings planted in the program and continue to look to putting resources in place for that.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:48 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 © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada