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 9, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number 8

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Speaker’s Statement

RETIREMENT OF PATRICK ANTIPHON

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I would like to recognize that one of our long-standing employees, Patrick Antiphon, will be retiring at the end of this month after nearly 34 years of service. He has been our senior tour guide, warmly welcoming visitors and dignitaries from around the world.

[1335]

He has met with hundreds of thousands of school children from all of your ridings. He has served 11 Speakers, nine Premiers and many members. He has truly been a cherished ambassador for our precinct, and he will be missed.

Please join me in welcoming Patrick and wishing him a healthy and happy retirement.

J. Horgan: I do appreciate that that was a blanket introduction. As a capital regional district MLA, I spend an inordinate amount of time here. I know that other members come from all across the province. I’m here to watch Patrick. I have been watching him for a long, long time.

His sense of the solemnity of this building is profound. His passion for the people who come here is absolutely extraordinary. He’s a wonderful human being. He’s done a spectacular job of elevating the debate outside of this place when kids groups come, when young adults come, when seniors come. He’s a wonderful human being.

We will desperately miss you, Patrick, and thank you so, so much for your service to this Legislature and the people of B.C.

Tributes

ROLLY FOX

Hon. C. Clark: Last night British Columbia lost a great hero, someone that we cherish all across the province and has been cherished in the Tri-Cities, in particular, for many years. That’s Rolly Fox.

We all know in our lives…. Every one of us in this House knows someone who has had cancer. All of us have had the chance to witness the courage and the sheer force of will that it takes to confront that diagnosis, that treatment, that disease. I think what Rolly Fox gave us was a glimpse of something even better. He lost Terry, and he didn’t give in to despair.

Terry Fox took on a task without knowing it was going to make him a hero, without knowing it was going to make a huge difference. He decided to run across the country on one leg because he cared about fighting cancer, and he wanted to make a difference. I believe that when Terry did that, he believed it would be a small difference and had no idea how big the difference it would be that he made. His parents and his family supported him in that, and then they lost him.

They could have given in to despair, but they didn’t. Instead, Rolly and Betty started their own marathon in Terry’s memory. Rolly dedicated the next 35 years of his life to fighting cancer. They raised millions of dollars around the world. They saved thousands of lives through the advancements that were made possible by their work.

Then, this year, we learned that Rolly’s battle against cancer was a very personal one, as he was diagnosed himself. Even though Rolly has now left us, I think what he would want us to remember is that cancer did not beat Rolly Fox. Rolly Fox beat cancer.

So today he’s there with Betty, and he’s laughing, listening to Hank Williams. He leaves behind a grieving family. He leaves behind a grieving province. But most of all, he leaves behind thousands and thousands of people who are grateful for what he did, thousands of lives that have been saved.

We will remember him while we grieve him, and we will commit to carrying on the legacy that he and Betty established, and Terry before them. We will work to make sure that his gift to us is one that we continue.

M. Farnworth: I thank the Premier for her gracious words.

Today in Port Coquitlam, the flags fly at half-mast to honour the passing of Rolly Fox, a man from our community, who, together with Betty Fox, raised a family and a son, Terry, who would inspire our community, our province and our entire country with his courage, strength and commitment to find a cure for cancer by running across Canada.

Rolly Fox raised his family in a modest home in Port Coquitlam. He was part of our community. His kids went to the same schools that we all did. They played on the same sports teams as we did. Rolly and Betty instilled in the family the values that we all share. It was these values that helped Terry to pursue his dream of raising money to find a cure for cancer.

[1340]

When Terry was forced to end his run in Thunder Bay, his dream did not die. It carried on because of the commitment of Rolly and his family through the Terry Fox Foundation.

The Terry Fox Runs, held in communities across our nation and around the world, are a continuation of that dream, and Rolly was a key part of it.
[ Page 11242 ]

Each year in Port Coquitlam, at our hometown run, he would be there running with the rest of the community. And in later years, he’d be walking the route. But he was always there, cheerful, with a great sense of humour. It was a privilege and a pleasure to run with him.

I will always remember that, at the start of the run, he would joke and tease me not to trip him up as a reminder of one of the early runs, when I accidentally tripped him at the beginning and we both went down in front of the cameras.

While Betty was often seen as the public face of the Terry Fox Foundation, Rolly was very much a driving force behind the scenes. He was a rock who gave the family and the foundation strength. The legacy of Terry Fox exists and continues in large measure because of Rolly Fox.

We are grateful for having known him, and we will never forget the legacy that he and his family have created in this province and our nation.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: There are many people around this province who do good work for foundations. On behalf of the Premier and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, I’d like to introduce Joe Amyott, Teresa Atkinson, Annick Lim and Dr. Robin Lowry, who are excellent volunteers for the Kidney Foundation and are here in the House.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Karagianis: I have two introductions to make, if you will bear with me.

As we know, March is Kidney Health Month, and this year the Kidney Foundation of Canada is raising awareness about kids and kidney disease.

Kidney disease can affect anyone at any age. This morning I met with a group of people to discuss the importance — I know that other members of the House did too — of kidney health to their families.

I would like the House to join me in welcoming Joe Amyott; Logyn, Bronwyn and Kirstin Hedberg; and Paul and Diane Duperron, and give them a warm welcome here to the precinct.

Secondly, I’d like to also recognize today Kristina Grant and her daughter Hailey-Ann. Hailey-Ann was diagnosed with polycystic kidney disease when Kristina was 21 weeks pregnant. Both of them were due to join me in the House today to talk about the importance of World Kidney Day and of organ donations.

Unfortunately, Hailey-Ann was admitted to Victoria General Hospital this weekend with a respiratory virus, and her family was unable to make the trip.

I know that all members will join me in sending warm wishes to Hailey-Ann for a speedy and full recovery.

Hon. S. Bond: I, too, have some very special guests, two of whom have already been referenced.

We’ve talked about courage in the House today. Paul and Diane Duperron are from Prince George. They are tireless advocates on behalf of the Kidney Foundation, and they are driven for a very personal reason. Paul was diagnosed with kidney disease in 1985, and 22 years later his kidneys failed. He was given a transplant in September of 2011, but unfortunately, there were issues, and that kidney transplant failed in June of 2014. So today Paul is waiting on the transplant list.

But I can tell you that the work they do in Prince George and across the province is nothing short of heroic. They work hard every weekend to encourage people to register, to understand the significant implications of the challenges that they’re facing. I am very proud that they are here today and extremely proud of the work they do in our community.

Joining them is Ron Walker, the past-president of the board of directors of the Kidney Foundation. His daughter died from kidney failure.

And Dr. Robin Lowry — he is a recently retired nephrologist from Prince George, and he is the medical adviser to the board of directors of the Kidney Foundation. He has done some incredible work in terms of research as well.

[1345]

I know the House will want to make all of them very welcome and also thank Paul and Diane for being incredibly active and passionate spokespeople. Thank you for being here today.

L. Krog: I want to welcome three individuals to the chamber today, in no particular order. Firstly, Katrina McAndrew, who is both a recipient and a regional director of the Kidney Foundation here in British Columbia. Annick Lim, who has joined us from Kaleden. She is both a recipient and a poster person for the Kidney Foundation. Finally, I just want to reintroduce Ron Walker, a volunteer extraordinaire and past president of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, B.C. and Yukon branch.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to introduce to the House today…. We have: Annick Lim, Nancy Verner, Teresa Atkinson and Dennis McCann, who I met with earlier today to talk about the importance of kidney donation and, more importantly, the importance of registering your wishes with B.C. Transplant.

We’re also joined today by Karen Philp, the president of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, as well as Amanda Poch, who will be embarking on the 2016 Live Then Give tour from the Legislature later this afternoon.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I would ask everybody, “Are you registered? Have you registered your decision?”
[ Page 11243 ]
as I was asked earlier today by a great team from the Kidney Foundation — volunteers and advocates in our community in downtown Vancouver.

I’d like to welcome Danny Fan, Todd Hauptman, Mimi Luk and Katrina McAndrew to this House. I am registered, and I would encourage everybody at home: if you haven’t registered yet, go on line and do it today. Thank you so much.

J. Tegart: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the House this afternoon four visitors from the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. Joining us are ICBA president Phil Hochstein; Rick Boates, ICBA board chair and president of Unitech Construction Management; Darcy Kray, past board chair of the ICBA and president of Durwest Construction; and Catherine Loiacono, ICBA director of communications.

I ask that the members make them feel very welcome today.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to introduce some people in the House who have been involved with the Kidney Foundation. Following the member for Shuswap, I’d like to introduce Karen Philp, the executive director of the B.C. and Yukon branch of the Kidney Foundation. She has made today happen and makes a lot of events around the Kidney Foundation happen. I am very proud to look at her, and I hope that she looks at me, as a friend. She is also a sometime constituent of the North Island.

Also here are Brenda and Rob Harris and their son Andrew. As well as being involved with the Kidney Foundation, Brenda and Rob owned and ran a very successful small business in Campbell River, White Hat Drycleaners, for many years. They’ve recently sold it and are taking a year off. But Campbell River is hoping that they return very soon to open another business and get back involved with the community, as well as the work they do for the Kidney Foundation.

I hope the House will make all of them very welcome.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join my many colleagues who have welcomed people who are here today on behalf of the Kidney Foundation. In particular, I’d like to welcome a very articulate and passionate young woman by the name of Hailey Cheema, who is here today with her parents.

She’s a resident of New Westminster. She lost her grandfather, who was on a waiting list for a kidney, and it was a turning point in her life in making her a volunteer and advocate for the Kidney Foundation. I look forward to working with her and with everyone in the Kidney Foundation to raise awareness about this very, very important issue.

L. Reimer: It’s a great pleasure for me today to welcome my constituent Amanda Poch to the House. In March, 2006, Amanda Poch discovered that her liver was no longer functioning, due to an autoimmune disorder. She was put on a list immediately because of her young age and received a new liver.

[1350]

Today, she has worked selflessly for the Live Then Give campaign and also is here with the Kidney Foundation. She’ll be travelling the province in her mobile home to create awareness around organ donation.

Would the House please welcome Amanda.

S. Robinson: I have a number of guests here in the House joining us today. I’d like to introduce Kara Mintzberg and Josefa Michaelson. They are the B.C. regional directors of the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee. CJPAC is a national, independent, multi-partisan organization whose mandate is to engage Jewish and pro-Israel Canadians in the democratic process and to foster active participation.

Joining them is Nico Slobinsky. He’s the director of the Pacific region of CIJA, the Centre for Israel Jewish Affairs, and in this role, Nico supports the pro-Israel and organized Jewish community’s advocacy goals, working with the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, community agencies, leaders in government, media, academia, civic society and other faith and ethnic communities across the Pacific region.

We were hosted by these organizations last night as they paired Israeli wines with Canadian cheese, and I have to say that I am most grateful that the wines have come a long way.

I’d also like to welcome to the House today a constituent of mine, Adel Gamar. He’s a well-travelled and educated constituent. He has been a senior adviser, deputy general counsel for the Qatar Foundation, an education specialist for UNESCO and a policy fellow at Harvard Law School. He’s also a hockey dad for five daughters, and he knows that they can play just like girls. Would everyone please welcome them all to the House.

J. Thornthwaite: The BCSPCA has done tremendous work to protect and enhance the quality of life for domestic, farm and wild animals in B.C. Today I have the pleasure to introduce Marylee Davis, board chair; Craig Daniell, CEO; Geoff Urton, senior manager, stakeholder relations; Melinda Mennie, stakeholder relations officer; and Marcie Moriarty, chief prevention and enforcement officer. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I want to join with my colleagues on both sides in welcoming some of our guests from the Kidney Foundation of Canada. I had the opportunity today to meet with Mimi Luck, Todd Hauptman, Danny Fan, Emily Wills and Bronwyn Hedberg — all either recipients of transplants, people who are awaiting a transplant or family members who are advocating.

Their message to me was very clear, as I’m sure it was to many in this chamber: we need to do a better job around public awareness for potential donors. While a
[ Page 11244 ]
vast majority of people believe that they’re on the list to be donors, the reality is that only about 20 percent of people are on that list today.

We know ICBC and others are doing work around that, to promote that. We should be using our good offices and opportunities here to encourage our constituents, if it’s appropriate, to become donors. I hope you’ll make our guests from the Kidney Foundation very welcome.

M. Dalton: I’d also like to welcome to the House Hailey Cheema and her parents, Harj and Patty Cheema. They’re from Mission, and she’s here volunteering with the Kidney Foundation, as are many others. She was a nephrology assistant — which was a new word to me; maybe not for everyone, but for me. That deals with diseases of the kidney.

I was quite astounded at how many people die without having dialysis or these transplants. They asked me if I am an organ donor, and I said that no, I wasn’t. But I volunteered. I’m going to put my name on that. So you can follow me up on that, Madame Speaker, in the next few weeks. If we get to a level of 50 percent, all the needs for organ transplants with kidneys will be met in this province.

G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two guests who are in the gallery and the precinct today.

Shelley Rivkin is a constituent of mine in Vancouver-Fairview. She’s a professor in the social work department at Langara College but is also here in her capacity as vice-president, planning allocation and community affairs, of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver. I’ve known Shelley for a number of years. She is a great contributor to the community. She is always thinking about how we can together meet the needs of people who need a little help to live a fuller life, and I welcome her contributions. I ask everyone in the House today to join me in welcoming her to the gallery.

[1355]

I also know that in the precinct today is someone who until two weeks ago was working as my first constituency assistant, Jarrett Hagglund. Jarrett has left my office but hasn’t gone far. He’s left to take an important new role with our caucus. I know that Jarrett will do a great job in that role, as he has in my office, and I also know that he has many, many years ahead of him contributing to public life in B.C. in public policy, in what I expect to be very significant ways.

I ask members to join me in welcoming both of these guests today.

D. Plecas: Today in the House, we have Bronwyn, Kirstin and Logyn of the Hedberg family and five-year-old Logyn’s dancing donkey, given to him this morning by the member for Surrey–White Rock. They are all here for meetings and a reception this afternoon for all that we’re trying to do for the Kidney Foundation of Canada. In welcoming them, let’s make a very special welcome for five-year-old Logyn, who is awaiting a kidney transplant. He’s up here in the gallery today.

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome two grade 11 classes from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington. They are accompanied by the vice-principal, Nick Akrap; by Bonnie Burnell, a social studies teacher; as well as Cecil Baird, who is a social studies teacher and teacher-librarian; also teachers Heather Paris, Katherine Olson and a couple of student teachers.

Sir Charles Tupper stands out as a great school. They’re running a program, Passport 2 Play, which is a sports day led by students at Tupper for all life skills students across Vancouver. These are students with special needs, and that’s going to be happening in late May. They’re also running the program Create your Canada. They wanted everybody to know that they’re known by their slogan, which is: “Tupper Tigers Roars.” That’s “roars” — standing for respect, ownership, attitude, responsibility and safety. Please extend a very warm welcome to the great students of Tupper.

Moira Stilwell: I, too, would like to extend greetings and welcome to all of the people who are here from CIJA, CJPAC and the Jewish federation. Like my colleague — and I suspect I’m older than her — I had a little performance anxiety about the wine. I can remember when the best thing you could say about it was that it was kosher for Passover. It was a great event, and thank you all for attending.

D. Ashton: I’d like to introduce a few folks from the beautiful town of Summerland, good friends of mine: Linda and Ted Pepperdine. Linda just retired from a distinguished teaching career. Ted is a semi-retired motorcyclist, which means he only does short rides now. Also, Brad Hope from Princeton. Brad was our coast’s first original salmon farmer, retired to Princeton and re-retired to Gabriola Island, back to his salt roots. Please, the House make them welcome.

M. Mungall: We have two guests in the House who are starting to become quite familiar with the public gallery. We have, from Inclusion B.C., Faith Bodnar and Sheenagh Morrison. Sheenagh has really grown into a role of an amazing self-advocate for people with diverse abilities. If she’s half as good as she is at that as she is at Special Olympics swimming, we are very fortunate in B.C. to have such a wonderful self-advocate.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I want to join the member opposite in welcoming Faith Bodnar, from Inclusion B.C., to the Legislature today. Faith is an advocate for persons with disabilities in B.C., and I look forward to her accepting my invitation to meet with me and the other stakehold-
[ Page 11245 ]
ers to continue our collaborative work that we have been doing to improve the supports for people with disabilities.

I’d also like to acknowledge, and it brings me great pleasure to introduce, a young man today who plays a key role in my office here at the Legislature: my administrative assistant, Jeff Keene. He’s a good-natured, well-dressed, charming, efficient young man who demonstrates infinite patience, and his smile is contagious. He’s a pleasure to work with every single day, and our office is better for having him. Please join me in welcoming Jeff Keene.

[1400]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SAFETY STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 13, amendments to the Safety Standards Act. These amendments will strengthen and streamline safety oversight of oil and gas facilities, including liquefied natural gas facilities.

The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission will continue to look after the overall safety of operation of oil and gas facilities. The B.C. Safety Authority will be responsible for key systems and components in those facilities. Particularly, the amendments change the B.C. Safety Authority’s responsibility for pressure piping and refrigeration equipment under the Safety Standards Act, which becomes the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission.

This will eliminate overlap where both agencies have jurisdictions. The two agencies have consulted and agreed that this is the best division of responsibility for the oil and gas sector.

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

Bill 13, Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M206 — HYDRO
AFFORDABILITY ACT, 2016

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Hydro Affordability Act, 2016.

J. Horgan: I move a bill, intituled the Hydro Affordability Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: Everybody in British Columbia has been hit hard by the increasing cost of electricity, both residents and businesses. Some of those most affected are hard-working British Columbians. Low wage growth means many of our struggling citizens are making the choice between keeping the lights on or buying groceries, and as increasing fees and licences happen in other areas of life, it seems appropriate that if we can, with our public utility, we should find ways to provide relief for the most vulnerable in our community.

The government has recently announced a special deferral of electricity payments for mining corporations. The government needs to also, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, protect the interests of ordinary British Columbians, who are desperately in need of financial help. Hydro rates, since 2001, have gone up 74 percent. The B.C. Utilities Commission recently ordered B.C. Hydro to lower their unreasonably high reconnection fees in the best interest of British Columbians.

We believe that the commission should also have the power to create a lifeline rate in order to ensure everyday British Columbians aren’t left out in the cold. The bill would mean that families who have a demonstrated need, based on their household income and the number of dependents living in a household, would have access to a deferred rate just like mining companies do under the B.C. Liberal act.

This act represents an opportunity to support regular people who would otherwise be having to make that choice between paying their bills or going wanting in other areas.

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

Bill M206, Hydro Affordability Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SUPPORT IN NORTHEAST B.C.
FOR LNG INDUSTRY

P. Pimm: Today I have the honour of recognizing a group of residents from northeastern B.C. that are doing their very best to save their communities.
[ Page 11246 ]

As you’ve likely heard, the price of oil is in a huge slump, and our marketplace for natural gas is shrinking by the day. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have projected that, without a new market, we will see current Canadian production of 14 billion cubic feet per day be reduced to 12 billion cubic feet by 2020. However, if we get an LNG announcement, that projection could change to 18 bcf by the same 2020, and most of the new production would come from B.C.

At present, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is holding a 30-day public comment period for the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, which ends on March 11. I made a submission to the process on behalf of the good folks in the Peace River North and then posted my comments on Facebook. My post was shared more than 500 times and sparked many more comments.

[1405]

My daughter Kristi Pimm–De Maid then started a Facebook group that was quickly joined by Fort St. John for LNG and Fort Nelson for LNG. Fort Nelson, a community 100 percent reliant on a natural gas industry, has seen 150 businesses shut down and the business vacancy rate go to 55 percent over the past year and a half. Fort St. John is currently going through a slowdown as well, but not nearly as severely as Fort Nelson.

Linda Mould and Karen Sipes started the Fort Nelson for LNG group, and they’ve rallied Fort Nelson residents to submit over 1,000 letters in favour of LNG to the environmental assessment comment period, including over 100 from their local First Nations band members. Allen Moreno Yu, Chuck Fowler and Kristi Pimm-De Maid have also rallied Fort St. John residents to submit nearly 1,000 submissions as well.

I want to thank these fabulous people for taking this issue so seriously and becoming involved so that the people of northeastern B.C. and many others around the province will continue to have great jobs in this wonderful industry.

CHILDREN WITH KIDNEY DISEASE
AND ORGAN DONATION

K. Conroy: March is Kidney Month, and today the B.C. branch of the Kidney Foundation of Canada and advocates have come to Victoria to meet with MLAs and educate us about kidney disease and the need for organ donors in this province.

Also here are the Kidney Kids Crew, young kids who danced and sang and spoke about their experiences when it comes to kidney disease. Nine-year-old Nicole was diagnosed with kidney disease at six. Elena, who is ten, has been attending Kidney Kids’ camp for four years. Eight-year-old Aiden received a transplant last year after being on the wait-list for three years.

It’s important to be reminded that kidney disease doesn’t just affect adults but is reality for many kids in B.C. The message is: we need to take the kids out of kidney disease.

As well today Amanda Poch started her “Live, then give” tour. At 20, her liver failed, and with hours to spare, her life was saved by an organ donation. Amanda is now celebrating her tenth anniversary as a transplant recipient and is paying it forward. She will be travelling across the province in her RV to share her story and engage the public in a discussion about organ donation, so look out for Amanda in her RV coming soon to your community.

Also, please ensure that you are an organ donor. Talk to your family about your wishes — even make it a family activity and all become organ donors. And 95 percent of people in B.C. agree with organ donation, but only 20 percent are actually signed up at all.

Some still think that because they signed up with their driver’s licence years ago, they still would be now. It’s not necessarily so. You need to go on line to transplant.bc.ca. It will tell you if you’re registered — you just need your personal health number — and if not, it just takes a minute.

The reality is that 50 percent of the people waiting for a kidney transplant will die before they get one. You can all help to turn that around by registering. Or consider becoming a living donor. You can live a normal, healthy life with just one kidney.

Help the Kidney Foundation and increase the number of registered organ donors in this province. Become a kidney hero today: get registered. Your gift of life could save someone else’s life.

COLORECTAL CANCER

S. Gibson: March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. It’s an opportunity for survivors, patients, caregivers and everyone who has been affected to talk about the disease that is preventable, treatable and beatable. These conversations can save lives. Among cancers that affect both men and women, this kind of cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths for men and third among women.

B.C. has the overall best cancer mortality rates in Canada, according to 2015 estimates in the Canadian Cancer Society report. We also have the lowest incidence of colorectal cancer. The risk of developing colorectal cancer increases with age, and more than 90 percent of cases occur in people aged 50 or older. This is some in this room, hon. Speaker. Colorectal cancer may be prevented through early detection and screening.

In 2013, the provincial colon cancer program was rolled out, with general practitioners referring patients between the ages of 50 and 74 for a screening test. The program includes patient coordinators who provide support and education to patients referred for colonoscopy.

Since the program was launched in 2013, more than 400,000 residents have been screened and provided with potentially life-saving information and support. We can
[ Page 11247 ]
be proud of our province’s leadership in cancer prevention and treatment, and this program is yet another tool we have to fight cancer and save more lives.

[1410]

This month share information and raise awareness about the importance of regular screening. My doctor just gave me a form last month. It’s been sitting on my desk. I’m going to take it off my desk and actually fill it out and submit it.

CANADIAN SKI CROSS
CHAMPIONSHIPS IN SMITHERS

D. Donaldson: They’ll be speeding around banked corners next week in Smithers on a course high up on a mountain. That’s because Smithers Ski and Snowboard Club is hosting the 2016 Canadian Ski Cross Championships at Hudson Bay Mountain Resort.

It’s a wild event if you haven’t seen it. Four to six racers simultaneously fly down a course, going head to head over jumps, rollers, natural terrain and banked corners, competing in several heats to make it to the final. And make it to the final is a regular occurrence for Canadian ski cross racers. Ski cross debuted as a medal sport at the 2010 Olympics, and Canada has excelled in the sport.

Our athletes will be coming to Smithers from a competition in Switzerland. As race chair and volunteer organizer Gary Huxtable says, it couldn’t have come at a better season to host the national championships. That’s because the Canadian team just won the Nations Cup, the award given to the country with the most World Cup ski cross points at the end of the season.

Canadian World Cup stars like B.C.’s own Marielle Thompson, with six podium finishes this season, and Chris Del Bosco, with five, will be racing down the course on Hudson Bay Mountain. And local talent Jason Oliemans, who is soon heading to France for the Junior World Championship, will be on his home course next week competing against World Cup veterans.

It takes an incredible amount of volunteer effort and local sponsorship for a small town to host a Canadian championship in an international sport. I skied by the course last weekend, and it’s looking really good. In fact, if it held off snowing for a little bit, organizers would be happy.

Huxtable and his team are doing some final checks this weekend before the first training runs and races leading to the Canadian championships March 19. The Smithers Chamber of Commerce is getting the welcome materials in place, and the town is ready to host the awards ceremony at Bovill Square on Main Street.

It’s going to be a great week of competition. Good job to all involved — a real accomplishment.

Madame Speaker: Well, Members, it’s either Don Cherry or the member for Surrey–White Rock. [Laughter.]

PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND ASSUMPTIONS

G. Hogg: Well, thank you, kind Speaker.

Is what you see all there is? My wife, LaVerne, gave me this suit for Christmas.

Interjections.

G. Hogg: It’s a full suit.

I wondered what she was thinking. Then, as I wandered around and looked at things, I found that it’s not just a fad but that this is a happening style that may well populate this Legislature at some time. I am colour-blind and pattern-deficit disordered.

Fads and styles ebb and flow and often disappear. Fads like pet rocks, etch-a-sketch, streaking, toga parties and Ouija boards — and great suits. It seems that they, and especially styles of clothing, have an inordinate influence upon how we see and are judged by others, perhaps even how we see and judge others. Especially when it’s a first impression, that may bias us forever.

So does our appearance affect our effectiveness? Do social norms provide accepted standards for conformance? The Washington Post Sunday magazine ran an experiment that may help answer these questions it. The experiment tested the impact of context, perception and priorities when recognizing people and practices outside their usual environment.

Joshua Bell, one of the world’s most celebrated violinists, dressed as a busker and played his $3 million Stradivarius violin for 45 minutes in a Washington, D.C., subway. Over 1,000 people hurried past him without even appearing to take notice. The night before, he was paid $3,000 a minute for his concert performance. This celebrated violinist, based on his appearance and place, went largely unnoticed.

It seems that our acceptance of beliefs and acceptance of people can easily be masked, biased and misunderstood by attire and by context. Our ability to see and to understand ideas and people as they really are may require us to recognize and abandon some of our preconceived assumptions.

The way we are, the way we dress may not be saying what people assume. What we initially see and believe is seldom all there really is within those people.

As for LaVerne, I still don’t know what she was thinking.

[1415]

BURNABY HOSPITAL

K. Corrigan: Well, on behalf of all of the members of the Legislature, I’d like to offer the member for Surrey-Whalley $3,000 a minute not to wear that suit anymore. [Laughter.]

Interjection.
[ Page 11248 ]

K. Corrigan: Surrey–White Rock, sorry.

Can we start again, Madame Speaker? [Laughter.]

Madame Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

K. Corrigan: I want to sing the praises of the women and men who work and volunteer at Burnaby Hospital. It is a very busy hospital, I believe the second-busiest emergency room in Fraser Health. The hospital cares for about 10 percent of B.C.’s population, which is not surprising, given that Burnaby is the third-largest city in British Columbia and the hospital also serves much of East Vancouver. Staff and doctors and volunteers do a fantastic job, despite the real pressures of numbers.

It has been our community hospital since 1952. It’s where I had all four of Derek’s and my children. It is where broken arms and other childhood accidents and diseases of those children were looked after. It’s where my ruptured Achilles tendon, suffered in a squash match, was repaired, and it’s where my cancer was cured. Burnaby Hospital is where both of my parents passed away, and I have to say the great care in the palliative care ward was wonderful, as was the support from the Burnaby Hospice Society.

I want to commend the work of the Burnaby Hospital Foundation, which has raised millions of dollars for things like MRIs, bed lifts and other needed equipment and support services. I also want to take just a moment to thank my sister Dr. Jeanne Keegan-Henry, who spent many years, many long hours working at the hospital as a hospitalist and has recently retired.

The staff at the hospital are truly dedicated to the well-being of our community. To the nurses, doctors, technologists and technicians and support staff that look after us as we walk through your doors, thank you.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSPERSON REVIEW OF
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

J. Horgan: This September it will be four years since eight individuals who worked for the province of British Columbia were fired by the B.C. Liberal government. It will be four years since they were allegedly put under an investigation by the RCMP. It will be four years, two investigations that declared nothing untoward had happened, yet these eight individuals’ lives were turned upside down. Rod MacIsaac, sadly, took his life.

Over that time, rather than trying to get to the bottom of the issue, rather than trying to find out who was responsible for the issue, it seems to me and many who have been observing this fiasco that the Premier and her government have been making efforts to ensure that no one is found accountable for these activities.

Now we learn that the seven researchers and Ms. Kayfish, the sister of Rod MacIsaac, will not be granted basic access to legal services so that they can make their case before the Ombudsperson in the investigation that we finally rested on to, hopefully, get to the bottom of this. Now, to be clear, all of those who perpetuated this wrong on the eight individuals will have complete and unfettered access to legal services. Those that were accused will not.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier do the right thing today and get this investigation back on track by ensuring those whose lives were turned upside down have adequate legal representation?

Hon. S. Anton: This is indeed a matter that the public has an interest in, this House has an interest in and the persons who were directly involved, of course, have a very close interest in. That is why it has been put in the hands of the person who is very capable, whose whole office, the whole purpose of his office is to investigate such matters, and that, of course, is the Ombudsperson.

His job is to uphold administrative fairness within government and to conduct investigations of complaints made by members of the public and, in this case, by the persons who were fired at the time. That’s what his office is there to do. That is why he has been requested to take on this investigation and to determine what happened.

There is an indemnity policy in place that has been approved by the Ombudsperson. There is support for the people who are asked to be witnesses and to be part of the investigation. As I said, it’s been approved by the Ombudsperson. Let us let him do his job. It’s his job to get to the bottom of this, and he should be allowed to do that.

[1420]

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

J. Horgan: It’s nice to see the Attorney up on her feet rather than the Minister of Health. But certainly the Premier, always anxious to be pithy and on point, would have taken the opportunity to defend a process that she initiated.

I can understand the Minister of Justice’s confusion. It’s tough to keep track of the lawyers. There are the lawyers that are involved in the indemnity process for the special prosecutor that’s been outstanding for 2½ years. There are the lawyers that are using the indemnity to protect other public servants over the last special prosecutor that was appointed. And then, of course, there’s this issue.

Again, more public servants on the Liberal watch — free access, unfettered access to legal services — while the people whose integrity was impugned, whose reputation was smeared — they don’t get any access. For the minister to stand and say that Mr. Chalke fully endorses this….

Let me read for the House and the record and the minister what he actually said. “The policy question is that
[ Page 11249 ]
public subsidy amounts provided by government for witnesses is not for me to determine.” That suggests to me that it’s for the government to determine.

Now, as we’ve had two botched investigations, special prosecutors piling up all around us, I appreciate the legal cost to protect Liberals is getting up there. But shouldn’t we put the integrity of seven individuals and the grieving sister of a dead public servant ahead of obstructing an investigation?

To the Premier: will you give adequate resources to the people you’ve besmirched?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. S. Anton: There is an indemnity policy in place in this case. The goal of the Ombudsperson, the request made to him and his goal, is to find out what happened when these firings took place. As I’ve said before, the persons who were fired, of course, are interested. This House is interested. The public is interested. That’s why it is in the hands of a person, the Ombudsperson, and an office which is capable of handling this investigation.

There’s an indemnity policy in place. It has been worked out between Justice officials and the Ombudsperson, but it is independent. As indemnities always are, it’s independent of the political process, and it’s in the hands of senior public officials.

Let us, as I said earlier, leave the Ombudsperson to do his job, to find out what happened and to bring back answers to us and to the public from what happened four years ago.

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

J. Horgan: Again, this is a tape recording. I’m hearing it over and over again. We’ve been raising these issues, trying to find justice for eight individuals — seven individuals still remaining among us — for four years, and the pathetic response from the Minister of Justice is: “It’s all been worked out. Everything’s fine.” It’s not fine. We’re not going to get to the bottom of this, I say to the Minister of Health, I say to the Premier, and I say to the Minister of Justice. We’re not going to get to the bottom of this if the individuals involved have to use freedom of information to get access to documents. That’s what it’s come to.

The deputy to the Premier and all of those that perpetrated this indignity on these individuals — complete access to documentation and unfettered access to an indemnity to defend themselves. But those who want to bring the case forward to clear their names, to find out who did this to them, who is responsible for this…. That’s what government is supposed to be about. Responsible government should start right here.

My question to the Premier: will the Premier get this investigation back on the rails and ensure that Linda Kayfish and the seven individuals that were let go have equal access to an indemnity, just like her deputy minister, just like the Deputy Minister of Finance and just like all the other people that you’ve promoted while these people’s lives have been in tatters?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair. All members know it’s through the Chair.

Hon. S. Anton: The Leader of the Opposition was referring to the interest in allowing the Ombudsperson to get to the bottom of what happened. That is what the Ombudsperson has been asked to do. He has terms of reference, special directions regarding the referral to him passed unanimously by the committee.

Interjections.

[1425]

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Anton: He has asked…. In his letter, he says, “I respectfully request that the committee recognize the importance of my office conducting this investigation independently. In the event that I encounter a material impediment to the investigation, I am mindful that I can come back to the committee,” to paraphrase. His goal, the request to him….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. S. Anton: The request to him is to find out what happened. That is his goal. That was the goal of the committee when they asked him to do the job. That was the goal of the terms of reference which were passed unanimously by that committee. Let us leave the Ombudsperson to do his job, to find out what happened and, indeed, to bring back some answers. Answers are sought. We want the Ombudsperson to find them, and that’s his job.

A. Dix: After all the smears and all the misconduct in this matter, the government is also breaking its commitment again today, the solemn commitment made by the Premier of British Columbia.

Interjection.

A. Dix: You know, the Minister of Health should be the last person in this House heckling on this subject.

The Premier, in this House and outside, in the solemn voice, said that she has accepted all of the recommendations and findings of the McNeil review. She added: “We
[ Page 11250 ]
are addressing” these findings to ensure “that this kind of thing, which was wrong and done badly and harmed people, should never happen again.” Well, the government is breaking its commitment. It’s as if there’s a secret footnote when they accept negative reports about the government — a secret footnote that says: “Psych.”

The McNeil report found that the researchers did not have adequate opportunity to review documents and respond to questions arising from them. It found that they did not have adequate opportunity to provide a response. And here the government that decided the indemnity policy, the Ministry of Justice that decided the indemnity policy is denying the right to review documents, denying the right to prepare a response, denying legal responsibility to the researchers while protecting, supporting and, yes, promoting the very individuals responsible for the fiasco.

It’s not the Ombudsperson doing this, it’s the government, and it’s time the Minister of Justice took responsibility. Her ministry has the power to do this. Why doesn’t she ensure that Linda Kayfish and Ramsay Hamdi and the others have the same access to fair representation as the Premier’s subordinates and friends?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the members of the opposition and government wish the same thing here, which is to have answers to what happened four years ago. That is why the Ombudsperson, who is eminently equipped, whose office is built to get to the bottom of issues of fairness…. That’s why we have an Ombudsperson in British Columbia. His job is to get to the bottom of this matter.

There’s an indemnity policy in place, as I have said a couple of times now. It applies to the participants in the enquiry. Let us let the Ombudsperson do his job, get to the bottom of this and come back with the answers that are sought on both sides of the House, certainly by the persons who were affected and indeed by the public.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, we want the researchers to have adequate access to legal representation. The government, which decided it, clearly does not. We want the researchers to have access to all the materials they need to prepare their presentations to the Ombudsperson. The government decidedly does not.

These decisions…. They didn’t come from the ether. It wasn’t decided passive voice. It’s the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice that are responsible in this House for these decisions to again deny the researchers access to justice.

The Premier’s supporter and friend, who authorized the government’s press release about the RCMP on September 6, 2012, about an RCMP investigation that did not exist, in fact was promoted and has access to all the resources of government to prepare her evidence, as she should. Linda Kayfish is denied that basic right. They should have it. Linda Kayfish should have it. That’s the difference between us and them.

[1430]

After all that has been suffered here, will the Minister of Justice do the right thing? Is, after all, there no sense of decency on that side of the House about this issue? Will the Minister of Justice ensure that the researchers have the same right to representation and documents as friends of the Premier?

Hon. S. Anton: Participants in the Ombudsperson’s inquiry are covered by an indemnity policy. As I mentioned, it has been approved by the Ombudsperson, worked out with the Ministry of Justice. These are not political issues. We don’t know — none of us know — who receives an indemnity, as is always the case and as I have frequently mentioned in this House.

The goal of the Ombudsperson and the goal of this House…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: …is to allow the Ombudsperson to do his job. The goal of the Ombudsperson is to find out what happened four years ago and bring us answers.

VACANT PROPERTIES AND HOUSING
AVAILABILITY IN METRO VANCOUVER

D. Eby: Yesterday the city of Vancouver released a study showing that the city had more than 10,000 unoccupied homes. Now, that’s equivalent to two to three years of new-build construction. These are homes that are empty for the entire calendar year — locked up, held as investments. At the very same time, housing prices are skyrocketing and vacancy rates are zero. It’s impacting every person who is hunting for a home or looking for a place to rent.

With thousands of young people and families searching for homes in Vancouver, paying ever-escalating rents, paying ever more to get into the market, how can the Premier defend her government’s unwillingness to tackle this issue?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. It’ll follow up from yesterday. I’m not sure we’re reading the same report, because the one I have offers the following. I’ve had a chance to read through it. The non-occupancy rate across all of city of Vancouver housing units has been flat — 4.9 percent in 2002, 4.8 percent in 2014. The city’s non-occupancy rate is consistent with and tracks the non-occupancy rate for the rest of the greater Vancouver regional district. Single-family and
[ Page 11251 ]
duplex housing occupancy rates are 1 percent. They are consistent with other cities in Vancouver.

That is not to say that there are not issues that relate to affordability and facilitating the dream of home ownership. There most certainly are. But we learned two things yesterday. One is that the problem is not necessarily as characterized by the member over the past number of months. We also learned, a few column inches to the left, that at the same time that he and his colleagues have been decrying the entry of foreign investors into our market, the party coffers of the NDP seem to be benefiting quite nicely from some of those investments.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Well, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

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

D. Eby: It is no wonder we’re making no progress on the housing file. It is all politics, all the time, with this government. Now, I will set the minister….

Interjections.

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

[1435]

D. Eby: I’ll set the minister straight on the record. The NDP sold the party headquarters to the hotel owner next door, a local business owner of Taiwanese descent. If the minister has a problem with that, he should bring it up with the local business owner in Burnaby.

Now, I can understand why this government would be upset. This is the government that can’t get full market value for Burke Mountain lands. If they need help to get full market value, maybe they can come to the B.C. NDP for assistance.

The same selective reading of the facts is present in the minister’s reading of the vacant home report — 12.5 percent of condos in Vancouver vacant, 10,000 units. If just 10 percent were rented next year, that would double the number of new rental units available in the city of Vancouver. It’s across Metro. It’s not just Vancouver.

Enough grandstanding. Will this minister step up and do the right thing already?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m always happy to be corrected by the hon. member. The report, at least, suggests it wasn’t the NDP that sold the property. It was that old nugget the commonwealth society.

I have the member’s point about him and his colleagues wanting to deal with other issues. So if I have any other questions about that transaction, I’ll contact the lawyer involved — one Chairman, sorry, C. Mao, who appears to be involved.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order.

Hon. M. de Jong: The report is interesting for a variety of reasons. I would suggest, first of all, that there may be any number of reasons that a condominium might be vacant. In fact, in many cases, which isn’t to dismiss the significance or relevance of the number…. Many strata councils have specific bylaws that preclude rentals from taking place. That is a fact.

There’s an interesting dimension to the report that I thought worth mentioning in response to the member’s question. The data…. The mayor of Vancouver was very specific about this, I thought, in thanking B.C. Hydro for their participation. I think he pointedly said that the report itself was made possible by — what? — the installation of smart meters, something else we have heard for months and years on end the opposition was opposed to. So if the NDP had their way, if the member had his way, the report would not have been possible at all.

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Last week the Minister of Social Development tried to defend the indefensible once again when the people she impacted by raising bus pass fees showed up at her doorstep. Rather than listen to what people had to say or the concerns that they were bringing, she dismissed them, calling it all a photo op. I guess the minister didn’t appreciate what was going on, because neither she nor her colleagues had the decency to go out and speak with the hundreds of British Columbians with disabilities that were gathered here, in Vancouver, in Burnaby and in New Westminster.

To the minister: after another week of rallies, petitions and public outcry, is she still brushing off people with disabilities advocating for their well-being as nothing more than a photo op?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: On this side of the House, we understand the importance of affordable, accessible transportation, especially for seniors and people with disabilities. That is why we are the only province in Canada to provide a subsidized bus pass program as part of our provincial assistance program.

[1440]

As I’ve mentioned before, prior to these changes, 45,000 people in this province did not get any assistance
[ Page 11252 ]
with transportation subsidies, and that was not fair. What I’m curious about is the member opposite advocating for basic inequality in the system — a two-tiered system. Is the member opposite for Nelson-Creston really advocating for people in her community to not get the increase?

Let’s just imagine for a moment if the members opposite had actually had the opportunity to have their 2013 election campaign platform come into play. People with disabilities would have gotten nothing. Nothing. They had promised a $20 increase — not $77, $20 over two years’ time.

We are removing barriers for people with disabilities. We are increasing their independence. We are helping them make meaningful contributions to their communities. It’s very important work, and we will continue to do it.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: We’re on week 3 of this line from the minister, and what it shows, day in and day out, is that she has no idea what’s going on in her own ministry. She has no idea how her own programs work. She would have, if she had bothered to take a moment to actually consult with people with disabilities before she instituted this ridiculous change.

I guess when you work for a Premier who spent $130,000 flying a personal camera crew around the world, you think everything is a photo op. But freezing disability pensions for nine years is not a photo op; it is mean. Clawing back bus passes isn’t a photo op; it’s just mean. Will the minister just stop with the rhetoric, start doing the right thing and end this bus pass clawback today?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m pretty sure the member opposite was around during our disability consultation, where we heard from many, many people around this province who wanted to see the inequity changed in that system.

What I can say right now is that the needs of British Columbians, especially those with disabilities, are not being served by the inaccurate information, the misinformation and, most importantly, the hypocrisy that we see from the opposition.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The fear and the anxiety need to stop. It needs to stop, because the bus pass is still available. It has not been cancelled. People still have access to it the same way as they had it before. They are receiving an increase to their rates on top of that, and for those people — 45,000 people around this province — today they have the equality of the system.

DRINKING WATER QUALITY
AND TESTING IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS

J. Rice: In 2014, the Health Minister was advised by his own staff that testing North Coast schools for lead contamination in drinking water should be considered “a public health priority.” Yet it wasn’t until a public servant took it upon themselves to test the water in Prince Rupert schools this year that we learned that children are being exposed to elevated lead levels.

British Columbians want to know if they can trust the water in schools, in hospitals and other public buildings. Has the minister started an organized program testing lead levels in the water for B.C. schools and other public buildings?

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve canvassed this quite thoroughly. The Drinking Water Protection Act says that the health authorities are responsible for the water at point of entry. Now, once we learn that there’s a concern from the building owner — in this case, from the school districts — health authorities reach out and assist them in dealing with the mitigation measures that are necessary — in this case, flushing water in the mornings or using filters.

[1445]

The health authorities are willing to work with any owner of large, older buildings that were built before 1989 where this is a concern. It is our objective to ensure that people have the right education and know about the mitigation measures necessary to have adequate and safe drinking water.

Madame Speaker: North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: The simple answer is no. The minister has not asked for water to be tested in B.C. schools and other public buildings, like social housing, where many families and children live. This is extremely worrying, especially since his own staff said that testing in homes in the northwest needs to be done.

Since the minister is ignoring his own staff’s recommendations for testing lead levels in water in children’s homes, I did. I ordered three tests for social housing units in Prince Rupert, and one of these homes has lead levels in the drinking water above the maximum allowable concentration. This home is in a building with many families with children. How can the Minister of Health justify doing nothing to protect people in my community from this very real health threat?

Hon. T. Lake: The member well knows that a letter was sent through the Ministry of Education to all school districts, informing them of the potential of older buildings having this particular problem and to take mitigation measures if necessary. And as I said, the Ministry of Health, through the Drinking Water Protection legisla-
[ Page 11253 ]
tion, is responsible for the point of entry.

If there are concerns, we are willing to work with any large-building owner and understand that the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, which has general responsibility for government buildings, is planning on following up with the owners of older public buildings that are in the public realm to make them aware of the mitigation measures that may be required if their water is at risk of being in the higher lead levels.

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Last week, I asked the Environment Minister why she refused to disclose public health information about contaminated water to Spallumcheen residents and their local waterworks district. The minister replied: “No information has been withheld with respect to the health or potential health risks for the public.”

I gave the minister a chance to clarify whether she meant that the information had gone to the Interior Health Authority only, and she replied: “No, I meant to those who had requested it.”

The chair of the waterworks district, Brian Upper, disagrees. He says: “These reports have been kept confidential and, as of this date, have never been disclosed to any members of the Steele Springs board.” He goes on to say: “This information must be disclosed to help prevent continuing risk of nitrates entering the aquifer.” Why is the Environment Minister continuing to withhold this important public health information requested by the Steele Springs waterworks board?

Hon. M. Polak: The member requests information about two different aspects of the testing that is going on and the information provided. On the one hand, there is the very serious duty to protect the health of the people who would be accessing that drinking water. That is accomplished by Ministry of Environment testing, the results of which are immediately provided to the health authority, which is the appropriate protocol. They then make decisions as to how to inform water districts or users.

On the matter of the freedom-of-information request, as I understand it, the freedom-of-information request was processed by the ministry staff. They did not immediately disclose the information to those who had requested it because there was information beyond simple testing. But as of today, and it occurred previous to today, the information that was in the FOI request has been delivered and posted through the appropriate process.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Tegart: I rise to present a petition from the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association with 6,104 signatures for support of the Trans Mountain Pipeline.

[1450]

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition. This petition has over 15,000 people signing it. They are calling on the government to bring back the $45-per-year bus pass for people with disabilities, eliminate the new $52-per-month bus pass fee, let everyone receiving PWD benefits keep the $77-per-month increase and raise the PWD benefit rate to $1,200 per month by October 1, 2016, to reflect the cost of living.

Hon. A. Virk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: Joining us in the precinct right now are the students, parents and teachers from Pacific Academy, from my own riding in Surrey-Tynehead. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, it’s again Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of International Trade, to be followed by Aboriginal Relations — and in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 20, the interim supply bill.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2016

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 20, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2016, be read a second time now.

I’ll expand briefly on the remarks I made at the time of introduction. As I think members of the House know, the existing voted appropriations for the government and for the province of British Columbia will expire on March 31, 2016. Bill 20 will provide interim supply for the first two months of the 2016-17 fiscal year while members debate the appropriations presented in the 2016-17 estimates. Of course, that process is underway now.

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations, of course, is required to ensure the continuation of government services until the end of this legislative session, when it is hoped that final supply will be determined. Bill 20 provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the ’16-17 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements. These dis-
[ Page 11254 ]
bursements are not evenly distributed through the year. Therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments made under these schedules, and this follows practices of past years.

Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of the ’16-17 requirements for schedule E financing transactions is being sought in this supply bill. Schedule E of the estimates outlines the revenue collected for and transferred to other entities. These distributions are statutory, and there is no impact on the operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from collection and transfers of this revenue.

[1455]

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2016-17 estimates. The final supply bill for 2016-17 will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in the fiscal year.

Those are my comments at second reading.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. For those couple of people who may be watching, as the minister has said, this is a routine bill. This comes forward each year. It provides the opportunity for the accountability for the public to be able to occur, which is the estimates process. For those who are interested, individual ministers then come forward and have to answer for their budgets. It’s an opportunity for opposition, on behalf of the public as well, to be able to raise questions.

This bill that is coming forward is, as the minister has said, a routine bill that allows the operation of government to continue while that process occurs. It is not an approval of the budget. It is not an acknowledgment of the programs that are there, but in fact a piece of legislation that ensures that government continues and that the structures of government continue. People continue to be able to work and be paid, and organizations continue to receive their dollars, while the accountability process occurs through the estimates process.

We will be supporting this bill, as we do each year, to ensure that we have time for the estimates. That’s really what this bill does, is give an opportunity for those questions and that accountability process to occur through the estimates process.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I move second reading of Bill 20.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m given to understand that were I to request leave to move the bill through all stages today that that leave may well be granted. So I will seek leave.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: I, then, with that leave, ask the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration now.

Bill 20, Supply Act (No. 1), 2016, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:59 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1500]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2016

Bill 20, Supply Act (No. 1), 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: It now brings us to committee stage on Bill 10.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2016

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

The committee met at 3:02 p.m.

On section 1.
[ Page 11255 ]

C. James: Section 1 makes a change that allows surpluses to be directed to the prosperity fund, and previously they had to go to the debt. I know we’ll get into a little more discussion around the prosperity fund in section 7, so I’ll hold those questions until we get to that section.

But in this section, it’s more a curiosity than anything else, to ask the minister why the reference…. The previous reference in this section, section 1, talked about the consolidated revenue fund, and that’s been replaced with the words “general fund.” I just wondered why that change was made. Was that simply related to the prosperity fund? Was that related to something more?

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s not. First of all, the member is correct in her characterization of the relationship between this section and section 7, which is the instrument by which the fund is actually created. The creation of the fund as a special fund is what necessitates the distinction between the special fund and the general fund, which was, without this alteration, not a distinction heretofore required. The creation of the special fund, as the instrument by which the prosperity fund is created, is what necessitates, and it does relate specifically to that.

C. James: Just so I’m clear, because it now includes the prosperity fund, the consolidated revenue fund didn’t apply? It had to be changed to a general revenue fund — the change in this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it’s a relevant question. Everything is contained and continues to be contained within the consolidated revenue fund. But the prosperity fund represents a special fund within that, heretofore unknown, whereas everything beyond that, or everything besides that, is the general fund. But they are both contained within the rubric of the consolidated revenue fund.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[1505]

C. James: Section 2 is the Emergency Program Act. This makes a change, again, in the section 2, section 4(2)(c) that actually adds a change to “other persons or organizations.”

Just for those people who are watching, the amendment says that grants and payments can be made for the purpose of emergency response. I think we understand that there are grants and payments that are made to other groups and organizations over a time period. Particularly for emergency response, I think that’s understandable.

But this paragraph is changed from “local authorities” — it previously read simply “local authorities” — to “local authorities” and “other persons or organizations.” I wonder if the minister could tell us why “other persons and organizations” was added to paragraph (c). Is there some specific reason that it has broadened from local authorities and some specific reason within emergency response that that’ll occur?

Hon. M. de Jong: There will be another dimension to this that we’ll come to momentarily, but the member is correct. It does broaden beyond local authorities. An example of that would be the desire to provide emergency preparedness perspective to search and rescue organizations, who wouldn’t be captured by the definition of local authorities.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

C. James: Section 3. I think, as the minister has said, there’ll be another dimension to this. I believe that’s section 3.

It changes section 16 to say that money can be spent without an appropriation. I think everyone understands that. Everyone understands, when there’s a fire or an emergency, that there will be an opportunity to spend that money without appropriation. That makes sense. I think people understand that spending is necessary and bound by the budget — that it does go through the appropriation process.

This amendment seems to exempt the government from the appropriation process for a broader purpose than was simply there before. It simply talked about emergency. This actually talks about emergency plans or programs — so a little bit broader than simply looking at a fire, for example, or a flood, where people would understand the emergency.

Again, similar to the previous section, I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about why that change has been made, why it seems to be a broader ability for the government to bring forward money without appropriation in this particular instance, as I said, particularly for emergency prevention, where previously it simply read emergency response.

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, I should say that I think the member’s characterization of the section and the operation of the section is essentially correct.

The thinking here — and again, it will come up in the context of subsequent amendments that pertain to direct fire — is that with conditions changing, sometimes very quickly, in the case of flood prevention, the desire and the need to move quickly and to be able to respond on a preventative basis as opposed to a purely reactive basis is a rationale for taking these steps. In the same way, when we come to the fire suppression section, we’ll be talking about community preparedness or fuel management on an expedited basis.
[ Page 11256 ]

In this case, the example that I would point to relates to flood prevention. But the member’s characterization of how the section operates is correct.

C. James: In the discussions that the minister had in bringing forward this amendment, I think we understand — and I think the public would certainly understand — that, as the minister has said, if there’s a flood going on or if there’s…. A plan may change, and things may need to occur there.

Including the prevention, I guess, is the piece that I’m curious about. Most prevention work takes place beforehand and therefore, I would expect, would go through appropriations and through the usual budget process. It wouldn’t be included in a section that allows that process to be overridden for emergencies.

I guess I’m just curious: what kind of discussion took place around checks and balances in making sure that this wasn’t a broader section? Emergency prevention or preparedness could include a pretty broad section outside of a ministry budget. That would be money that normally would go through a process of estimates and questions. I’m just guessing….

I want to hear from the minister around what discussion took place and what kinds of checks and balances are in place in this process.

Hon. M. de Jong: There are two components to the member’s question, and I think they are related. One relates to conversations that would have taken place. I’m not sure if the member meant internally or with agencies outside of the provincial government or maybe both.

The concern that we’ve had expressed and that revealed itself — and I don’t think this is necessarily brand-new; I think this is something that has developed over time — tends to be from communities where a situation develops suddenly.

[1515]

I mean, weather events can happen overnight. But the cumulative impact of a heavy-rain season that hasn’t been factored into the planning process….

The response that a community would otherwise get from government — “It’s not in our budget, so we’ll talk to you next year….” It doesn’t go over very well when the community is saying: “Well, that’s great, but we’re not sure how many of us are going to be here next year to have that conversation.” That’s part of the rationale for admittedly wanting a little bit more ability to manoeuvre fiscally in response to natural situations that might develop.

Having said that, there will still need to be, and will be, a process in place for Treasury Board approvals. They will, by definition, need to happen quickly, since that is the essence of what is trying to be achieved here. But that’s, maybe, the genesis of where this derives from.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I think that makes sense. I can certainly understand it from a community’s point of view. To be dealing with an emergency or an unprepared incident in a community, certainly, the community would expect that there’d be a quick response from government. I think I understand that.

I just wonder whether it might have been looked at through the definitions, perhaps — looked at the definition of “emergency plan” rather than broadening this section and creating that worry. I guess that’s the only piece I’d leave.

I just wondered: from the ministry’s point of view, will there be a tracking? It would be an interesting question to come back to next year, to say: “How many times was this section used — the change in the section used — and would it have made a difference if we’d gone back and looked at the definitions section rather than looked at broadening this section?”

Hon. M. de Jong: That’s an excellent question. In fact, the operation of this section will have to be reported out separately in the public accounts. There is a specific reporting-out mechanism for use of the instrument.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

C. James: Section 6 speaks to the Financial Administration Act — Section 26.2. It talks about payments out of the consolidated revenue fund to do with compensation. This talks about the Supply Act and another act, which authorizes spending out of a special account — that, for purposes of this amendment, compensation under certain circumstances could be paid out without resorting to amounts already budgeted. This speaks to paying for services provided by the government of Canada in this section.

I just wonder if the minister could give some examples of what specifically that might mean in this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member.

A good example of the relevance in the case of the federal government would be an RCMP contract. The member will know that during the course of the year on their own schedule, the federal government may negotiate new terms with members of the RCMP. Those costs pursuant to the policing agreement that is in place get passed along to the provincial government and the relevant ministry, who wakes up one day and says: “Well, we don’t have that in our budget.” Yet, the obligation is a clear one, and needs….

Again, the member has astutely pointed out…. It’s not an insignificant shift, because the work of this Legislature is to bring a measure of oversight. In this case, it was our view and my view that members would see merit in the view that in a circumstance like that, it was both wise and fair to the employees to ensure that the authority existed
[ Page 11257 ]
to honour the contractual terms. Then, other subsections here deal with other contractual arrangements that exist between the provincial Crown and workers.

[1520]

C. James: Thanks to the minister. That makes good sense. It’s a good example. It has changed over time, so I think it makes sense.

I think in subsection (2)(c), it talks about: “the existence of that liability…was not known when the main estimates for that fiscal year were presented to the Legislative Assembly.” I just wondered. In that circumstance, are there any examples that the minister may have other than Canada, of the province itself?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe the best example, immediate and relevant: the growth dividend that’s part of the contract. There’s that formula whereby we take the Economic Forecast Council…. The calculation takes place at a certain time of year. The entitlement is triggered or not at a certain time of year, but it wasn’t known at the time we were debating the estimates. Yet the obligation is a clear one to the employee.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I think that helps. Really, this is about accountability, and these questions are really about accountability. For that example — where it’s a clear policy decision that’s been made and it’s a clear piece that’s in place, yet the money piece isn’t known until later — I think that makes good sense. I appreciate the opportunity to ask those questions.

Section 6 approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I think it is the will of the committee to stand down section 7 to the tail end of the discussion here.

Section 7 stood down.

On section 8.

A. Dix: Section 8 effectively changes the fiscal year of ICBC. In fact, as the minister will know, there are, at ICBC, a number of years. There’s the policy year, which used to be in February and which changed to November in 2013. The minister can reflect on that and explain what happened between February and November 2013 that led to that change, but it meant that certain increases became apparent at a later date.

We have the policy year, and we have the fiscal year, which are different. Effectively, what we have in this case is the policy year now further away from the end of the fiscal year.

I presume what the minister has done here is to align ICBC’s fiscal year with the government’s fiscal year. Does he not see some downsides to that, in particular, in comparing between results and performances by ICBC, which has operated on the other fiscal year for some time?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct in pointing out some of the different calendars and year-ends that apply to the corporation.

I am reminded that ICBC is…. Let me back up for a moment. I’ll offer what I hope is some initial explanation to the member about the rationale for making the change. Then while I’m doing that, I’ve asked staff to consider what some of the downsides to that change may be. I think there might be some.

In essence, the rationalization…. It’s the only Crown corporation right now that, I’m told, has a different fiscal year-end than government. The B.C. Assessment Authority, apparently, maintains a calendar year-end, but as Crown corporations go, ICBC is distinguishable on that basis.

[1525]

Over the years — I can say this from a practical point of view — I have been confronted a number of times by circumstances in which, as the member may know, decisions are made or analyses are conducted. Problems arise in translating the one fiscal year to the other, and what the implications are for budgeting purposes or reporting purposes. In general terms, I think, the argument was: let us bring consistency — between not just any corporation, a fairly major Crown corporation.

Now, to what extent, beyond transitional issues — because the member may have an interest in transitional — is there a downside to that? Clearly, the government sees the upside is outweighing the downside, but I’ll take a moment and consider that question more specifically.

A. Dix: Specifically, the minister will know that the policy year, which is very significant…. We’re currently in a BCUC process with respect to the setting of ICBC rates, so in some respects, there is incoherence all around. For a very long time — the minister may remember this — February was the month for ICBC. That’s when it started, and that’s when policy years tended to be.

The government, in 2013, moved the policy year from February to November and, therefore, rate hearings in that period, right? They did it at that time, and they did it for, I think, fairly nakedly electoral reasons — to avoid a rate increase in an election year. I don’t think we need to debate that again, but I think that appeared to be what happened. There was no other clear reason why that would be the case.

I guess in this case…. Oddly enough, if the policy year had been maintained…. It’s an important feature for ICBC’s planning. They lay forward rate increases that start on November 1 for a fiscal year that now ends on March 31. It previously ended on December 31. So what you’re seeing, it seems to me, is that…. That policy year
[ Page 11258 ]
used to be just two months ahead of the upcoming fiscal year and ten months after the close of the prior year. Now you’ve changed it to five and seven. It seems, to me anyway, that makes what is pretty important estimating less precise.

I wonder if the minister would comment on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the general observation relates to the advisability of aligning differently a policy year with a fiscal year, and there may be some merit to what the member had to say.

[1530]

I will say this again, in perhaps a slightly expanded form. The impetus for the change around the fiscal year is to avoid the circumstance whereby quarterly reports are being made — and this I now recall specifically over, at least, the past three or four years that I’ve been doing this — where we are offering up quarterly fiscal updates as it relates to the general state of governmental affairs and, in the overlapping period, having to refer back to a previous fiscal year for the Crown corporation and how it is impacting the subsequent fiscal year for the government. That has, I can say with certainty, been a cause for some confusion, and we’re hoping to address that.

I am advised, and can advise the committee, that prior to 2013, the policy year, if we can use that term, has tended not to be particularly fixed. It is now. The member has offered, I think, an observation or an argument for perhaps fixing at a different time. I am advised, and I think the member knows this, that each time an adjustment takes place, there are potentially consequences, both positive or negative, that influence that decision.

I think the member knows — I hope the member knows — that I’m not dismissing his observation that there may be merit in aligning policy years and a policy schedule. I am, however, reminded that further changes may well impact some of the numbers and — therefore, ultimately, within the corporation — rates.

A. Dix: In my understanding, there’s the accident year, which will now be different from the fiscal year and is now different from the policy year. So while this has the effect, as I understand it, of aligning ICBC with other government agencies, it makes ICBC less aligned, shall we say, with itself. If you look at fiscal comparators dating back since the beginning of the ICBC…. Since the beginning of ICBC, the accident year and the fiscal year start January 1, as I understand it, and go through to December 31.

Is it ICBC’s intention, for comparative reasons…? It goes through routine BCUC processes on the basic side. The government covers up the optional side from such scrutiny, and we may be talking about that in a few minutes. But on the basic side, will ICBC be at least going back a number of years so that there can be a baseline for people to compare fiscal years and performance?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I was anticipating a particular question, and the member’s was slightly different. I think the question was this. In making this adjustment, is the member asking whether there will, in effect, be a form of restatement of the reporting out so that there can be an apples-to-apples comparison?

The member is indicating that that is….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Going backwards. I’m going to check…. My guess is, but I’m going to confirm, for analysis purposes, that that may well be the case. I’m not sure there’s a plan to restate annual reports, but I’ll make that inquiry.

A. Dix: I guess what I wanted — I mean, these are fairly important issues for ICBC, obviously — is to make the suggestion to the minister that given the shift in the fiscal year, it would make sense for the policy year itself be moved. In other words, November 1 doesn’t align, even, to any quarter, right?

It seems to me it makes more sense to align the policy year more tightly with the fiscal year and that a date for the policy year, based on the decision to move the fiscal year, of July 1 would make a lot of sense. It would make some sense, as well, given things like electoral timetables, which tend to affect these things and have been known to affect these things over time, regardless of who’s in government.

I was wondering if the minister agreed with that suggestion. Is that something that he would consider taking back to ICBC?

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: My short answer is: it may well, though I can tell the member that his suggestion has already triggered vigorous discussion amongst people with informed views on the practical implications of when that date should be. It would appear that aligning them directly with one another might be problematic. What the gap should be….

What I can’t do for the member authoritatively today is offer a meaningful answer about what the fiscal consequences would be to a shift. I hope the member will accept…. I’m not ruling out the merits of what he’s saying, but I can’t undertake to do it, and I can’t authoritatively inform the committee of what the fiscal consequences would be of the shift. But I can assure him that his suggestion has already triggered some interesting discussion and debate.

A. Dix: I think it would have some advantages for ICBC. The other practical advantage for both ICBC and government is that it would, given the BCUC process and so on, essentially push work for the Finance people into a less busy period. It has some utility in that regard as well.
[ Page 11259 ]

I want to ask him about the accident year. The minister will know that, as I say, there are three years. We’ve got the policy year that started November 1, which allowed the government to get past the 2013 election. There is now the fiscal year, which, if this passes — the member for Surrey–White Rock has entered the House, so I’m momentarily distracted — is April 1, and then we have the accident year from January 1. So the accident year has coincided with the fiscal year.

This, I think, actually has significant…. Unlike the alignment of the policy year and the fiscal year, this aligning, the accident year and the fiscal year, would seem to me to have some negative consequences. I’m wondering whether it would be ICBC’s intention to realign the accident year with the fiscal year.

Hon. M. de Jong: On this one, I don’t think I’m able to quite as readily agree. The reason for that, I am reminded….

[1540]

If the corporation were able to operate in a circumstance where it could say with certainty for the course of the accident year what the number of accidents would be within that year…. Of course, we’re reminded that they can’t because of the fact that people have up to two years to file a claim. That adds a layer of complexity to forecasting. The corporation has been at it for a while, and one would think that some trends emerge, but we have learned that trends change. They don’t change overnight, but they do change.

The member’s observation and assertion, I am advised, are, in this case, compromised by the fact that there is that up-to-two-year period within which accidents can be reported and claims can be made, so that level of uncertainty continues for the corporation.

A. Dix: Of course, the minister and ICBC will know well that unpaid claims at ICBC have been growing at an alarming rate in recent years, by several hundred million dollars a year — this during a period when ICBC, of course, has been claiming to improve service.

Yes, it’s always been the case. That has always been the case — right? — that people have two years. It may have changed over time, but two years has been established for some time, so I’m not sure I agree with the minister about that.

I think it’s something that ICBC may wish to consider. Rate requests are based on the prior accident year and the prior fiscal year. That’s the way it goes, you know. If you think of it…. I may be wrong on this, but you have people beside you who can advise you on this.

You have, right now, the Q1 forecast to March 31. They all have to be submitted to the BCUC by August 31 for a November 1 rate process. I think, if I understand the process, that’s correct. If you move the fiscal year to March 31 as year-end, it’s the equivalent of the existing Q1 forecast for that process.

The question, I guess, is whether that makes it more or less difficult to provide information in those rate review processes.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I think it’s worthwhile that he offers his thoughts and views to the committee on this, in discussing it with able staff here. The point that I will relay to the member doesn’t dismiss at all the relevance of his…. It maybe adds to remind us and the committee.

The corporation looks back beyond a year. I mean, they look back…. They’ve got claims that are seven years. There are trends that are of the past year and then years beyond that. From the point of view of forecasting, the significance of the date in time may not be as great.

[1545]

The part about the member’s suggestion that interests me and engages my attention, actually, is the sequencing of the work in a way that makes sense operationally but also takes account of the workload that accrues during the course of the fiscal year. I think, actually, for that reason alone, there may be some merit. Again, I’m a little bit hampered by not fully being able to convey to the committee what, if any, fiscal consequences there would be from any particular shift.

A. Dix: I think, as the minister has said when I asked him about the shifting of the policy here to July 1…. It was shifted from February to November without a lot of, shall we say, public policy rationale.

I guess what I’m just trying to explore with the minister is the impact of this shift after the 42-year history of the corporation, which operated on that basis. It does seem to me that the alignment of a fiscal year ending March 31 and a policy year starting November 1 is probably unlike the alignment has been at any time in ICBC’s history.

Even though change is not, inevitably, a bad thing, I think that alignment, fundamentally, will have to change in future years. It makes, actually, quite a bit of sense not to be running into the end of the fiscal year with a rate review process but, rather, to complete the rate review process in a more expeditious way.

I’d ask the minister to consider those suggestions. And unless he has more to say, we can pass this section.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

A. Dix: On section 9, I just wanted to ask…. This relates to section 8, and it involves the preparation of annual reports and such. It requires ICBC to provide an audit of its accounts by a given date, etc.

I wanted to just ask the minister, for starters — and the staff is there — when ICBC has released its report over the past couple of years. The minister will note that up
[ Page 11260 ]
until now, the Insurance Corporation Act has suggested that will occur within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year. That appears to be a little like a belief in the Easter Bunny, in the sense that it never seems to happen.

I’d like to just ask the minister, so that we understand in context, when these annual reports have been submitted over the last couple of years and what connection that has had to the past. What we’re talking here is, it seems to me, a shift in the requirements with respect to the tabling of the annual report. I just want to understand what the status quo is and what the minister proposes through the change, so that we see the annual report more expeditiously.

[1550]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am reminded of, and can alert the committee to, the fact that there were two relevant statutory provisions that guided the reporting out. One is the Insurance Corporation Act itself, and the other was the BTAA — the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, for real people. One provided a shorter period, the other a longer period.

The corporation, I am advised, has been abiding by the act — that is, the BTAA — that apparently legally supersedes the Insurance Corporation Act. The purpose behind the amendment is to formally amend the Insurance Corporation Act to incorporate the provisions that exist within the BTAA. The specific amendment here is to ensure that the legal requirements around the procedure for presenting the report replicate what is in the BTAA.

The member may have thoughts on the timing, but the specific amendment is to ensure that the procedure for presenting the act is the same.

A. Dix: So the minister is saying that the Insurance Corporation Act, which said ICBC must release its annual report within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year…. I don’t know. I just checked the last two years. It’s something they didn’t do. They just took the view that that no longer applied to them — the Insurance Corporation Act — and that they could release the annual report, as they did in 2015, in May; in 2013, in June.

Effectively, ICBC had decided not to follow the Insurance Corporation Act because it had the Budget Transparency Act, and it had arbitrarily made that decision so that it could release its annual report later than before. Now the deadline for the annual report is now moving from two months, which was in the previous act, which means it would be required to be available by May 31. The minister is now giving ICBC until August 31, or the beginning of the rate review process, to prepare its annual report. Why would ICBC need three more months than the Insurance Corporation Act says to release its annual report?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not sure the member is going to be satisfied with my answer, but I will give it nonetheless.

Through the amendment, the Insurance Corporation will have an obligation that is similar to every other agency — B.C. Hydro, the health authorities. The date will not be unique to ICBC. It is, admittedly, longer than that which was provided in its historic legislation, but it will put the Insurance Corporation, I am advised, on a footing and required to abide by a requirement that is similar to every other agency.

A. Dix: Well, I suppose one of the differences between the Insurance Corporation and — I don’t know — the Interior Health Authority is that the Interior Health Authority isn’t putting together a rate review here. Those responding to the Interior Health Authority don’t require information from ICBC in the same way that the Insurance Corporation would.

Doesn’t the minister think…? Well, I have two questions for the minister. Oddly enough, I happen it be the ICBC critic and the B.C. Hydro critic. I don’t know — short straw, Minister, short straw, but not as short as being Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

A. Dix: That’s right. It’s kind of an interesting notion, but all the fun Crowns I don’t have.

[1555]

The first is: why doesn’t ICBC — which is, like B.C. Hydro, a major Crown with a lot of public interest involved in it — release quarterly reports like B.C. Hydro does in order to inform the public?

Interjection.

A. Dix: Yeah, but B.C. Hydro releases quarterly reports, updates on where they are in the fiscal year. It’s a formal process of public involvement. Why doesn’t ICBC do that? And doesn’t the minister think, given the nature of the policy year, that it would make more sense for ICBC to be under some greater pressure to produce its annual report by August 31?

In other words, regardless of what we say about the Fraser Health Authority, the Fraser Health Authority is not in the same situation as ICBC. Nor are people who are attempting to intervene in the rate review process in the same position as people who might have questions of the Fraser Health Authority. Why do they need five months when the previous legislation, over decades, said they had two?

Secondly, why doesn’t ICBC produce quarterly reports, which might be helpful for both ICBC and for people who are dealing with ICBC, to assess how they’re doing in the middle of each fiscal year?

I might note that while the minister rightly says that ICBC decisions are made over a long period of time prior to that fiscal year and that a lot of other accident years
[ Page 11261 ]
and everything are considered, they have been staggeringly wrong in the fiscal year we’re in. In the previous year we’re in, they’ve been staggeringly wrong in terms of basic estimates of costs of claims. This is a fact.

Wouldn’t, both for the public and ICBC, the existence of a quarterly report be useful in that process?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member’s question relates to an enhanced reporting-out mechanism for, admittedly, an important corporation.

Again, I’ll advise or, perhaps, remind the member and the committee as follows. Here are the three layers of reporting out that I am aware of at the moment.

The first relates to the quarterly reporting out that the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance do statutorily. There is, of course, always a specific reference to the circumstances at ICBC. The member mentioned the changes in claims, return on investment. The investment portfolio is generally commented upon and discussed at that time. So there is that level of quarterly reporting out.

There is, I am advised, a statement of operations. That is a public document that is posted by the corporation on a quarterly basis. So there’s a second quarterly reporting out. I’m happy to obtain a copy for the member. I can’t tell the committee with authority what is included in the statement of operations, but I am happy to determine that.

Thirdly, I’m reminded that the corporation files quarterly with the Utilities Commission on the state of its affairs and circumstances. What I can’t advise the committee on is the degree to which that is posted, but the fact that it goes to the Utilities Commission would suggest to me that it is somewhat in the public domain.

[1600]

Those are the three areas of quarterly reporting that take place now. Admittedly, the first is more general, but presumably, the other two are more specific.

A. Dix: I think one of the challenges we face with ICBC…. I’ll be responding to that again a little bit in the next discussion that we have.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

One of the challenges with ICBC and the Utilities Commission process, as the minister will know, is that the optional side of ICBC is largely excluded from the Utilities Commission process. This is of significant importance. When you talk about basic coverage of $200,000 for liability…. I think the minister would agree that anyone in British Columbia who just took that would be being irresponsible with their car. So it’s not optional, really. It’s part of the basic package that 90 percent of ICBC customers get, either from ICBC or from a private competitor.

Part of the problem with Utilities Commission filings is that they tend to be unbelievably opaque with respect to the optional side of a public Crown corporation — and, I might add, a public side of a Crown corporation which is, of course, very lucrative and significant and where the issues are particularly important.

That process…. While it’s one that I’m very interested in, I’m also aware of the fact that the vigilance, the vigour, the passion, the intensity with which ICBC staff exclude discussion of the optional side from basic rate review hearings…. It seems to be a preoccupation of the corporation.

In any event, I did ask the minister…. It seems to me that what the minister is saying about the preparation of materials would make a quarterly reporting process not very difficult for ICBC, and it’s something that the minister or the minister responsible for ICBC might consider.

One of the utilities of having it at B.C. Hydro, for example, this year is we learned that domestic demand for B.C. Hydro this year is down — in this case, by 1,750 gigawatt hours, which is about one-third of the energy produced by Site C in one year, well below what B.C. Hydro has said in the past. So it’s useful for people engaging in the public debate to have regular information from our Crown corporations.

I wanted to ask the minister whether he feels, though, that giving ICBC five months — which is the other question — is not too much, given that we would wish to see that annual report sooner in the fiscal year; whether the extension, giving ICBC three more months than they have in the Insurance Corporation Act, actually makes sense; and whether he thinks that the comparison to, say, health authorities is actually a fair comparison.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is not possible for me to convey, but someone showed me a copy of one of the quarterly reports, and I looked at it very quickly. It may be, if the member hasn’t seen it, that some or most of the information is available. On the question of the timing and the amount of time required to complete an annual report, we could debate — I guess we are — whether it’s three months or five months.

[1605]

I will say this, that although the nature of the complexity may be different, I wouldn’t be inclined to impose a requirement or separate out the requirement for ICBC from the one that B.C. Hydro is obliged to meet, or a multi-billion-dollar health authority. The member may disagree and say that it would be preferential to be able to look at the final year-end report earlier in the fiscal year. I have his point about the merits of a detailed quarterly report and intend to explore that in terms of the information that is already posted and to what extent that can be enhanced.

I guess to answer his question directly, I and the government clearly are comfortable with the notion of imposing the same time requirement on the Insurance Corporation that we impose on a corporation like B.C. Hydro or a health authority.
[ Page 11262 ]

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

A. Dix: We had such momentum there for a moment, didn’t we? You want that to continue for some time, yet we are compelled to rise. It’s just one of those things, Minister.

No doubt the minister has prepared a response to this, so we’ll just set this out at the start. As I remember the 2003 core review…. I wasn’t here, of course, at that time. The minister was, but not in his current capacity. They talked about depoliticizing ICBC in that core review, even imposing business practices.

Pretty systematically since then, we’ve gone through a repoliticizing of ICBC — the repeated intervention by cabinet; the moving of money from optional to basic; the change in policy years to avoid scrutiny in election year rate increases; and the effort in 2010, which changed the policy of successive NDP, Social Credit and then Liberal governments to allow the treasury to take excess capital from ICBC directly, something that had never happened before.

Here the minister continues on that policy road, it seems to me. He’s talking about shifting the responsibility for the capital management target from ICBC and its actuaries to the provincial cabinet. Far be it…. As someone who’s in politics, I don’t always see the term “politicizing” as being negative, but this is clearly a politicization of that process.

I’m wondering if the minister would somehow explain why he thinks that this is justified under the circumstances and what that reflects about the current state of government thinking with respect to capital targets at ICBC.

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s an important question because it relates, in part, to the philosophy that guides the manner in which the corporation operates.

The member mentioned earlier in the discussion some of the phenomena that I understand the corporation is dealing with in terms of rising claims rates and costs. This instrument that we are discussing, contained within the section, is one that ultimately the Legislature, the government, has at its disposal in terms of determining the basis upon which proceeds from the optional side can be transferred to basic — on what basis, pursuant to what formula. It does, obviously, play a role in determining, when the commission is examining the circumstance, what the decisions are going to be around rates for basic coverage.

The amendment provides an option, and it provides some measure of flexibility, to be sure. The government believes that that is warranted as the corporation, particularly, takes some steps to address increasing bodily injury claims and addresses things like fraud detection, prevention, strategic procurement and some of the other cost-saving measures.

Yes, to the extent that the member identifies the creation of an additional instrument or lever here, he is correct. But I would, in answering the question, say that the government believes the creation of that lever is warranted in the circumstances as a means of ensuring the public, who are obliged with respect to basic coverage to secure that coverage, can do so on an affordable basis.

A. Dix: With great respect, in 2010, when we changed the legislation in a previous budget…. I understand that that Minister of Finance is in private life, so we won’t reflect too much on what happened. But what Colin Hansen did — we can now say his name in the House — as Finance Minister was to allow the government to take money in excess of the target into the government.

This is not about protecting ratepayers or anything else. This is about the minimum capital threshold on the optional side — which was, by the way, extremely high. I think in 2013 it was in the neighbourhood of…. Well, it was certainly north of 300 percent. Just to put that in context, leading private insurance companies can be in the 170 to 180 range as a target, so it’s a massive target.

What that means is it improves the balance sheet of the province. I’m sure the Minister of Finance liked that. It also means that optional policyholders at ICBC, who are a significant part of ICBC’s customers — overwhelmingly, the majority, in fact, of ratepayers in British Columbia are basic and optional coverage — pay more to maintain that level.

What this proposes to do, it seems to me…. It doesn’t change anything, because ICBC shifted money from optional to basic several times in the last few years to mitigate rate increases. So they’ve done that. They can do that under the law.

What this does is centralize — it seems to me, unless I’m mistaken — power to do that in the cabinet. It’s not just ICBC’s choice to set its capital levels based on business principles that they might have. It’s the role of the cabinet to do so.

[1615]

The change doesn’t permit or not permit anything that ICBC has done in the past. What it allows is for the cabinet to dictate what that change is. I’m asking why the minister feels, at this time, that sort of politicization of the process is a useful thing. It may be a useful thing. It may be. But it is the politicization of the process, one that hadn’t been that way ever in ICBC’s history.

Hon. M. de Jong: I may be mistaken, but I think the member, at one point in his submission to the committee, spoke of dictating a certain outcome. I would, with the greatest respect, stop short of that. There’s no question it creates a broader element of flexibility. There’s no question it, if utilized, precludes the need to adhere strictly
[ Page 11263 ]
to one guideline. That’s set federally by OSFI. There’s no question about that.

I’d stop short of agreeing with the member that it represents a mechanism by which the executive branch or the cabinet dictates what will take place. It certainly provides the executive branch with the option of setting a different parameter within which the corporation can operate.

A. Dix: Well, the purpose of the legislation is to provide the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to do just that. In other words, what it does is allow the cabinet to decide. On the optional side, as I understand, the management target was 260 percent. Above that, the government, for the first time in B.C. history, after 2010 was able to access that. So the level of that is important.

The level previously had been set by the ICBC board. Now it’s the ICBC board or the cabinet, and if there’s disagreement between those two, then the cabinet wins. That’s what the change means, as I understand it. The cabinet sets the level. I’m asking: what precipitated such a change? Why does the minister think it’s important for the cabinet to have that power over ICBC?

The MCT level was, presumably, previously set by actuaries, and they could be wrong. You could strongly argue that the level was too high and that the optional price was too high. This leads to ICBC ratepayers paying a lot more. That has pretty clearly been the case. In private jurisdictions, there are lawsuits telling insurance companies who have been overcharging people to give money back, right? Here in B.C., because of the different circumstance, that’s not the case.

This is a decision by the government, reflected in this legislation — as a member of the House, I’m interested in this — for the cabinet to take over control of this process. Usually, it’s very difficult to get legislation forward — except, perhaps, if you’re the Government House Leader. It’s very difficult to get legislation through.

[1620]

Why is the politicization of establishing the capital threshold at ICBC a priority? Why does it exist in legislation? Why is the present process, which isn’t political — or, at least, as political, I guess — not acceptable? Why does the cabinet need to dictate the threshold at all?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. The member says: “Why? Why now?”

I am reminded of the speed and the degree to which circumstances — the cost structure that the corporation has been facing — have changed. The member mentioned earlier actuarial data and forecasting and the fact that it has not always been as accurate. I don’t want to suggest that the abilities at the corporation have diminished. It would seem to me that the circumstances that they are dealing with are changing, and are changing at a pace that warrants creating an instrument that allows for the rules to change as well.

I’m reminded — the member points out — there is an existing formula in place, a statutory instrument — not really the board at ICBC. That was an expression of statutory intent, albeit one that required the engagement of the entire Legislative Assembly, to be sure, as opposed to a mechanism that would facilitate changes more easily and more quickly to take account of changing circumstances.

But the ability to make changes that would offer the ability or create the ability to deal with costs being incurred and imposed on those with basic coverage — and by utilizing the optional side of the business to do that in a way that is not constrained by the present ratio and the present formula — is really what lies at the heart.

I hope that the member will accept that I’m not quarrelling with his description of the creation of a new instrument. I do stop short of embracing his characterization of it as merely an attempt to politicize the process. I and the government don’t view it that way. We certainly view it as creating a mechanism by which we can utilize the strength of the corporation to assist the ratepayers that rely upon it for service and coverage.

A. Dix: Well, how specifically does giving the cabinet power over the capital threshold do that?

[1625]

Hon. M. de Jong: How is it that that’s accomplished? I think, in short order, by potentially — if the instrument is utilized in a certain way —expanding the opportunity to utilize the proceeds of the optional side of the business to reduce the pressure that would otherwise accrue on ratepayers on the basic side of the business. There is, it strikes me, a fairly apparent benefit that could accrue from the use of this particular instrument.

A. Dix: Well, that’s what happened last year, right? The minister got a rate increase proposal from ICBC. He said, “I’m going to get at costs,” and then they transferred $450 million — I’m not sure how that was getting at costs, but you know, he’s a new minister — and they moved it. What this does…. The setting of the capital threshold is an important question at ICBC, and there’s a real debate.

The minister will know that in 2010, for example, the capital threshold on the optional side was rising, rising, rising. What the government chose to do, rather than returning money — which was well in excess of any other insurance company in Canada, in terms of capital threshold on the optional side — to the ratepayer is that they decided to take it into government. That was an interesting tactic, right? That’s what they did.

I guess the government was in trouble at that point, and the minister will recall that. On the fiscal side, it was running successive deficits, and it saw this nest egg, and it went and got it. The basis for doing that is the capital threshold on the optional side.
[ Page 11264 ]

I guess I’m asking, since that is possible…. Currently the capital threshold does not involve a target, does not involve the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I presume that this change means it does. Why is that necessary? What the minister is talking about he can do now and they’ve done now. I think that’s the change that’s been made — not just to this cabinet but any cabinet. This is the question I’m asking. The question is: what’s the purpose of allowing the cabinet to set the capital threshold?

It does affect a number of things. You lower the optional capital threshold. The ability for government to come in and take money is increased, or you could lower it to reduce optional rates for ratepayers. You could’ve done that before the other option was taken. It was, effectively, a hidden tax increase on people. That’s what it was. There would’ve been other choices if you’d not made those decisions, but that’s what the government did.

I’m perplexed here. I’m genuinely perplexed as to what created the need for this legislation, for this mechanism, which says the cabinet can do this. The cabinet, not ICBC actuaries, can do this. Politicians, not actuaries, make the decisions around capital threshold. That might be the right decision. I just want to understand why it was taken and why it was taken now.

Maybe so we get down to brass tacks…. I don’t want to monopolize this important debate on the Budget Measures Implementation Act, because there are many other subjects. There’s a whole fantasy fund to discuss later. Let me ask him, then, basically — because this is clearly an important question: what was the target in 2015, and how was that target changed by the shift of $450 million from optional to basic that occurred not in 2015, even though the rate increase occurred in 2015, but on January 1, 2016? What’s the optional target for the year we’re in, and what was the optional target for last year?

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has asked me, through the committee, why. Why the instrument, why now? I have perhaps communicated this clumsily and will try to do so again.

The mechanism by which the proceeds from the optional side of the business can be utilized to reduce the pressure on ratepayers purchasing basic coverage is, as the member said, well established. There are constraints. The existing statutory mechanism places a constraint.

I think the member has said…. Well, I won’t put words in…. There’s an argument that we should be content with that and operate within that framework. The government clearly is saying, by virtue of presenting this legislation, that in light of circumstances where costs are escalating, and escalating in a way that has not been seen previously, it wishes to have the option, the opportunity, to reduce that constraint.

That’s what we’re talking about: creating a mechanism by which the existing statutory restraint on the use of that tool can be reduced. The rationale, the justification, relates to a phenomenon that the member and his colleagues haven’t been hesitant to point out frequently, and that is the pressure that accrues on citizens, ratepayers, when they purchase basic coverage.

Now, the member may wish to make certain assumptions or presumptions about how this instrument might be used by this government or future governments. I’m not in a position, again, to authoritatively offer a view or a forecast to the member.

I do know that (a) he has acknowledged the use of the tool of using the proceeds of optional coverage to relieve pressure on the basic side. That tool is constrained by the existing statutory instrument. The government is endeavouring to reduce that constraint or replace it with a legislative instrument that would be more flexible and that does, to the member’s point, engage the decision-making authority of cabinet.

A. Dix: So the minister is saying he’s politicizing the process, and the government has repeatedly done this. Remember, the minister talks as if he’s thinking about basic policyholders. In the 2011 fiscal year, they extracted $576 million for the government. They could have given that to policyholders. They gave it to the government.

The issue on the threshold isn’t the policyholders. They can do it for them. It’s the government. It’s the government ensuring that its share from ICBC, its share of optional capital that it scoops up, can be maintained. The minimum threshold for optional is 200, as I understand the law. The target, which is what we’re talking about here, is 260. It has been higher.

[1635]

I asked the minister directly what the target is for 2015 and how that target is affected by the $450 million that came out on January 1, 2016, and what the target is this year so that we can fully understand the impact of this politicization on the process.

Hon. M. de Jong: My purpose is not to disabuse the hon. member of conclusions he has drawn about how the government, if granted the use of this tool, might use it. I would agree with him, but that is a different kind of conversation — certainly a different conversation.

It strikes me that what the government is asking the committee and, ultimately, the Legislative Assembly to do is to agree with the proposition and the proposal. Rather than being wedded to and constrained by the existing formula, which determines the degree to which a transfer of the sort that we’ve discussed can be utilized, there should be flexibility. There should be a mechanism by which that amount is adjusted, taking into account the circumstances that are confronting, initially, the corporation but that ultimately flow through to ratepayers.

It’s entirely appropriate for the member to express his views and concerns about a change. I believe and the gov-
[ Page 11265 ]
ernment obviously believes that it is one that is warranted and that, used responsibly and judiciously, can serve the benefits of the corporation — but also ratepayers.

A. Dix: I’ve asked the minister a number of times to explain, because of course, the capital threshold isn’t just about one of the issues that we’re talking about, which is the shift from optional to basic in order to keep basic rates from going up. It’s also about government, which has been the greediest of all the people at the optional capital table. They have first access, and successive Ministers of Finance have dined on that. It enhances the idea of good fiscal management. The government does it.

I haven’t heard a single explanation. We’re not going to continue on indefinitely in my not getting explanations as to why, now, the Minister of Finance wants to politicize the process. There’s a minimum target of 200 and 100, and ICBC is well above those in terms of the minimum threshold that’s allowed.

ICBC’s target is set by the ICBC board. It had previously been 260 on the optional side and 185 on the corporate side. So the mix of the basic and the optional gives you 185. I mean, the public policy implications of all of that are significant. A minimum of 200, compared to, say, a minimum 170 would probably be more than $100 a policyholder, if it was returned to policyholders. So these are significant questions.

The government has decided, for fiscal and other reasons, to allow that amount of money to grow, and then it decided, when it was desperate around balanced budgets, to grab some of that for itself. What we’re not talking about is the mechanism by which you can turn the optional to the basic. That exists already. What we’re talking about is shifting the capital threshold so that the government can take more money.

I genuinely hesitate to quote this person in the House, but there’s a columnist for the Vancouver Sun who spoke about this process.

“The B.C. Liberals had different notions. Their own surpluses were long gone, vaporized by the combination of an economic downturn and their own unwillingness to level with the electorate before it was too late. They were desperately short of cash, and those ICBC reserves” — that’s what we’re talking about: the capital threshold — “were just sitting there like a string of plump little sparrows.”

Plump little sparrows. It’s Vaughn Palmer, so whatever. Metaphor is metaphor, and that’s what we do in Victoria, I guess. But that’s what happened. I mean, 2011 — $476 million. This is what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about protecting ratepayers here. We’re talking about protecting the government and giving the government, not actuaries, the authority to set that level.

[1640]

The minister, through all of this discussion, hasn’t answered two questions. One, why now? Why do we need to politicize this process? What’s wrong with the existing process? What’s wrong with the existing threshold? And two, what are the capital thresholds for optional — so that we know? It was 260. What is the capital threshold for optional after the $450 million was transferred this year? That’s a basic question. The minimum is 200. The target was 260. What is it this year?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has offered a lengthy preamble and made several assertions, many of which I disagree with. He may not like the answer that I have offered to him in a number of instances, but I’m not sure I agree with the proposition that I haven’t offered an answer to the basic questions of: why? And why now?

The member is, I think, wrong when he asserts that the change is purely to achieve a certain purpose. We can have a philosophical conversation about the appropriateness of a dividend being paid to the shareholder. The member has expressed his view on that in the past. I have.

I will simply say that the assertion I hear frequently from members of the opposition — that, for example, the budget has been balanced on the strength of that dividend — is fundamentally false. This member, of all members, I think knows that. He knows that the corporation is contained within the overall reporting entity and that the transfer of the dividend in no way influences what the bottom line is.

The member says: why? And why now? There is pressure being brought to bear on ratepayers who purchase basic coverage from the corporation. The corporation is presently constrained — by the way, not, I am advised, by decisions of the board but by a statutory instrument that ties the ratio to a formula set by a federal regulating authority, OSFI.

This would purport to change that. This would repatriate to the executive council, the cabinet of the province of British Columbia, the ability to set that ratio and provide the corporation with greater flexibility in terms of the degree to which it uses that instrument available to it.

Now, the member says, I think, that he is suspicious about the manner in which the government or future governments might use that instrument. I don’t think there’s anything I’m going to say here today to dissuade him of that. In a circumstance where the cost of claims is rising, and rising rapidly, and bringing pressure to bear on ratepayers, it strikes me and the government as reasonable to create this instrument that enhances the flexibility by which the corporation can operate.

A. Dix: The issue, I guess, and the direct question is: what was the threshold in 2015, and what is the threshold now, given the $450 million that was transferred? Not only am I not even getting a response, a whiff, to my politicization question, but I’ve asked that question a couple of times. I’m asking the minister for simply the answer to that question so we understand the frame of this question.

In the previous years, it had been 260 percent on the optional side. I think 185 was the target overall when you mix the optional and basic. The actual threshold is much
[ Page 11266 ]
higher than, say, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I think it’s fair to say, where it’s right at 100 on the basic side and nowhere near that on the optional side. The basic threshold is actually higher in B.C. than in those places. That means rates are higher, and there’s more in ICBC’s fund. You could argue that that’s a conservative position. You could argue that.

[1645]

All I’ve asked directly is: after they transferred the $450 million, what is the percentage on optional capital at ICBC as of January 1, 2016?

Hon. M. de Jong: The number I have as of 2015, which is a combined number, is 157. That’s combined. And I can endeavour to get additional numbers for the member that aren’t available to me at the moment. That is, admittedly, the combined number that I can relate to the member right now.

A. Dix: As the minister will know — as I understand it — the target set by the ICBC board, which we’re talking about here, for optional capital is 260 percent for last year. And one of the reasons, as I understand it…. My doing the math suggests that that drops after the $450 million is taken out to about 218 percent. But, you know, my dad was an insurance agent; I wasn’t a math student. So I think that that’s the reality of the situation.

I’m interested to know about that, because that’s a critical question for government finances. And the minister is, of course, correct. These are legitimate public debates — the issue of whether money should be returned to the ratepayers. Clearly, given the growth of optional capital over the years, ICBC customers have been overcharged for optional, which, in my view, no person would regard as optional.

I mean, to just stick with basic liability isn’t an option for any responsible person in British Columbia. I think the minister would agree with that. The limit on liability is just too low, on the optional side anyway. The minister talks about pressure on the basic side. There isn’t the same level of pressure on the optional side. That’s why optional does so well and why it made so much money.

It has a couple of different effects, of course. It’s not bad for the private sector, because ICBC’s the rate leader, and they can come in just under ICBC and make a lot of money too — on the optional side — which they do. They don’t price compete very vigorously.

The point I would make is that this information — the question of what the capital threshold target should be — should be public and should be understood. Then we can at least understand what the government is doing in setting the levels, because, as the minister knows, the government is able to scoop in above the target — and it has repeatedly over the last number of years — to meet budget targets.

It’s critical, because the minister is quite correct in saying that’s included. What he’s not correct in saying is that the government said: “We’re raising rates to address our deficit position.” That’s not what happened. ICBC customers who have seen optional rates go up unnecessarily — for example, this year — weren’t told: “We did this to save the government on the deficit.” They were told that this was needed for ICBC. So that’s the public policy decision.

In any event, clearly this question of whether the decision about what the threshold should be, should be in the cabinet or should remain with ICBC is one on which we don’t so much disagree as I haven’t been able to discern, through the minister’s comments, what the purpose of it is now.

[1650]

What is this flexibility that the government needs to reduce capital thresholds? This will be my last attempt, because there are other members of the House. Although the minister and I are fixated on this question of ICBC, there are other questions. Is it, in fact, the government intention to drop the optional threshold below 200?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I can tell the member…. I agreed with portions of what he said and disagreed with portions as well. But clearly, what the government is seeking here is to create a mechanism that did not exist, one that could be exercised by the executive council.

The member’s very legitimate question at this stage in the debate is: how do you intend to utilize that instrument, that tool? I’m not able to provide a definitive answer to the member. I mentioned a few moments ago that to the extent that I can facilitate for the member additional numeric statistical information that might assist him in formulating his own notions or theories or ideas about what could or shouldn’t be done, I’m happy to do so. I think at this point, for better or worse, that is the best I am able to offer the member and the committee around the question of what use this instrument might be put to.

Section 11 approved on division.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, with the indulgence of the committee, I wonder if this might be an appropriate moment for a ten-minute break?

The Chair: Committee is recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Sections 13 and 14 approved.
[ Page 11267 ]

On section 15.

The Chair: Member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

C. James: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. Welcome back.

Section 15 changes the financial assistance paid out through the training and education savings program to add an additional year. That part of the section is pretty straightforward, to make that adjustment.

I’m just wondering. The adjustment has a cost to it. The initiative is about $30 million a year, roughly. I just wondered if the minister could speak to what the expected takeup is on this program.

It’s been in place now for a year. I wonder if the minister could just let us know what the budgeted takeup is on this program. And is there an expected takeup on this program for the percentage of children in this age category who would be applying and receiving this program?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll provide, hopefully, a reasonably complete set of information, mostly because the member kindly signalled in her second reading remarks that this would be an area of interest so I could prepare myself accordingly.

The first thing I should say is, whilst the announcement about the program dates back a few years, making the arrangements with the federal authorities and bringing financial institutions on line to facilitate this has meant that the program hasn’t been available to accept applications until August of 2015. So any of the numbers that I hereafter provide to the committee relate back to that period.

We actually think, or are prepared to consider, that the annual cost of this, over time, may be closer to $40 million, rather than $30 million, simply on the basis of the number of eligible children. To date — and when I say that, I am referring back to August 1, 2015 — just over 12,000 applications have been received, and 11,200 grants have been paid out into RESPs.

[1710]

I will say, this is one of those things where, if we could achieve 100 percent subscription, that is the objective. I think a couple of things will enhance that, but the fact that we’re now in a position, since August, to accept the grant applications is an important one. The fact that there are now more financial institutions — I think virtually all of the credit unions within British Columbia…. Some of the leading chartered banks are now in a position to process this.

This may be something the member wishes to explore in another forum, in estimates, but we are going to try and advertise this program so that people know about it and take advantage of it.

There’s a reasonably up-to-date statement, I think, of where we’re at and anticipated costs.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

C. James: This is a piece where the issue of trusts come up. We had a little bit of a discussion at the second reading, just a conversation about the changes to the disabilities trust and making sure that there was a coordination between the federal law and the provincial tax law.

I wonder if I could just ask the minister: is there anything here that varies from the federal act? It appears to me from the conversation that the minister said that this is just a change to the Income Tax Act to mirror the federal act to the provincial act. Is there anything that varies from the federal act in this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is no. The member is correct. Pursuant to the agreements that we have in place, the intention is to ensure that these taxation provisions are consistent with the federal act and changes that have been made to the federal act.

C. James: One other question on this section. In subsection (4), there is a section here that talks about: “…this section does not apply to a qualified disability trust” — and we talked about supporting the changes for the disability trust — “as defined in section 122 (3) of the federal Act, or a graduated rate estate.”

There doesn’t appear to be a definition of a graduated rate estate. I wondered, from the minister’s perspective: is there a definition? It doesn’t seem to refer to the federal act as well in this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised and can advise the member and the committee that a “graduated rate” is a defined term within the federal act. I can endeavour to locate it within the federal act if the member wishes, but it is a defined term within the meaning of the federal act.

[1715]

Sections 23 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

L. Popham: I have a few questions about the farmers tax credit. I think I’ll start with section 20.1(1), where it defines agricultural products as defined by regulation. We just went through another bill in the House which defined agricultural products, and included in that definition were products not intended for human consumption. I’m wondering if that would also be included in the tax credit.

Hon. M. de Jong: The intention is that the defined term here would cover food or drink for human consumption.
[ Page 11268 ]

L. Popham: So if a farmer was to donate, let’s say, meat for pet food, would that not be included?

Hon. M. de Jong: The credit is intended to accrue to those who donate food or drink for the purpose of human consumption.

L. Popham: Are there any products that would not be on the list for human consumption? When we look at the farmers market coupon program, one of the items that is not allowed to be purchased through a farmers market with those coupons is honey. Would honey be included?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, it would.

L. Popham: Can the minister confirm for me the products…? When they’re being assessed for the tax credit, it looks like it’s 25 percent of the market value of the product. Can the minister explain how items are assessed and who would be keeping track of the value of those products?

Hon. M. de Jong: Practically, I think the process that would occur here is that the credit is administered on the province’s behalf by the CRA, the federal agency. There is, I am advised, information available on line and otherwise by which the donor would be assisted in valuing the donation. There would be a declaration of value, and of course, that would be subject to any audit that the CRA chose to make. That’s, roughly speaking, the process and procedure that would be followed.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what he believes to be the foregone tax revenue from bringing in this tax?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think this appears in the tax table of the fiscal plan. My recollection is that it lists $1 million. It is a forecast, and it may well be more. It may be less.

L. Popham: The minister knows much more about taxes than I do, I’m sure, and so I’m wondering: how much would a farmer have to make annually to be able to take advantage of this tax credit?

[1720]

Hon. M. de Jong: Once again, I’m obliged to the member’s colleague, the hon. critic, because, happily, I’m able, hopefully, to provide useful information. The member mentioned in her second reading…. The member from Saanich may have as well. I just didn’t hear it.

Here’s the data. First of all, it’s a non-refundable tax credit. In order to derive a benefit, the individual donor needs to have an income that takes them beyond the basic threshold in British Columbia for paying income tax, between $19,000 and $20,000. A donor earning less than that wouldn’t be in a position to take advantage.

Thereafter, once the individual donor is in a position where they are earning sufficient income to be remitting income tax…. Here are some numbers that may be of interest and help answer the member’s question. For a donation valued at $1,000, the tax credit would be worth $250. I actually have….

Maybe the easiest way for me to do this is to put this in a form that I can send over to the member to provide that information. I think the key point that the member has elicited from her question is that because it’s non-refundable, the donor has to be in a position where they are remitting income tax in order to take advantage of the credit.

L. Popham: More information would be great. I think that when I’ve gone out to the agricultural community, there isn’t very much understanding on how this is going to work yet, so getting some details would be great.

Is there a maximum amount somebody could claim?

Hon. M. de Jong: There’s not a limit, per se, on this credit, but there is a general limit that relates to charitable donations, and that is 75 percent of income. That limit would apply, so the entitlement to the non-refundable credit would be captured within that general limit for charitable donations.

L. Popham: I think this is actually going to be my final question, then. “Eligible taxpayer,” and someone who would qualify for this tax credit, includes corporations. I’m just looking at the amount a corporation might make, and they would be able to apply for this tax credit up to the amount that they’re eligible to for charitable donations, in charitable donation tax law, I guess.

[1725]

I’m just wondering. When this was announced, there was a lot of meaning put on the fact that this would allow farmers in B.C. — and this was a blanket statement — to be able to put some money in their back pocket, as the Minister of Agriculture said. So I’m looking at who this is actually going to be helping.

If you look at the amount of small-scale farmers that we have, I think that they believed that they were probably eligible to have this tax credit. Now, small-scale farmers may only be making $20,000 or less. So it’s leaving out a segment of our population of farmers that would, I think, actually be able to take advantage of this, especially if a corporation that’s making much, much more is able to qualify for a tax credit and a small-scale farmer isn’t. Maybe that was more of a statement.

My final question would be…. The value of agricultural products fluctuates quite a lot. I’m still not quite sure who would assess that value. For example, we saw something like that happening over the last few months with the value of cauliflower. Who assesses the real value of that cauliflower? Is it $1.99 or is it $9? Also, would there
[ Page 11269 ]
be a difference between a conventionally grown product and a certified organic product? Because certified organic products tend to get a more premium price.

Hon. M. de Jong: The general proposition here is fair market value, and the CRA has developed a methodology that is applicable to determine what that is. The member is correct. There can be fluctuations in terms of what the market value is.

That methodology for valuation triggers at the time of donation. That’s one thing. But as I say, the donor self-assesses on the basis of that methodology and then is always subject, as we are on a broad range of taxation-related matters, to audit by the CRA.

A. Weaver: My question to the minister is this. What processes and what way does the government have to ensure that dumping of vegetables or dumping of fruit onto a food bank is going to be monitored? Fair market value may be claimed, but a large component of that product may actually never be used. Is there a check and balance in place to ensure that a product that is delivered is actually consumed and used?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member’s question and, actually, the previous member’s question…. I neglected to mention something that is relevant to both.

It is the charitable organization that issues the receipt. To the extent that that may help regulate the unwanted delivery of produce or food products, I don’t want to pretend for the committee or the hon. member that there is an army of food-donor watchdogs out there that can verify. The scenario the member paints of some wastage — I think that’s a possibility.

One would hope, and we do, that whether it’s a food bank or another agency, these organizations that exist and are dedicated to the advancement of benefiting people, disadvantaged folks, would understand the importance of utilizing the product and, at times, say no, if they didn’t think there was a timely recipient for what is being provided.

[1730]

It is the recipient of the donated food product, though, that is responsible for issuing the receipt. I may have left…. In fact, I think, upon reflection, that I left the impression that the donor would sort of self-assess and say: “I think I gave X amount.” It is actually the receiving agency that issues the receipt in those circumstances.

A. Weaver: Are there means and ways that a donor can say no to a delivery of a particular food product?

Why I say that is I have some concern, if it’s not protected through regulation, that somebody who says no may not get other products. What mechanism does the actual recipient have to say no to a farmer that, perhaps, wants to dump an awful lot of blueberries onto their market and maybe some cauliflower as well? They won’t get the cauliflower unless they take 10 tonnes of blueberries that they can’t sell. Are there any checks and balances in there to protect the food bank?

This is a serious issue because food banks often do get delivered to them vast quantities of products that cannot be used — molasses or certain types of oils. This occurs not infrequently.

My concern is that a whole bunch of late-season corn is going to be dumped on a food bank, and they’ll get the blueberries and apples if they take the corn. What means and ways are there for the organization to ensure that they’re protected? They take those blueberries and apples, but they don’t want 10,000 pounds of used corn.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in describing the scenario, it seems to run counter to, I think, the impression all of us here have about why this is a worthy thing to do — that is, the philanthropic nature of people who grow or produce the food to want to help.

At the end of the day, probably, the safeguard — if that’s the appropriate term to use — is the fact that it is the charitable organization that is responsible for issuing the receipt, as I mentioned. I’m not sure how receptive they are going to be to a donor who foists upon them unwanted product.

There are other agencies besides food banks. But food banks and others who deliver food to folks who need it are, in my experience, very concerned that they not be portrayed as participating in wastage.

I would like to think that those who are motivated to give would be doing so on a philanthropic basis. But at the end of the day, if they believe that they can secure a fiscal benefit by imposing upon a charitable organization unwanted product, then they may be mistaken, because a charitable organization will be entitled to say: “Sorry. No receipt from us.”

A. Weaver: Where I’m coming from — and this is, obviously, in my view — is that the whole question that we’re actually debating is the wrong question to be debating. What we should be discussing is why we have food banks in the first place.

My next question, then — the final question to the minister — is this: did the ministry consider actually taking that $1 million in tax credit that is going to go to large farmers — not to the small farmers, not to the small organic farmer, who is earning $19,000 a year….

Did they consider using that and putting that out for matching funds to actually lever that up to $4 million and give food bank money directly to allow them to deliver their services without the unnecessary red tape that’s being brought in through the issuance of tax receipts, etc? Why did that money not go directly, that $1 million, to food banks to allow them to do their job?
[ Page 11270 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Whilst the member, I think, articulates a legitimate option that was available — I suppose remains available to the government — I must confess I disagree with part of the premise of his question as follows.

[1735]

First of all, we are not speaking exclusively of food banks here. There are other agencies to whom food can be donated. We have, I think, one of the widest-spread fruits-and-vegetables programs for children in the classroom. Over, I think, half a million students now directly receive produce and dairy products.

Secondly, I think some large producers will participate in this. But I also think a lot of small producers…. The member may know I reside in a farming area on a farm. There is, I think, a desire on both the part of large producers and smaller producers to help where they can.

I think, at the end of the day, no one is suggesting, or I’m certainly not, that the intention is to enrich donors. I think it is to recognize their philanthropy in the way that other philanthropy takes place and is recognized with a charitable tax credit. I think to the extent that the agricultural community has responded positively to this, it is as much about being recognized for the value of their contribution as anything else.

The last thing I’ll say, because I know the member probably has time to ask all the questions he wants…. There’s a three-year period here. During that time, we’ll be in a position to assess whether some of the challenges and problems arise that the member has referred to and, if necessary, make changes accordingly.

Section 31 approved on division.

Sections 32 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it is at section 36 that I need to move the amendment that stands in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 36, in the proposed section 81.1 (5), by deleting the text shown as struck out:

(5) The amount of the tax credit that may be claimed by a qualifying corporation under this subsection is 12.5% of the amount determined by the formula

where

QLE is the corporation’s qualified BC labour expenditure for the taxation year in respect of the animation production,

RLE is the total of the corporation’s BC labour expenditure for the taxation year and for each of the preceding taxation years that is in respect of the animation production and in respect of services rendered in British Columbia outside of the designated Vancouver area, and

TLE is the total of the corporation’s BC labour expenditure for the taxation year and for each of the preceding taxation years in respect of the animation production.]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: Having moved the amendment, I suppose I should say it is a…. Members will see it is a rather technical amendment that refers to the deletion of a couple of words that, frankly, were the result of a drafting error. I’m happy to explore it to the extent that the committee feels necessary.

A. Weaver: On the amendment, very quickly. I’m hoping that we’ll see a printed copy and that we won’t be proceeding to third reading today after committee stage and that we’ll have a chance to see that on Monday.

The Chair: The amendment is on the order paper today.

A. Weaver: I understand that, but we’ve had a tradition in this Legislature of moving directly from committee and having third reading the same…. As a member, I’m entitled to see the printed version of the completed bill after committee stage before going to third reading. I’m asking that we do third reading on Monday.

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, that is a reasonable request and why, following an amendment, moving to third reading requires leave. But I am happy to….

[1740]

Actually, I wonder if I might prevail upon the member to have a discussion, at some point here, just in terms of the involvement of the Lieutenant-Governor. But I wonder if I might prevail upon the member to have a discussion at some point. I’m not quarrelling with his desire to see a printed copy of the bill.

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

On section 37.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the amendment to section 37 that stands in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 37, in the proposed section 81.11 (5), by deleting the text shown as struck out:

(5) The amount of the tax credit that may be claimed by a qualifying corporation under this subsection is 6% of the amount determined by the formula

where

QLE is the corporation’s qualified BC labour expenditure for the taxation year in respect of the animation production,

DLLE is the total of the corporation’s BC labour expenditure for the taxation year and for each of the preceding taxation years that is in respect of the animation production and in respect of services rendered in a distant location, and
[ Page 11271 ]

TLE is the total of the corporation’s BC labour expenditure for the taxation year and for each of the preceding taxation years in respect of the animation production.]

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

On section 38.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I move the amendment to section 38 that stands in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 38, in the proposed section 82.2 (5), by deleting the text shown as struck out:

(5) The amount of the tax credit that may be claimed by an accredited production corporation under this subsection is 6% of the amount determined by the formula

where

AQLE is the corporation’s accredited qualified BC labour expenditure for the taxation year in respect of the animation production,

RLE is the total of the corporation’s accredited BC labour expenditure for the taxation year and for each of the preceding taxation years that is in respect of the animation production and in respect of services rendered in British Columbia outside of the designated Vancouver area, and

TLE is the total of the corporation’s accredited BC labour expenditure for the taxation year and for each of the preceding taxation years in respect of the animation production.]

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

On section 39.

Hon. M. de Jong: Finally, I move the amendment to section 39 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 39, in the proposed section 82.21 (5), by deleting the text shown as struck out:

(5) The amount of the tax credit that may be claimed by an accredited production corporation under this subsection is 6% of the amount determined by the formula

where

AQLE is the corporation’s accredited qualified BC labour expenditure for the taxation year in respect of the animation production,

DLLE is the total of the corporation’s accredited BC labour expenditure for the taxation year and for each of the preceding taxation years that is in respect of the animation production and in respect of services rendered in a distant location, and

TLE is the total of the corporation’s accredited BC labour expenditure for the taxation year and for each of the preceding taxation years in respect of the animation production.]

Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Sections 40 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

C. James: I expect we’ll have — and I know that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head will as well — questions on this section on housing. I think there are a number of pieces that are not in the section that we would have expected to be in the section.

Section 45. Two questions for the minister under this section. The first one is: what is the purpose for the definition of “settlor”? You’ll see in section 45 that it refers to settlor, and it has a definition of an (a) and (b). I wonder what the purpose is of that definition.

Also in that section, it has a definition of “permanent resident of Canada.” I wonder, for the minister, why the property transfer tax benefit was linked to the permanent resident of Canada rather than someone who pays income tax in the country. I wonder if there was a discussion or a choice there as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: sorry, I’m trying to break this down.

I think the answer to the first part of the question, as it relates to the definition of settlor, is that the definition exists now in the act. It has been moved from the body, from section 14 of the act, and now appears in the definitions section of the act, but it is the same definition.

[1745]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Then again, with respect to the “permanent resident of Canada” as a defined term, that of course is relevant with respect to qualifying for the exemptions.

The reference to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, again, existed in the act previously. It has been shifted out of the body of the act into the definitions section because it now applies to more than the single circumstance.

A. Weaver: On the same note, I’ve received legal advice that, in fact, there’s a potential huge loophole here, if one is a permanent resident of Canada but not a resident for tax purposes — that this would allow one to avoid some declarations, as being put forward in this act.

I’m wondering if this was done inadvertently or on purpose so that it’s a permanent resident of Canada and a resident of Canada for the purpose of taxation — whether that is what is meant or not meant. You can be a Canadian citizen, but for tax purposes, you could be paying taxes in Barbados and own all the property you want — fill your boots — but you don’t actually have to follow some of what you’re trying to intend here. That is my understanding.
[ Page 11272 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, whilst I think I understand the point the member is making and the distinction, of course there is another criteria by which you must qualify, and that is, the subject property must be your primary residence. You must be living in it. To that extent, whilst the member is correct about pointing out the general distinction, the application of the exemption to which this definition is relevant has a secondary criteria, which is that it must be your primary residence.

Section 45 approved.

On section 46.

C. James: Section 46, as the minister knows, starts talking about the tax payable under this act, talks about the sum and has (a), (b) and (c) under subsection (1).

I just wondered if the minister could tell us why some of those numbers were chosen. For example: “3% of that fair market value that exceeds $2 000 000.” Why was the $2 million chosen? For example, why didn’t the government take a look at 1 percent for the first million and 2 percent for the next million? I just wondered what the rationale was around why those numbers were chosen.

[1750]

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s a fair question about the level of analysis and how that analysis was conducted. The one thing I can say when it comes to assessing the thresholds is that because of the very nature of the property transfer tax and how it is documented and collected, we have pretty good data on the value of transactions. We know, of the properties that were transferred, how many of them were valued beyond a certain point and how many were below a certain point. We’re able to make assessments based on that.

That was relevant for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons was a decision we made — admittedly, a judgment or a choice on our part. In providing the exemption, we were in a position, with not absolute certainty but some measure of certainty, to project what the value of that would be in terms of deferred revenue and, in the context of revenue neutrality to the treasury, what adjustments at the upper end of the market would collect, approximately, a similar amount.

What was the nature of the relief we were trying to provide — an estimate on the valuation of that? What is the adjustment at the upper end of the market? As I’ve said before, we weren’t looking to make more out of this, but we were trying to, at the upper end of the market, cover the cost of the relief or the exemption that was being provided in the way that the act stipulates.

C. James: I think the minister guessed the next question, which fits with this, which is: what does the government modelling look like for this? Does the government expect it to be revenue-neutral? Does it expect it to have a cost to treasury? What’s the rough estimate? Obviously, no one can know for sure until you get to the end of the year and look at what’s been sold and hasn’t, but what does the government modelling show?

Hon. M. de Jong: The estimates, the projections, the forecasts, and the decision itself are based on the belief that the cost of the exemption will come in at about $75 million in forgone revenue, and the anticipated revenues from the third tier will offset that, at approximately $75 million.

A. Weaver: One question on the 3 percent of fair market value above $2 million. Has the minister a thought about some concern with respect to properties being transferred to children and others in a family estate and whether or not this is actually putting undue hardship on those who may inherit and split a house — somebody buying off a portion of the house and being subject to paying the 3 percent?

It’s not much. A house of $2 million in Vancouver is pretty much every house in Vancouver, and so there’s a worry that this is going to perpetuate the unaffordability for those older people who pass their homes off to family members and there is some kind of payment amongst them so that one person owns it.

Hon. M. de Jong: All kinds of possible scenarios. But in a case where a parent is seeking to transfer their principal residence to a child as their principal residence — or it might be, for a period of time, both their principal residence — there is a general exemption that applies. In that case, whatever the value of the property, they would qualify for that exemption.

Section 46 approved.

On section 47.

C. James: I wonder if the minister could just tell us why this section is being amended. What is the purpose, and what is the amendment intended to address in this section?

[1755]

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s something of a transitional provision. The scenario that is intended to be captured here would be a circumstance where a transaction has occurred pre–February 17 of 2016 and there has been a mistake — God knows, there have been those, on the part of property transfer tax filings — and it’s required…. It needs to be refiled. The value of the transaction is in excess of $2 million. We did not want, in that case, the individual to be confronted by the higher rate because of the need to refile to correct that error.
[ Page 11273 ]

Sections 47 to 52 inclusive approved.

On section 53.

C. James: Section 53 starts talking about penalties and refers to some of the penalties for declaration. I guess my first question in section 53 would be a question around why the penalty for false declaration is so low.

I think the discussion that we’ve had over the last number of months — over the last year, in particular — talking about some of the challenges with…. It’s a small number, I recognize, but a number in the real estate industry and in the marketplace have been fraudulently utilizing…. Issues of shouldn’t the…? At least, I would imagine that the penalty should be higher than the amount they might be able to make if they used fraud, that it would be high enough to be able to discourage it. I would think that that would be a pretty basic balance that would be looked at.

I wonder if the minister could speak to the penalties here. It just seems to me that if you’re looking at fraud on a $750,000 home, and the maximum penalty, if I’ve got it right here, is about $13,000, they could still make a fair bit of money if they avoided paying the tax and continued on in this process and still received the penalty.

[1800]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have a convoluted answer for the member that only partially answers her question, but I wanted to be clear about the purpose of the section, which is intended to address the following scenario.

An individual, or a family, purchases what they believe is a new home, only to discover that it is not a new home. But it is their first purchase, so they have applied for the exemption under the newly created new-home exemption, discovered that they are not eligible for that but then legitimately say: “We would like to avail ourselves of the exemption that exists for first-time homebuyers.” This mechanism allows for them to do that, to shift to the first-time-homebuyers exemption.

The member’s question is an interesting one, around the nature of the penalty. I don’t want to leave the impression that the section or the amendment alters that at all. It is designed to address the scenario that I’ve just described.

Section 53 approved.

On section 54.

C. James: Subsection 54(1) has a definition of “principal residence” which talks about “the usual place where an individual makes his or her home.” I wondered if the consideration was given to talk about residence for a specific period of time in section 54, section 12.01(1), in the definition.

It leaves it open when you talk about “the usual place” where the individual makes their home, compared to saying: “You have to be a resident in the home for a period of four months or five months or six months.” I just wondered if that was a discussion that had taken place.

[1805]

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. The defined term is not unknown to the legislation. It applies, firstly, with respect to the existing exemption for first-time homebuyers.

I think, also, pointedly, it needs to be read in the context of its usage in section 12.05, which comes along a bit later. It makes clear that a transferee who has applied for an exemption must “(a) beginning on a date that is not more than 92 days after the registration date, and (b) continuing to a date that is not earlier than the first anniversary….” It speaks to the need to be there for a year in that residence.

Sections 54 and 55 approved.

On section 56.

A. Weaver: I have but one question left, and it’s with respect to this section. Now, obviously I’m very pleased with this section, because it, essentially, introduces the private member’s bill that I’ve raised twice. That’s the bare trustee issue that I’ve been talking about for two years.

However, there is a slight problem, I would argue, and I ask the minister the following: why did the minister not consider including the province that one lives in, in terms of the requirement for individuals and corporations, as some other provinces do? That is, we’re only required to list a country other than Canada. Why not a province? If a person is buying homes in B.C. and perhaps lives in Alberta, why don’t we want to know that? Why don’t we want to know that information?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing — I’m not sure there’s any legal impediment. I’m not sure, actually, whether there’d be any legal impediment to collecting information of the sort that the member is referring to.

I can tell the member this. We did consult with the Privacy Commissioner, and as usual, she has been diligent about emphasizing that government should only possess information that it is legitimately in need of, which I suppose, is a nice transition to what I think, ultimately, is the answer to the member’s question.

[1810]

The interest, the focus, the questions that have arisen, to which we are, admittedly, endeavouring to find some answers, have been around the influence of foreign investment. To that end, we have distinguished, obviously, between people who are Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada and everyone else — and not attempted to distinguish within those two groups. Again, I’m not certain there is an impediment to doing so. But that was not the focus of our inquiry, nor were we seeking to compile a body of data, as interesting as it might be.
[ Page 11274 ]

Sections 56 to 61 inclusive approved.

On section 62.

C. James: Section 62 talks about the bodies responsible for getting the information, gathering the information. It mentions here Hydro and ICBC. I just wondered what kind of information the minister expected would be gathered from those bodies and whether any other bodies were considered when taking a look at this section and gathering information.

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s essentially address information that is being sought. I’m reminded that one looks closely at the amendment…. The act used to refer to an agency we used to have: the motor vehicle branch. Of course, that is now contained within the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The practical effect of this isn’t great. It just now properly refers to the agency where there would be address-related information for verification purposes.

Sections 62 to 70 inclusive approved.

The Chair: So we go back to section 7 now?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, could we recess for one minute?

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:13 p.m. to 6:14 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 7.

C. James: Section 7, for people who have been watching the back and forth, establishes the B.C. prosperity fund as a special fund under this act.

[1815]

Just to start off with the beginning section, which is really the rationale around the fund and the rationale for bringing the fund forward at this time. I think it will be no surprise to the minister that we have questioned the rationale for bringing forward a fund for an industry that has not expanded, for revenue that has not come to British Columbia yet.

In fact, even the minister himself seemed to acknowledge and recognize that in previous debates when we’ve been having the discussion around a prosperity fund — when it was going to be provided and when it was going to be put in place. The minister, in fact, also felt that this was a fund that would happen once activity had been created, once revenue started coming in.

Just to quote from a previous debate that we had on this issue, the minister said, in fact, that they’ll introduce a budget that will have budget forecasts for three years. “In the event that a final investment decision has been taken” — with LNG — “and we are in a position with some certainty to begin tracking construction activity and ultimate production, part of the challenge for government will be to start revealing those numbers.” They’d then look at how it would begin to flow and how they intend to allocate the money.

“We won’t be in position to do that” — and these were questions around the prosperity fund — “…until we have secured a final investment decision and see the industry taking steps forward — where this legislation that we’re dealing with actually becomes relevant in a practical way.”

Given that, what is the rationale for bringing forward the prosperity fund now?

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s a fair question. I will say that in the past I have tried, I guess with various degrees of success, to emphasize, in the presentation of budget documents and quarterly updates and estimates, my and the government’s view that it would be….

As enthusiastic as we are, as optimistic as we are about the prospect for the development of an entirely new sector of the economy in western Canada and in British Columbia, particularly — liquefied natural gas — we would stop short of building numbers, anticipated revenues, into our budget projections until such time as that threshold had been achieved, which is a final investment decision from a proponent — hopefully, one of the larger proponents.

It is also fair, I think, to acknowledge that much of the conversation — much of it initiated by the government itself around the attractiveness of a fund like this — was triggered by the work that was being undertaken on the development and establishment of an LNG industry in British Columbia.

The purposes, though, for which the fund was contemplated, is contemplated, also bear emphasis. That is to capitalize on present-day fiscal strength (1) to address the government’s objectives around debt reduction but (2) to anticipate the possibility that there may be days ahead when we are not in as favourable a fiscal circumstance or economic situation as we are today.

What triggered the thought, the decision to proceed with the establishment of the fund legislatively today…. Well, we now regularly post budget surpluses, and yes, that does distinguish us from virtually the entire country. Last year it was not an insignificant surplus — in excess of 1.7 — and the Auditor General, I think, believes it should have been a little bit more than that, for the reasons that she has enunciated. That gives rise to a series of healthy debates and discussions in this chamber about what should happen or what choices should be made in those circumstances. But we are now regularly posting surpluses.

[1820]

Two, we are in circumstances that I think can be described as challenging internationally, leading the country in economic growth. That is not meant to be a partisan statement. That is a reflection of what agencies like the Conference Board of Canada are repeatedly saying and have said as recently as a couple of days ago in their most recent projection.

We are beginning…. In a significant way, we are paying down debt and stand on the cusp of potentially eliminating, for the first time in half a century, our direct operating debt. In those circumstances, coupled with the fact that we remain optimistic that an LNG sector will be establishing itself in short order, it struck the government and me that it would be timely and make sense to establish the mechanism by which we could accomplish the objectives, pursue the objectives, that we set for ourselves.

I understand that the member and her colleagues will characterize it differently. But, as I said previously, the notion of taking…. At a time when you are in that rather envious fiscal position, to take a very small percentage — I mean less than 0.01 percent or whatever it is; I’ll get the number, but certainly significantly less than half a percent of our overall revenues — out of our chequing account, operating account, and put it into a savings account, strikes the government and, again, myself as a relatively prudent thing to do.

I understand that the member and her colleagues have views on that to the degree that the government has created and talked about a linkage with the liquefied natural gas sector. It is, I suppose, understandable that the member would point out that we haven’t seen the final investment decision yet. But at the same time, I believe, with the greatest respect, it is fair for me to point out the relatively healthy fiscal position we find ourselves in and the wisdom, in my view and the government’s view, of capitalizing on that to put a little bit away for, perhaps, a more difficult day.

I will say this. Were we still posting operating deficits, I believe the member’s — or what I anticipate to be the member’s — argument…. I shouldn’t get ahead of myself here, but were we still posting budgetary deficits, I believe the argument that I anticipate hearing from the member would have more validity. But I am now taking the member’s time, and I shouldn’t do that.

C. James: Thank you to the minister for presenting some of the arguments that, yes, are certainly some of the arguments I would put forward.

I think it’s important to remember that we are debating something called the B.C. prosperity fund that was touted by the Premier and by government, by the B.C. Liberals, as a fund to put some of the wealth from the LNG industry into a fund so that if commodity markets went up and down, there would be an opportunity to be able to look at some levelling out, which I think all of us felt there was some rationale to. But I think it’s very hard to look at a rationale….

This is not a rainy-day fund, as the minister has said. This is not called a rainy-day fund. This is not a fund for those purposes. It was a fund that is called the prosperity fund within this piece of legislation. I think the minister says he’s optimistic, and I understand that optimism. I suppose it’s the Premier’s optimism as well. But if you look at the most recent decisions around LNG in our province, it doesn’t give a lot of optimism.

I think, as well, the minister mentioned “for…a more difficult day.” I would suggest that, in fact, all budgets are about making decisions, and there are many people who would say the difficult day is here.

[1825]

The difficult day is here for people who are living on disabilities. The difficult day is here for the education system that is struggling for funds. The difficult day is here for seniors who aren’t able to manage. The difficult day is here for families who can’t afford the increase in fees and services.

I understand the minister’s rationale — or I hear the minister’s rationale. I don’t understand it, and I certainly don’t agree with it from that perspective. I guess I would ask again what has changed from the time period when we debated this in the fall and the minister was agreeing that the prosperity fund would come forward when the LNG industry was up and running, had made a final investment decision, was ready to go and the money was going to come in.

I would ask the Finance Minister again if there’s any other rationale that changed, between that time period and here we are in March, to create this fund before the industry has made any kind of decision about British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe in reverse order. I think and would submit that it is inaccurate to say the industry…. By that, I understand what the member means — the proponents who are exploring their options around LNG in British Columbia. I would disagree with the proposition that they have not made any decision. They haven’t made the decision that I have repeatedly said would trigger us booking revenue in our budgetary documents, but they have certainly made decisions. They have invested, in some cases, billions of dollars to signal their measure of enthusiasm.

I do make that distinction between the tangible evidence of progress — investment, job creation — that has taken place and the triggering event for what I would see not just as an opportunity but a formal obligation to begin booking specific revenue forecasts. I make that distinction.

I don’t believe, though, that in a circumstance…. The member asked, to get to the front end of her submission and question, about the change. I won’t be repetitive, but we are now firmly entrenched as the economic growth leader in the country, and we are firmly entrenched as the only jurisdiction with a record for repeatedly not just balancing the budget but posting surpluses.
[ Page 11276 ]

I think that is an important and relevant distinction and an important and relevant consideration to this fundamental question: should we be setting aside any money whatsoever for possible application in the future, when circumstances are different? In addition to debt repayment and the possibility, the very real opportunity to eliminate the direct operating debt, that is what we are confronted by.

Again, I’ll leave it there, because I think the member and her colleague have some specific questions.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Finance appears to be conflating or mixing together two separate propositions. One is the argument made by the Premier in the election campaign that an LNG industry would arrive and a prosperity fund would be created to receive some of the government revenue that flowed from those decisions.

Secondly, he makes a secondary argument or a subsidiary argument or a parallel argument, however you choose to characterize it, that given the economic state of the budget…. I note that in section 47.1(4), there’s an opportunity to direct surpluses from any given year into this fund. That, it seems to me, is a separate argument.

[1830]

I think where the cynicism is generated publicly is the contrast between the Premier’s promise of a prosperity fund and the minister’s assurance that it would be created only when there was a final investment decision. No final investment decision has been taken.

Now, the minister mentions billions of dollars have been invested. Indeed, companies have invested money. One thing that I have come to understand from working on the file is that, for companies of this global scope, they are quite prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to prove a claim. If they are of the view, and the internal competition within the company for hurdle rates — rates of capital return…. If a certain project doesn’t pass muster, they’re quite prepared to take the investment and just call a halt to the project.

Shell, for example, was drilling at a very elaborate program on the north slope off Alaska. Given the collapse in the price of oil, they have pulled back from that. Mr. Calitz — who’s the CEO not of Pacific NorthWest but of the LNG Canada project, where the lead company is Shell — has said that given the price of oil and the subsequent impact on the price of natural gas, he’s not prepared to make a final investment decision. It may be that despite the investment of pipeline, preparing the site, all the things that have gone into it, they may walk away.

It is true that these companies have made major investments in an effort to prove the claim. I think what is fair to say, and what I’ve learned, is that they are equally prepared, given the financial scale that they operate on, to make those investments and, if they don’t see a future for further investment, to walk away from it.

The minister’s argument that this is recognition that billions of dollars have been invested and, therefore, the fund is justified in being created is not, I don’t think, supported by what the CEO is saying. What the process really dictates is that no final investment decision has been made yet.

Isn’t it fairer to say, dealing on the prosperity fund side…? The Premier’s promise is not the budget surpluses — and the minister has his own arguments there — but that is a separate argument. If you have a continuing period of surpluses to set aside some money for the inevitable next downturn, that seems to me to be prudent financial management. That was not what the promise was about. That was not what the prosperity fund was about. That was not what the Premier shouted from the rooftops. That was not what was on the side of the bus in the election campaign.

The prosperity fund was going to be a repository for revenue from the LNG industry. No final investment decision has taken place. Isn’t it fairer to say that…?

I have some sympathy for the Minister of Finance. He’s a senior member of the cabinet, but he’s not the Premier. When the Premier says, “We’re going to create this fund,” regardless of what you may have said or what I may have said, he really has to follow that. Isn’t that what happened here? The Premier said: “Look, I want to create this fund now. I don’t care what we’ve said before. Let’s do it now.” Isn’t that really what happened here?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, look. As always, I’m interested to hear the member and his colleagues and their views and analysis of the situation. You know, the bus that the member refers to had something else on the side that, in fairness, I think the member has taken the opportunity to ridicule as well. It speaks to debt reduction and ultimate debt elimination.

I realize that at a time when, even today, with budgetary surpluses, we continue to borrow far more modest amounts to build, it is possible to say: “Well, how can you even speculate or think about…?” Yet here we are perhaps a few years away from doing something that hasn’t been accomplished by the province — well, when it happens, it’ll likely be a half century — and that is the elimination of a direct operating debt.

[1835]

The member knows — I know he and the hon. critic know this — that by reducing the debt-servicing costs associated with that, we are securing for this government, for future governments, a whole host of additional choices or the flexibility to make additional choices, because we’re not paying half a billion dollars over the next three years to banks, to financial institutions.

The government, in our political capacity as candidates, made some pledges. We pledged that we were going to work our tails off to secure a new industry for British Columbia. We said that we would do everything within our power, as guardians on the public’s behalf — of not just the public purse but the public resources that
[ Page 11277 ]
are owned by British Columbians — to install the public policy platform, the environmental platform, the regulatory platform and the taxation platform to facilitate the creation of this industry and the employment opportunities, the business opportunities and the community opportunities that would follow from it.

Part of that included the creation of a mechanism to deal with the benefits that flow from that and from the strength of our economy generally. We have done that work. Arguably, this is the final piece associated with that broad suite of public policy initiatives.

This one, of course, has application beyond LNG and the benefits that flow from LNG. It is equipped to facilitate benefits that flow from the overall strength of our economy. That is why, in these circumstances, it strikes the government, myself, the Premier, the members and my colleagues as being precisely logical and an appropriate time to take the step.

I understand that there is skepticism and cynicism on the part of the opposition, and I say this in a non-partisan way. That is their job. At times, it’s not a great job to have, but it is an important job in the democratic process.

I am more optimistic but will acknowledge not optimistic enough to book revenue into the financial statements and budgetary instruments of the province. That threshold remains. I’m hopeful that we will achieve that threshold in the very near future.

At that point, of course, the argument that the member is advancing about the relevance of the fund will presumably disappear in its entirety. Time will tell. We are entering an important period in the fiscal life of the province and, arguably, in the political life of the province as well.

B. Ralston: In subsection 47.1(3)(a), the fund consists of the following: (a) $100 million to be transferred from the general fund. In section 7, part 5.1 of the amendment: the fund consists of, (3)(a), $100 million transferred from the general fund on the date this section comes into force.

Let’s suppose for a moment that the minister’s argument is accepted, that it’s important to have this fund in operation — a legislative mechanism there in existence in order to receive future revenue.

There’s an opportunity in the subsequent subsection, if there’s a surplus, to draw from the surplus. I think this is…. The public is very cynical about this — the minister’s quite right — not just the opposition. We’re simply reflecting public views of this. As I said, the minister’s problem may be that he was directed by the Premier. That wouldn’t be surprising, but I don’t expect him to be able to comment upon that. I think I have him at an advantage in that respect.

[1840]

Why, if it’s simply to create the legislative mechanism to receive the revenue, was it felt necessary to put $100 million into the fund at the outset? Admittedly, that is not from LNG revenue. It’s from general revenue, and it has to be disbursed, in any event — according to the construction of the fund — immediately. I think 50 percent to debt reduction, and 25 percent is available for a discretionary fund, which the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, the Finance critic, will deal with subsequently. If it was simply to create the legislative mechanism, then why seed it with $100 million at the outset that doesn’t come from LNG?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. This might be a technical correction to something the member said. To the extent that there is clearly an allocation included in the fund, there is no overriding obligation to withdraw from the fund, but there is a formula that determines what any withdrawal from the fund must be allocated for. That’s perhaps just a technical correction to what the member has said.

I have pointedly…. As the member and his colleague have said, we have refused to book specific revenues, anticipated revenues, from the construction of an LNG facility until the final investment decision is made. It would be incorrect, however, in the face of the billions of dollars that have been invested — and I think I heard the member acknowledge that a moment ago — to suggest that there has not been incidental revenue that has accrued to government. I would make that point in partial response.

The member, though, also makes the suggestion that he and his colleagues would be less skeptical were the legislation to have come forward without an allocation. We’ll never know the answer to that question, but I am skeptical of that assertion. The presentation of the legal construct for the creation of a fund that included not one dollar from the surplus that we are posting would have elicited, I think, well, some kind of a reaction from the member and his colleague. But that’s speculative on my part.

I’ll return to the rationale that I began with, pointing out the strength of our economy, the regular surpluses, the payment down of debt, and this admittedly modest, by comparison — I still think $100 million is a lot of money — as a percentage of our budget, amount of money to firmly establish both the fund itself and the rules that will govern its use going forward.

C. James: I want to speak to 47.1, subsections 5(b) and (c), which speak to the spending of the fund. I take the minister’s point that it says: “….may pay money out of the fund.” It doesn’t say “must,” but it says: “may pay money out of the fund.” And I want to follow up on the member’s comments about cynicism.

[1845]

I think this is exactly part of the reason, one of the many reasons, why the public is so cynical about what’s going on with LNG. The minister has said that work by LNG so far has brought in incremental revenue to the government. I think, again, the public ask themselves: why the $100 million, then?
[ Page 11278 ]

The minister himself calls it a modest amount of money, and yet when other groups and organizations talk about resources that they may be interested in — for education, for bus passes, for support for people with income assistance — $100 million will go a long way in many of those areas. Yet, as I said, the minister calls it a modest amount of money — not modest when groups and organizations are asking for it.

Then, when you see the ability for the fund to be spent — according to (b) and (c) in the legislation, “any other purpose authorized” — it could not be broader. There isn’t anything that could be broader that could come forward. “Supporting capital and operating improvements in health care, education, job training…family supports” — isn’t that government’s job? Isn’t that already government’s job each year to make those determinations around budget and choices? The minister uses it, and I use it: a budget is about choices.

I think the cynicism from the public’s point of view is that a fund is being set up, after the minister said that he didn’t believe it should be set up until the LNG industry had made a final decision. It’s being set up with an ability to be able to make decisions in spending in as broad a way as possible, when it happens to be coming up to election year. I think that adds to the cynicism.

I would ask the minister: under “any other purpose,” are there any kind of limitations? Did the minister, the Finance Ministry, talk about any kind of limitations? I’m guessing this could be used for advertising. I’m guessing this could be used for yoga on the bridge. I’m guessing this could be used for any kind of event that is determined at any particular time by anyone.

I guess I would ask the minister: are there any kinds of checks and balances? Other than Treasury Board, which I recognize. Are there checks and balances around how a decision is made for the money to come out, under this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member again for a legitimate line of inquiry on the bill.

I think it’s fair for me — I hope it’s fair for me — to bring some context to the amount that we are talking about and, in so doing, point out the restrictions that exist on use of the moneys. If there is a decision to withdraw….

Actually, I should back up a bit to point out, as well, that there is some curiosity that’s been expressed about the intention to add funding. The challenge that we encounter, of course, is — the member will appreciate this — we don’t actually know for certain what the surplus for the year will be until such time as the Auditor General has closed the books. There’s a very valid reason, a good reason for that.

Insofar as withdrawals from the fund are concerned, half of anything that would be withdrawn is dedicated automatically to debt reduction, as long as there is a taxpayer-supported debt.

[1850]

Of course, 25 percent must remain within the fund, so in the current context, we are talking about — again, not an insignificant amount of money — $25 million that would be available for…. We’ve enunciated some priority areas that the government believes it is legitimate to have some discretionary authority around.

I will say this to the member and to the committee. The priority is debt reduction. It has been and remains so. I also understand this. For any government, there is always a plethora of options for spending money and a whole bunch of really good reasons to, so it is difficult, when people are confronted by challenging circumstances, to say to them: “We think we should save a little bit of that money.”

In the circumstance that we hope will develop, it’ll be hard when there is a significant amount of money that might be flowing into the provincial coffers from a new industry. My expectation is that the pressure will be even worse, because people will say: “We have needs today.”

As the member pointed out in her budget response, we make choices. We have the privilege when we’re here to make those choices as best we can. I understand that the member and her colleagues would approach this differently. I am comfortable with the approach, supportive, and advocate the approach that we are taking here for the reasons I’ve tried to enunciate.

Section 7 approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2016

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

Hon. M. de Jong: At the next sitting, Madame Speaker.

Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 11279 ]

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERNATIONAL TRADE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Yap in the chair.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $50,291,000 (continued).

B. Ralston: The minister’s portfolio involves international trade, obviously, and welcoming foreign investors and contributing that economic activity to the growth of the B.C. economy.

We just came from question period, where a suggestion was made by the Minister of Finance that the party headquarters of the B.C. NDP was sold to a foreign investor. As proof of that, the Minister of Finance referred to the lawyer reported in the story, a Mr. John S.C. Mao. I think the implication was that given his name, that was proof of the minister’s argument that the company was a foreign company.

Now, if that is the case, I wonder what the minister has to say about that, because, clearly, one can be a Canadian and not have an Anglo-Saxon last name, as the minister is well aware.

Is that the attitude? Does that represent the attitude of the government — that those people with non-Anglo-Saxon names are, therefore, by implication foreign?

[1500]

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you to the member opposite for bringing up this question. I would encourage the member opposite to ask that question directly to the Minister of Finance when his budget estimate comes up.

Having said that, as the Minister for Multiculturalism, I think we are all Canadians. My Chinese name is Wat Kit Bing. So I do have my Chinese name, and I just happen to be a Catholic, so I adopt a Christian name. Many mainland Chinese still use their Chinese name. I fully agree that whatever name you have, you can be Canadian. It could be a Middle Eastern name or it could be a Polish name. We are all Canadians.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that, and I agree completely with her. I wonder whether she will make those representations to the Minister of Finance who, in advance of a political argument that this building was being sold to foreign buyers, referenced the last name of the lawyer involved as some sort of evidence that this person was foreign. I think it’s regrettable.

Given the role of the Minister of Finance in setting the economic direction of the province, I think it’s incumbent upon the minister as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism to publicly make a declaration here, encouraging the Minister of Finance to withdraw those remarks and issue an apology.

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you to the member for the question. I would be happy to engage with the Minister of Finance, but I think, today, the whole idea is that we are here to talk about my ministry’s estimates, our budget estimates. So I would encourage that we should focus on the topic and don’t waste the time, because I assume that we only have 1½ hours.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that I probably put the minister in an uncomfortable position. The Minister of Finance is a senior minister, next to the Premier, probably, in precedent. But these are sometimes the tough assignments that one takes on in politics. So I would encourage her to have that conversation with the Finance Minister to encourage him to make a public statement about and withdraw — and apologize for — the remarks that he made. I think that would be courageous leadership on her part. Tough to do, perhaps, but given her role, I think that would be an important thing for her to do.

I don’t wish to delay the proceedings unduly. But one speaks, in the corporate world, of the tone at the top. In other words, people look to leaders in a group for the tone that sets the way in which everyone else conducts themselves, because the conduct of the person at the top is often emulated, for better or for worse. If this is an example of the tone at the top in the B.C. Liberal party, there is, really, a deep problem.

With that, I’ll move on, and I look forward to a public report back from the Minister of Finance at the appropriate opportunity.

I want now to turn to a discussion of the immigrant investor fund. Page 12 of the service plan, objective 1.3, over the page, that section says: “Leverage investment capital programs to support a competitive business environment.” And over the page, on the top of page 12, it sets out the three goals in this area. One of those goals is to manage the $90 million of capital in the B.C.
[ Page 11280 ]
Renaissance Fund. The second is to implement the new $100 million B.C. Tech fund, a venture capital fund of funds to address the early stage around a venture capital gap in B.C. and complete a venture capital review.

I think it’s perhaps noteworthy that the B.C. Renaissance Fund is a subsidiary of the immigrant investor fund. If there’s any doubt about that, it’s a completely wholly-owned subsidiary of the immigrant investor fund.

[1505]

As the minister knows, and as we discussed last year in estimates — and she will have reviewed this in preparation for these estimates — the change in the policy of the federal government has meant that the immigrant investor fund in B.C., as it’s presently constituted, will be wound up, and a new board will take over, I believe, on April 1 of this year.

Can the minister describe the transition that’s underway with the immigrant investor fund and how that is going to be managed? I understand, from reading the material, that the responsibility for the Renaissance Fund will continue. The responsibility to deal with the investments that have been made as they are repatriated back, if I could put it that way, to the fund will take place over the next several years.

I’d appreciate the minister setting out the manner in which this will take place.

Hon. T. Wat: As you stated, in 2014 the federal government terminated the immigrant investment program. As a result of that decision, the B.C. government…. We conducted a review in 2015 to determine the long-term strategic direction of the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund and also the subsidiary, the B.C. Renaissance Fund. We reviewed current venture capital as well.

As a result of all those reviews, the governance and operation of this corporation will transition to the Ministry of International Trade. The existing obligations will continue to be met.

The BCRCF investment will be managed by a professional investment fund manager from the private sector who will be selected through a competitive procurement process that is right now underway. The current board members and staff are working collaboratively with government to ensure a smooth transition. We are fortunate to be able to draw on the diverse skills and experience of these high-calibre individuals.

B. Ralston: Just so that I’m clear then, the new $100 million tech fund — will that be managed by the same board that is presently managing the B.C. Renaissance Fund? Is that the transition that’s taking place?

[1510]

Hon. T. Wat: Right now, we are examining the legal requirements for managing the contractual relationship with the new private sector fund manager. Once this is completed, when the final agreement is negotiated with the new private sector fund manager for B.C. tech fund, then we will know.

B. Ralston: So then there’s really no plan at this point. It’s dependent upon what? Legal advice, a decision by the minister, a decision by the outgoing board? I mean, the proposed tech fund is a fund of $100 million. The results on the Renaissance Fund have been terrible, and we’ll get to that later. It’s been very badly managed by the government.

Why is there no plan firmer than that to deal with this? There was a great deal of fanfare at the tech conference. The Premier herself made a speech about this fund. I’m surprised that there’s no plan. It gives credence to some of the comments of Mr. Kirk LaPointe, a noted media commentator who ran as the NPA candidate for the mayor of Vancouver, to say that the plan looks like it had been written up on the back of an envelope that very morning.

It doesn’t seem to be a plan at all. Can the minister explain why there is no developed plan to manage $100 million in public money?

[1515]

Hon. T. Wat: Just to clarify, there is a plan for the B.C. tech fund, but what we are doing right now is we are seeking legal advice on the best contractual options to ensure the best oversight and outcome for the B.C. tech fund.

B. Ralston: Will there be a board constituted and appointed to run the fund?

Hon. T. Wat: As I said, there are several options. One of the options being examined does include the BCRCF being the contractual party.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain what other options are being considered, then?

[1520]

Hon. T. Wat: Other options could include the ministry. This is why, as I said earlier, we are doing legal with the view to ensuring the best oversite and outcome for both parties.

B. Ralston: I don’t know if the minister was at the tech conference. I believe she was, but she can correct me. Clearly, this was a major announcement to a conference of…. It sounds as though the point made by the commentator Mr. LaPointe was that this was very undefined and ill-developed. It seems like the announcement was made, and the details are only being worked out now, which is a heck of a way to manage a fund of $100 million.

I want to look at some of the financials relating to the B.C. Renaissance Fund, and I have some questions that will follow. The minister will know that the fund was established in 2007. The materials that are provided — the
[ Page 11281 ]
written materials on the website and in the mandate letter and in the service plan — speak of what’s commonly called, in the equity business, the j-curve. In other words, returns to a fund at its inception and in the first couple of years are generally very low. As the fund moves to maturity — in other words, the investments are made; some are realized — there is then an increased volume of revenue.

As the suggestion, using the term “j-curve,” revenue increases dramatically towards the end of the life of the fund. Given that this fund started in 2007 and it’s now 2016, it’s coming up on nine years — or at least 8½ years, nine years — in existence. Ordinarily, in the life of a fund like this, one would expect fairly substantial returns to be realized. Now, it doesn’t appear that they’ve been realized — I would suggest, due to the complete and utter mismanagement of the fund and the directions that it was given.

We discussed that last year. There were a number of criteria for investment — opening an office in British Columbia, investing in British Columbia companies, hiring British Columbia staff, offering seminars. And only in a few cases of the funds that were selected, most notably Vanedge Capital and some others…. The bulk, the majority, of the funds did not follow the criteria that they were ostensibly operating under.

In the service plan last year, the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund 2014-15 Annual Service Plan Report, on page 15, there’s what’s called a summary financial outlook. For actual revenue that’s budgeted, I think it’s $3.075 million. Then there’s a variance of the same amount. Can the minister explain that — an actual and a variance? Then there’s a further reference to a variance the previous year. What was the actual revenue of the fund last year?

[1525]

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. T. Wat: Just to respond to the member for Surrey-Whalley for his earlier question that the B.C. tech fund was not well developed.

[1530]

As a matter of fact, our government conducted a comprehensive review of venture capital in British Columbia in 2014-15 and concluded that there is a critical shortage of early-stage venture capital in our province.

Such capital, we found, is very important, very essential for driving growth in technology businesses so that they can succeed and compete internationally. The B.C. tech fund has been designed to address this need. It’s a well-developed plan.

As for your other question about the variance, the reason why there is a variance is because BCRCF didn’t want to budget it. They want to be on the conservative side with such a high-risk investment. So BCRCF is very prudent. In fact, thank you for bringing this up. This is indeed good news that the BCRCF actually received over $3 million in revenue.

I also want to put on the record about the work of BCRCF and their achievement, so I just want cite some figures. As of September 30, 2015, the BCRCF fund managers and their co-investors have invested over $385 million in 34 B.C. companies, creating over 1,000 jobs in our province, with $73.5 million in capital contributed by BCRCF representing leverage investment of more than five to one.

B. Ralston: Well, there’s quite a bit to reply to there, but let’s deal first with Mr. LaPointe’s comments. Mr. LaPointe is not a New Democrat. He ran, as I said for the NPA mayoralty in Vancouver. Here’s what he said. This is an article from Business in Vancouver, January 26, 2016, and he’s talking about the tech fund announcement.

“My experience in Ottawa was that governments rarely stepped forward with a strategy unless it was cost-clear, comprehensive and capable of withstanding withering questions. Had there not be a glossy publication and on-line presence for the Premier’s announcement, one might have concluded that the B.C. tech strategy was hatched over breakfast that day.”

He goes on to talk about coding — no plan, kicked over to the Education Minister; a pledge to work with the federal government to whisk tech workers into the province to meet the skills need.

I’m quoting from him. He’s not a New Democrat. He’s a business writer with Business in Vancouver.

“No detail on targets or sectors or locales or extra funds to carry out the job of improved immigration pathways.”

But on the venture capital fund, here’s what he said:

“To wit: a rehashing announcement of the venture capital fund, which is admittedly no chump change but still carries no timeline on how much money will be rolled out next or in subsequent fiscal years.”

We’ve heard no amendment to that here.

“Naturally, there is no guarantee that the province’s ‘investment’ will secure the presence of those companies for any determined period. Presumably, Silicon Valley will send a thank-you note. We are months away from the selection of a fund manager, thus many months away from criteria and many more from the disbursals.”

That’s a pretty incisive rejection and criticism of this announcement, and I think it’s important to consider the source. Some of my criticisms echo those of Mr. LaPointe, and nothing that the minister has said here today of this $100 million fund and announcement about how its going to be constructed, what form it’s going to take, if there will be a board or not, how the fund manager is going to be selected…. Once you add in a fund manager, of course, there’s another mouth to feed from the $100 million, because a fund manager doesn’t operate without payment. Once again, there’s an additional drain on the initial investment.

It’s not an auspicious start. I know for the Premier that it’s important just to get the photo op, just to have the announcement and that the details really don’t matter. Clearly, they don’t matter, because they’re not present. The minister can’t buttress that suggestion I’m making by any details here today. It’s a couple of months or a month
[ Page 11282 ]
and a half since the announcement was made. So there’s been some time to work on it. Not a lot appears to have been achieved in that time.

[1535]

Secondly, on the revenue, the minister mentions the investment — as of September 30, 2015, has invested $335 million. The question for the fund is not the value of the investment. The question is the value of the return. The fund is meant to create and generate a return. My question is directed to the return.

On page 15 of last year’s plan, it spoke of $3.075 million in revenue called venture capital investment income. On a $335 million investment, a return that year of $3 million is a pretty low rate of return, something between 1 and 2 percent.

Granted, this is a risky business. But is that what the minister is saying — that last year, nine years after the fund was started, the return was 1 percent? This would be unusual, very unusual, and a major indictment of the board and the minister and the ministry, if the minister sticks with this 1 percent return.

[1540]

Hon. T. Wat: I want to respond to the member opposite’s earlier question that we have no plan for our B.C. tech fund. I just want to give you more details, to give you some comfort there.

There is a competitive procurement process now underway. It is a negotiated request for proposal that was posted on B.C. Bid. Our government received a total of 12 proposals for the management of the B.C. tech fund and selected the three strongest to be short-listed.

As you would expect, a process like this is guided by relevant experience, ability to meet stated objectives and benefits for the province. It is operating under a non-disclosure agreement involving all parties.

The successful proponent will be announced. We expect to announce that by the fall this year, and at that time, feedback will be provided to all proponents on their proposal. We are unable to provide any further information prior to the procurement process concluding.

As to your question about the achievement of the BCRCF, consistent with industry standards, the BCRCF internal rate of return is not calculated at a single point in time for venture capital. What the member opposite quoted just now was just for one year. We will not know the overall performance of a fund until the end of the investment period. This is the norm for venture capital investment.

[1545]

As most venture capital funds have an investment period of up to ten years, the BCRCF portfolio is still in an active investment phase, with the majority of returns expected in the next four to five years. BCRCF was established for financial returns and also for economic returns to support the growth of a critical sector to our economy. We have achieved $385 million invested in 34 companies, creating over 1,000 jobs.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to clarify that the minister said that the successful proponent would not be announced until this fall. That’s the fall of 2016, so approximately six or seven months from now.

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, by the fall at the very latest, but our staff are working towards the summer. Hopefully, we will be able to select one by the summer. I’m happy to tell the member opposite that we are now on track.

As the member opposite can really appreciate, contract negotiations and legal work will all take time. We are doing our due diligence to ensure that we have the best outcome for our B.C. tech fund and also for British Columbians.

B. Ralston: It appears to echo what Mr. LaPointe said, that it’s a long way from actually disbursing any funds. The fund manager hasn’t been selected. Then there will be a period to establish criteria and then applications. So we’re probably looking at the first disbursal from this fund sometime in mid-2017, based on the timetable that the minister has set out — which seems to me to be an inordinate delay, given what has been identified as the need.

Can the minister…? I’m not interested in finding out about who the three finalists are. In the general criteria in the B.C. Bid proposal, is there any requirement that the company be resident in Canada or have an office in Canada or have Canadian staff or any criteria that applies specifically to British Columbia? Or is it simply open, and the fund manager might well be located anywhere in the world?

[1550]

Hon. T. Wat: The information that the member opposite was asking for actually was publicly posted on B.C. Bid on December 18, 2015, to January 29, 2016. We can provide that information to the member opposite.

The selected fund manager will be required to have an office in British Columbia, staffed by a managing partner.

B. Ralston: So it’s the same criteria that applied to the eight funds, such as the Azure fund and the Renaissance Fund, and that wasn’t enforced. Many of them didn’t open an office in British Columbia. Does the minister intend that this provision will be enforced, or is it simply there for show?

Hon. T. Wat: It will be enforced.

B. Ralston: Brave words, indeed, given the history of the Renaissance Fund.

I want to go back to the minister’s answer about returns to the Renaissance Fund. I will give the minister
[ Page 11283 ]
full marks for consistency, because last year she gave an identical answer. Maybe she’s reading from the same briefing note.

I’m reading from last year. This is the minister: “I’m sure you are fully aware that consistent with industry standards, the BCRCF’s internal rate of return is not calculated at a single point in time for venture capital. We will not know the final overall performance of a fund until the end of the investment period.”

But there are accounting measures. Certainly, there’s the consolidated financial statements of the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund that’s on the website. And there is…. There has to be. I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be a calculation of the return of $80 million in capital that’s been made available to these selected firms for investment. Some of it was invested at different times, and some of it was realized.

Is the minister saying that there’s no rate of return on the total investment capital in each year’s financial statement? The financial statements say otherwise. This idea that you can’t figure out the rate of return of the fund until the very end is just…. Frankly, I think it’s unacceptable. It just doesn’t appear to be accurate, because there are accounting standards that the fund is obliged to consider. So what is the rate of return?

We have established that there is a j-curve. The minister said last year that the majority of the returns are coming. It’s always coming; it’s never happened. What is the rate of return on the investment of $80 million of capital provided by the general revenue fund of British Columbia to this fund? What is the rate of return, and what is the dollar value of the return? The public is entitled to know.

[1555]

Hon. T. Wat: First of all, I would like to correct the figures that the member opposite cited. It’s not really $80 million. We, BCRCF, have committed $90 million, and so far $73.5 million has been called and invested. I just want to put the record straight.

Also, that funding did not come from B.C.’s general revenue fund. It has come from the federal allocation for BCIIF.

As to the rate of return, I want to emphasize once again that, as I have already stated, it is not the norm for B.C. funds to report on the internal rate of return until all investments in the fund have concluded. I can assure the member opposite that the BCRCF is starting to see positive return on its investment.

I also want to emphasize that the rate of return is not calculated based solely on the cash return. Actually, I would strongly encourage the member opposite to take a technical briefing from our staff so that he can fully understand how we calculate the rate of return.

B. Ralston: Well, I don’t think I need to be patronized in quite that way. You have the financial statements here.

This is the financial statements. In the statement of financial information for the year ended March 31, 2015, at the bottom of page 9, it said, “The primary business of the BCRCF” — that’s the Renaissance Fund — “a fund of funds, is to stimulate economic development and generate returns.” The minister is here once again, a year later — after these very same questions were asked last year — unable to answer what the return from this fund is.

It’s great to have the rhetoric about having the fund, and it’s great to have the rhetoric about the investment. What is the return?

[1600]

It’s a very basic investment question. It does not inspire any confidence whatsoever that the minister and the ministry have any idea what they’re doing on this file.

There are financial statements. There’s something set out in the service plan, if I can quote from the service plan. Presumably, the minister is familiar with the service plan. Let me go to the relevant page of the service plan. The financial plan on page 12 in this year’s service plan speaks of realized investment gains. Last year, it was $114,000. That was the actual. Forecast for 2015-16 is $2.293 million. For 2016-17 in the budget, $3.971 million, almost $4 million.

Presumably, someone is making a calculation about potential investment gains, yet the minister doesn’t appear to be able to answer any questions about it. This is unsatisfactory, Mr. Chair, completely unsatisfactory, and the Chair will know that. He’s the secretary to the Finance Minister, and he’s well-versed in financial matters, having been the mayor of a city. He’ll understand this.

I don’t think this is an acceptable report to the public of British Columbia. I think the public of British Columbia, if they knew how little accountability there appears to be for this fund, would be shocked. It does not bode well for the $100 million that has been committed to the new tech fund, which looks like it will be, on the timetable that’s before us, disbursing funds sometime in mid-2017, if not late 2017. The announcements and the photo ops are always one thing. The reality appears to be very different.

With that, I don’t really think, given that there’s a dearth of any answers, that it’s really very productive to ask any more questions.

I want to turn to a couple of questions about Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. and its service plan. I know there’s a staff person here, and I wanted to ask a couple questions.

I’m about to wrap up. I had one more question, as well, after those one or two questions, about the plan in relation to a general dialogue, a memorandum of understanding — the strategic dialogue between British Columbia and the People’s Republic of China.

But I want to ask a couple of questions about Forestry Innovation Investment. I see the person is there. I’ll turn to page ii in the appendix about the active subsidiaries. There is an active subsidiary called FII Consulting India
[ Page 11284 ]
Pvt. Ltd. It appears to be that the goal is to establish a new market for B.C. wood products in India.

Can the minister explain what progress has been made by this subsidiary in the Indian market? Obviously, India is a vast place. Can the minister explain what state or states in India are targeted, and what is the plan to introduce B.C. wood products into India?

[1605]

Hon. T. Wat: Our government has been pioneering and advancing new markets for forest products across Asia. We have seen outstanding success in China, where we dramatically increased our wood product exports. That’s why we survived our 2008 recession with flying colours, because we opened up the China market. We believe that India will offer us similar opportunities as well.

Our market development agency for forest products, Forestry Innovation Investment, began operations in India in 2012. Since that time, FII has continued to build connections between B.C. suppliers and potential customers in India in the following ways. The first one is: accelerating engagement with users of wood products. The second one is: promoting sustainable forest products from B.C. The third one is: providing information and targeted educational opportunities to potential end-users. And the fourth one is: undertaking product trials to encourage Indian manufacturers to try B.C. wood products.

Currently, we focus on Delhi, north of Delhi, Mumbai, north of Mumbai and also south of Bangalore.

B. Ralston: Given the hour, I want to give two questions. I regret that I’m not going to be able to deal with the multiculturalism aspect of the minister’s ministry. Perhaps I will follow up with some written questions. I know Mr. Sekyer is here and, I’m sure, would be quite willing to provide advice, but I’m running out of time.

I wanted to ask one more question about the pursuit of new markets in India. The written material here in the service plan appears to have a different strategy than China. In China, the success was achieved by marketing either raw logs or lumber suited for forming — that is, for construction — whereas the objective here appears to be to create demand for lumber suitable for the manufacture of furniture, doors, windows and interior millwork, which seems to be a slightly different focus.

Can the minister explain the reasons for the different focus in strategy in the states in India that she’s spoken of? That would be the first question.

The second question is…. In the plan between the province of British Columbia and the Consulate-General of the People’s Republic of China — that’s the Vancouver consulate, Liu Fei being, notably, the consul general of ambassadorial status — on page 7 it says that the MIT China team will prepare a 2014-15 summary of achievements. I’m wondering whether that is available. I believe it’s Mr. Paul Irwin who is the contact.

When is the next meeting scheduled, and are there any new developments other than what’s set out in this particular plan? Those two questions, and then I’ll have to conclude my time.

[1610]

Hon. T. Wat: Let me answer the first question first, on India. Research into the Indian market suggested several factors, including high rates of economic growth, record urbanization, an expanding middle class in India and a leaning towards westernization of fashion and decor. All this drives a steady growth in the demand for wood. All those trends that I mentioned, coupled with the existing fibre deficit in India, point to a growing opportunity for B.C. wood products to enter the market.

It’s worthy to note that 80 percent of wood products used in India are for furniture and finishing. That’s why it’s a different target from China.

It also should be noted that the climate in China is different from the climate in India. That’s why wood used in construction is not really suitable for India, whereas it’s suitable for certain parts of China. That’s why we need to have a different target.

Also, our coastal forestry will have a better chance of having opportunity in India, compared with our interior forestry. It’s meant more for China. So that’s a difference there.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Hon. T. Wat: Oh, there’s one more.

I assume that the member opposite got the action plan and the outcome, updated February 1, 2016.

[1615]

Right now we are continuing our quarterly dialogue with the People’s Republic of China, the consul general. We are scheduling for that meeting. Once we have all the four quarterly meetings in this year, if the member opposite wishes, we can provide him the same action plan and outcome as well.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to say that my time is up. I want to thank the minister and minister’s staff for their forbearance and patience during my questions — sometimes perhaps a little sharp. But that tends to be my style. Anyway, thank you very much. I look forward to the follow-up, and I’ll be sending a detailed letter setting all that out and the timelines that have been agreed to.

The Chair: Thank you, Member, and my thanks to the minister and her staff and all the members present for keeping us on an even keel here. We have a vote. If, at this time, there are no further questions, I will now call vote 30.

Vote 30: ministry operations, $50,291,000 — approved.
[ Page 11285 ]

The Chair: We’ll take a brief moment here until we get the next minister in. Again, thank you. We’re in a recess.

The committee recessed from 4:16 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $39,211,000.

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

Hon. J. Rustad: I promise I’ll be no more than half an hour on the opening statement. No, actually, I want to start by recognizing my staff that are here. From last year, of course, it’s a little bit different.

I have a new deputy minister, Doug Caul. As well, with me is Neilane Mayhew, who is an associate deputy minister; Christian Kittleson, who is an assistant deputy minister; Laurel Nash, who is also an assistant deputy minister; and Michael Lord, who is an acting assistant deputy minister. I had to make sure I got all those right. Anyway, I just wanted to start by saying thank you to my staff for being here, for the work they’ve done over time.

There are a few things I want to touch on just to set a bit of context, from my perspective, for our estimates. Once again, this is part of a balanced budget and what we’ve been able to move forward in the province. We’ve made a tremendous amount of progress in MARR over the last number of years — in particular over the last year and with our budget, going forward.

I think there are more than 700 agreements that are currently in the process of being negotiated, either by MARR or by other ministries, and we have now signed well over 400 economic and reconciliation agreements in B.C. here with First Nations.

To break that down, to date we have 114 active consultation and revenue-sharing agreements with the forest industry and 22 agreements that share provincial mining revenue. We’ve got at least one pipeline benefit agreement with every First Nation in the north. That’s for about 62 agreements now, with 29 nations to date. We’re negotiating with many more on these and many other agreements.

We’ve hit a historic milestone over this past year with the Pacific Trail pipeline. Now all 16 nations have signed on and are part of the Pacific Trail pipeline project. We also have announced a new agreement, an updated economic benefit agreement with Saulteau Nation, which sets the stage for our agreements in the Peace country.

[1625]

On the clean energy side, many nations are very, very interested in being involved in that, whether it’s solar or hydroelectric through run-of-the-river, whether it is biomass or ocean thermal. There have been a number of things that have been reached. Last year we invested $1.3 million in clean energy projects with 14 nations. Overall now, it’s just about $7 million that has been invested with 116 nations through the clean energy.

In this current budget, the funding has increased by 17 percent to almost $3 million, due to increased revenues, of course, on the land and water rentals. So 31 nations have signed 39 clean energy revenue-sharing agreements, and of course, we supported ten nations to become equity owners in those projects.

One in particular I wanted to highlight, because it’s one that I particularly have an interest in and I think the member opposite probably does as well, is a $400,000 equity investment by Beecher Bay First Nation in an ocean thermal for a residential project that they have. It’s quite unique, and I think it’s a first. It’s the first that I’ve heard of, anyway, and certainly first in B.C. and potentially first in Canada around that.

Along those lines, of course, there are also projects around supporting greenhouses and other types of things like moving off things like propane to biomass — these types of things that are going on.

Just recently we signed a historic agreement with Tsilhqot’in, which sets a stage for negotiations, for reaching into a long-term agreement with the Tsilhqot’in. It’s quite an interesting approach with a nation that we’ve been at war with for 152 years at various levels, whether it’s physical or in courts or through disputes of various kinds. It’s quite historic to be sitting down and talking about how we build long-term relationships together.

Of course, along those lines, as well, we have a lot of work that we have done on the treaty file. Over the past year, we’ve signed four agreements-in-principle. We’ve just recently, of course, voted on agreements-in-principle up in the Northern Shuswap Tribal Council, on the other side of the river from the Tsilhqot’in. With three being successful, the fourth one we expect will be as well. There was a disruption in the voting process, so they’re going with a little bit later date. We’re hopeful, as this year goes, that we’ll see one or more final agreements ratified by nations as the process goes forward.

Skills training. We’ve made a lot of progress working with First Nations, particularly around the LNG side. Through the first tranche, the money available that we have on the skills and training initiative that we have, by the end of March, we’re anticipating about 1,000 First Nations people will have received training as a result of this. It’s really been able to change a lot of lives and improve things for many communities.

Of course, that’s all associated with liquefied natural gas, that particular component, for which we’ve seen really unprecedented takeup by nations, in terms of their interest and engagement with government on that.

In addition, of course, we’re working on the Squamish
[ Page 11286 ]
Woodfibre with the local nations, the ones on the Island with Steelhead LNG — innovative projects that they’re doing in working with their local nations. Of course, in support of that is the $30 million that we have put aside for what we’re calling the environmental stewardship initiative, which is exploring a wide range of potential working with various First Nations.

On anti-domestic violence, working with nations, we have gone through and invested, which we announced this past year, $1.5 million over the next two years, which is going towards services for aboriginal women and men and children, of course, who are experiencing domestic violence.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

We recently held a family gathering in Prince George, which was another first in British Columbia, really working with the family members of missing and murdered women on how we can try to make some progress on the prevention of violence.

I want to thank you, of course, for wearing your Moose Hide pin here today. It’s a great thing to be able to continue to promote that conversation that needs to happen in so many communities.

Our budget this year is steady. It’s gone up a little bit to the numbers, as mentioned here at the beginning. In addition to that, we’re also working with other resource sector ministries, with $19 million over three years to help coordinate the work in the natural resource sector as we engage with First Nations.

[1630]

We continue, of course, to pursue a wide range of agreements, both revenue-sharing as well as breaking ground with collaborative agreements and the types of agreements we have with the Tsilhqot’in, and continue to make progress, of course, on the treaty side, working with nations that want to work through and complete treaty.

We have a different federal partner now. Of course, it has taken a little bit of time for them to get up to speed with that, but we look forward to our next opportunity to meet with the principals and to get a better idea of where the federal government wants to go with their treaty in the treaty process.

So lots of things happening, lots of positive results for nations. I look forward to our estimates debate.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and his staff for making themselves available. I enjoy this process too, as much as we can. It’s important, I think.

I will harken back to last month to the end-of-violence events that were happening around the Moose Hide Campaign, involving men fighting against violence against women. At the event, one of the chiefs who spoke made me chuckle. He said: “Well, we don’t have any moose on Vancouver Island, but we’re bringing them over one little bit at a time.” It made me laugh. It was a great opening to that event, a great event.

Certainly, having Paul Lacerte…. This was his brainchild, of course, and seeing it evolving the way it has been, not just in British Columbia but across the country and actually into the United States, is an exciting development in the Moose Hide Campaign.

I’ll start a little bit with the number crunching on this. On this year’s budget, there is a change in the budget. Last year’s service plan allocated just over $4.39 million for executive and support services for the 2015-16 fiscal year. The plan also showed a drop in funding for ’16-17 to $3.87 million. Instead, in the budget that we’re seeing today, the restated estimates put the executive and support services at $5.37 million for 2015-16, so it’s nearly $1 million more.

To begin with, can the minister explain, first of all, what exactly…? It’s just so people that are watching this sort of thing will understand what executive support services are. It’s revolving around, I guess, your office. If you could explain what that is, and then if you could explain the discrepancy between last year’s service plan statement numbers and this year’s increase.

[1635]

Hon. J. Rustad: The executive services is really comprised, of course, of the deputy’s office, the various support that is within the ministry. It goes across all divisions, bringing together those leadership components.

Particularly to the question you had — which was “why the difference, the increase?” — it actually has to do with a bit of an accounting change in terms of our realignment of the way that services are dealt with. For example, last year strategic initiatives and a number of others merged together. Components of that came out and went into the executive services office, which accounts for that million-dollar increase.

Overall, it’s that movement and components of the transfer that makes that difference. It wasn’t a particular change in the overall budget.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

The components that you’re referring to that transferred over — can you highlight what those components were? Did that include full-time equivalents? Is that staffing? What’s involved with that? It’s $1 million, so I just want to know where it is and where it’s going.

Hon. J. Rustad: That restructuring brought in a certain amount of corporate services out of the strategic initiatives division, or SID, that moved into the executive services. There was, of course, some other reorganization that went as part of it. So there was a staff component that goes along with that. That was transferred into the executive services.
[ Page 11287 ]

S. Fraser: What does that bring…? If you could explain where that went from and where to. Like, what numbers changed? How many staffing to how many staffing? If you could highlight that too, please.

Hon. J. Rustad: Because it’s a realignment, there is…. FTEs or salary budget would have come from one and into that. If you want, we can give you a written breakdown of that salary shift in terms of those various direct components.

You asked about that and…. Sorry. If you look at…. Well, you probably won’t have it.

[1640]

Specifically, the strategic initiatives division had a lot of corporate services in it, and those corporate services have moved out of that and into the executive. That’s what the primary shift was, and of course, the salary budgets appropriate to that were shifted.

S. Fraser: I guess what I’m trying to get at is: how would that affect the operations or the workings of your ministry? Are there new tasks being taken on? Are things being shifted over that you didn’t work on before through your office and staffing? I just want to try to get a handle on…. What was the rationale for this change? I mean, it’s an accounting change, but on the ground, how will that affect your ministry and your office and how it functions?

Hon. J. Rustad: What we essentially did was took the three divisions that we had in MARR and reduced those to two divisions. There was a realignment of some of the components as part of that. All of the work, of course, is still being done. But there are efficiencies that were achieved by being able to do that in terms of how we can deliver services and the way we work. It’s important to note that these changes actually…. My actual ministry office was not impacted one way or the other on this. This was all done corporately through the bureaucracy in terms of the structure within MARR.

S. Fraser: A bit of a departure from that. In the goals, objectives, strategies and performance measures for the ministry, one of the bullets is to engage with First Nations Leadership Council to reach shared goals regarding improved First Nations in communities and increasing certainty on the land base. Just for the record, I agree with this goal. It’s an important function of the ministry and the government, I think.

Can the minister highlight how he and his staff are embarking on doing just that? I think it’s the third bullet down. That’s: engaging with the leadership council.

For those watching at home, the leadership council is the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit.

[1645]

Hon. J. Rustad: We, of course, engage quite a bit with the First Nations Leadership Council, with the three groups, both individually as well as collectively — individually, of course, with the summit on treaty, as we work with that. We’re working with the BCAFN, the Assembly of First Nations branch here in B.C., on its economic initiatives through that.

We work with the broader leadership council, on All Chiefs, on what we did with the family gathering of missing and murdered women recently. We’re working with them building towards a family and children gathering that is coming up, as well as leading up to All Chiefs last year. We worked together on a commitment document which had five various fields that we were looking at. We’ve been engaged, of course, with the leadership council since then as well.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. On the commitment document, can the minister give me a Coles Notes version of what that’s about — again, for those watching? I know that’s being engaged with your ministry and the leadership council members, but what are the broad strokes? What are we talking about there? I’ve heard it’s very important, but I don’t have the details myself.

Hon. J. Rustad: The commitment document is something that was worked on over the course of last summer. It came to our All Chiefs meeting and was presented at All Chiefs. It’s available on line for the member. If the member has trouble finding that, I’m sure we can certainly get him pointed in the right direction with regards to the commitment document.

[1650]

What it committed the two parties to doing, the leadership council with the province, is really to develop a workplan to try to address social-economic conditions that are out with nations around the province, plus, quite frankly, an engagement with the federal government to bring the federal government to the table, to be part of what we are trying to be able to achieve between the provincial government and First Nations.

There’s been progress on a number of those things that we have done, such as the family gatherings, and these types of components. We are in a position right now where we’re engaging with them on the workplan.

The province is ready to move forward. We’re actually waiting, right now, for a formal endorsement of the commitment document by the three components of the leadership council so that we can continue the work that we’re doing with them.

S. Fraser: I know that the minister opened up with a pretty rosy depiction of how things are going. But I’ve got a letter, December 16, addressed to the minister from the leadership council on this issue. It opens with:
[ Page 11288 ]

“We are in receipt of your letter dated December 9, 2015, responding to our November 19 letter to the Premier, whereby we set out a detailed approach to proceed with the draft commitment document.

“We are disappointed and frustrated that the Premier chose not to respond to our letter. We have yet to hear the Premier express her commitment to this proposed approach to engagement, to advanced reconciliation and to see a meaningful tone at the top for the provincial government to engage on these critical issues.”

I’m not sure if something drastic has changed since this letter. Maybe the minister could highlight if there is any substantive change in the satisfaction, let’s say, from the leadership council in the approach of government and the Premier.

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite, we have, of course, drafted a response around that in mid-January. We’re happy to provide a copy of that response to the critic, if he so desires.

In that response, we reiterated that we are prepared to move forward in commitment to the document, that we want to work with the leadership council. The leadership council has not actually come out and formally endorsed the commitment document at this point. But even though we have not got a formal endorsement from the leadership council, from the three groups within the leadership council, we are still prepared to sit down and work with them and try to progress these.

We recognize that the issues that are in the commitment document are issues that are of importance for all the First Nations and, really, for all British Columbians. We’re prepared to sit down and do that work, and we’re hopeful that the leadership council will also want to engage and get on with the work that we’re doing.

Along those lines, through the themes that are in that commitment document we have made significant progress, as I’ve said, on a number of the fronts already. Like I say, we are hoping to be able to have a positive response from the leadership council and be able to build that workplan.

S. Fraser: Although the specifics of that engagement in this letter on the 16th state:

“Your reply is further devoid of any clear commitment by the province to engage the First Nations Leadership Council to work jointly on the important issues collectively identified in the commitment document.

“Rather than respond to our proposed budget and detailed approach to getting the important work on the issues set out in the commitment document underway, your response focuses solely on engaging the federal government. You make no reference to the fundamental issues between the province and First Nations that need to be addressed, such as shared decision-making, revenue-sharing and sorting out a reconciliation framework that reflects the Tsilqot’in decision and the reality of aboriginal title that exists in British Columbia.”

[1655]

The letter goes on to state:

“The province’s demonstrated lack of commitment is likely to fuel a growing skepticism amongst First Nations that the province is not serious about engaging in substantive and meaningful high-level process to respond to the Tsilhqot’in decision.

“This skepticism also grows in light of the provincial Attorney General’s office continuing to produce flawed legal analysis regarding the four principles which were developed by the B.C. First Nations for implementing aboriginal title and rights and the U.N. declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.”

This goes on, but it’s a fairly scathing letter that does not seem to show any level of satisfaction. It seems like there’s a failure of cooperation on the government’s part, according to the leadership council. This is signed by Grand Chief Ed John, Robert Phillips, Cheryl Casimer, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Chief Bob Chamberlin, Chief Judy Wilson and Regional Chief Shane Gottfriedson of the assembly.

Can the minister comment on if they have been able, in any way, to overcome some of the log jams that are obviously clearly delineated here?

Hon. J. Rustad: That letter is obviously outdated. Just for example, they say no progress on the Tsilhqot’in issue, yet we have signed a five-year negotiating agreement with the Tsilhqot’in. We’re progressing significantly on the issue of title — and through negotiations.

Furthermore, to that letter and our response to that letter in January, we have actually had a follow-up meeting at the deputy level to the leadership council. The appropriate process is not to put a budget and then develop a workplan but actually to put together what a workplan is and then make sure that you can try to put a budget to it, if it’s at all possible.

Of course, that has to be in the context of the fact that we work, in this province…. Our government works towards a balanced budget. We don’t just go out and create money. We have to work within the money we have available.

The key piece here is that we have yet to see, from the leadership council, their endorsement of the commitment document. Despite that, we are prepared to sit down with them and develop the workplan. We’ve had the initial meeting. We’re hopeful to be able to have other meetings in the near future to be able to create that workplan. On top of that, the themes that are in there…. We are engaging.

We have the leadership council that worked with us on the family gathering with missing and murdered women. We’re working with the leadership council on the next All Chiefs. We’re working with the leadership council on the family and children gathering that’s coming up. We have been very engaged on a number of these things.

We’re hopeful that they will endorse the commitment document as it was decided upon leading into All Chiefs and presented at All Chiefs. We are hopeful that we will be able to develop this workplan with them together and carry on with the work that we’re trying to do.

S. Fraser: You referred to the proposed budget — or putting the cart before the horse, if that’s the correct term.
[ Page 11289 ]
In the November 19 letter…. The leadership council provided a letter expressing commitment to moving forward. So there was a commitment by the leadership council. They requested a budget of $800,000 for the commitment document work. That’s 260-some-thousand for each of the three members — the assembly, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

That looks like it was summarily dismissed and replaced with $50,000 this year. Is that correct?

[1700]

Hon. J. Rustad: As the work we do with the leadership council is on an annual basis, of course the funding we do with the leadership council does vary. But in the last couple of years, the funding level has been around $500,000 to them collectively for a lot of the work and engagement that we do with them, as we have engaged with them to try to do the workplan.

It’s interesting, that comment. What we have said, as we’ve been developing the workplan, is that we have $100,000 available to the leadership council to actually create the workplan, to sit down and work with us to develop this workplan. We weren’t sure if it would all flow at once or whether it would go in two parts — $50,000 now and $50,000 as the work progressed.

That’s where those numbers come from. But it’s part of our commitment with them to develop a workplan that we would then look at and try to see what a budget would look like around it.

S. Fraser: Well, if it is, in this fiscal, $50,000, that’s less than $20,000 per organization. Is there an expectation that that will be sufficient to develop this commitment document process and the interaction and the interplay that has to happen between ministry staff? Has somebody figured out a budget — that that’s sufficient, as opposed to the request for $800,000? It’s a big gap here, and it’s obviously not going over very well.

Hon. J. Rustad: We do provide the leadership council with $500,000 a year to be able to sit and engage with us and do work with us as a province, and we have a number of things, obviously, that we do engage with them.

The $100,000 commitment to develop a workplan is about the same amount of money that we have given to many nations to develop agreements, not just a workplan. I can’t explain why the leadership council…. What they spend their money on — I can’t explain that. But clearly, from our perspective, we’re talking about some meetings to sit down and develop a workplan as to how we can develop the components of the commitment document, which then we would look at and try to work together as to how we would implement it, which would include a discussion around budget.

[1705]

S. Fraser: The minister is well aware that the previous federal government, under Prime Minister Harper, stripped a lot of the funding away from organizations like the summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and that. A lot of their capabilities have been, certainly, reduced in that regard.

That might change with a new government in Ottawa. We don’t know.

I suspect pulling together the three organizations for multiple meetings in whatever locations is going to be challenging on less than $20,000 to do this. I’m not suggesting that the $800,000 is absolutely required. However, I have heard — this is secondhand — that there’s some frustration amongst leadership council members that even the ministry doesn’t seem to have the resources to meet on a regular basis. I don’t know if that’s the case, but that’s what I’ve been told.

The combination of these things may hinder your ability to work with the leadership council in a meaningful way and may be taken as somewhat heavy-handed when considering the difference in numbers that we’re talking about. If you can’t come to a reconciliation between an $800,000 request split three ways down to a $50,000 offer…. Well, $100,000 over two years, I guess. It’s in the budget. I believe it’s….

The way I see it in the budget, it’s $50,000 now and $50,000 in the next fiscal to be shared by the three organizations. According to the leadership council members, that is insufficient to partake in this work, considering their limited resources on this.

I will move on from this.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: I will get those, I’m sure.

If I could get back into the budget, the other change I noticed in this particular budget, from last year’s, is that the funding of the first citizens fund has been cut pretty substantially — 37 percent in the 2016 budget. I might have missed it, and I apologize if I have, but I didn’t see any explanation for this in the documents. It’s certainly out of line with any of the projections in last year’s budget.

Can the minister maybe identify why the changes are happening and how they were missed in last year’s budget?

Hon. J. Rustad: Just to the member’s comments, it’s probably worth noting that we are currently in March, and the offer of the $100,000 to the leadership council is a portion this year and a portion into next year, which is a month from now. So it’s not over two years, in terms of what this is. Let’s talk about where we are in a calendar period here.

Directly to the member’s question about the First Peoples Cultural Council and funding around that first citizens fund, it’s probably worth noting that this fund
[ Page 11290 ]
was created, I think, in 1969. There’s been a long history around this.

[1710]

Last year’s budget did call for a drop in the funding for the first citizens fund. I think it was around 600-some-odd thousand dollars. The additional money and the additional drop in that projected budget at this point was due to the continued decreasing interest rates and the rate of return that the fund has been able to generate for the first citizens fund.

It is a situation, of course, that is a real challenge, and it’s a situation where, with low interest rates, and then 15 jurisdictions around the world with negative interest rates, we may be faced with a challenge on returns for some time to come.

S. Fraser: Yeah, it is a curious means for funding. And yeah, it was…. I’ve got it down in the ’60s too. It was 1968 or ’69 that this came about. I suppose it would be a richer fund in other interest rate scenarios. It’s very low now.

I hadn’t actually mentioned the First Peoples Cultural Council, I don’t believe, as yet, so the minister may be anticipating that coming. It is coming. But there are a number of different programs and services that are funded through this. It’s about a million-dollar drop in the fund, give or take. Is that just explained by the interest rate scenario?

The minister’s nodding. Sorry. I’ll hold on.

Hon. J. Rustad: There was some surplus that had been built up over the years, and so, over the last number of years, we’ve been utilizing a little of that surplus that was built up. I think I might be using the wrong words in terms of “surplus,” but there were some extra dollars that were built up over time. So in the last number of the years, it has been helping to alleviate some of the pressure that has come because of the interest rate changes.

That fund has now dried up, which is why you’re seeing the drop — solely because of, now, the interest rate change.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

So the million dollars, give or take — the reduction that we’ve seen this year — is that apportioned out to the…? I’ve got one, two, three, four, five, six. Is it about seven different organizations or programs and services that rely on that funding? So are those organizations, like the First Peoples Cultural Council, like the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres — we have a list here — all going to feel this hit as a portion of that million dollars?

Hon. J. Rustad: As the member opposite said, there are seven organizations that do receive some funding through this, including the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture; aboriginal business loan program; the aboriginal business advisory centres; friendship centre program; the B.C. Association of Friendship Centres administration; student bursary programs; and elder transportation programs.

All of these do benefit from money that flows from this. We’re working internally right now to see what sorts of options we might have around it. No decisions have been made at this particular point. We’ll, obviously, be working with these agencies that receive the money through the fund on those options as the year unfolds here.

S. Fraser: Are we still talking about a fund where the investment portion is just over $70 million? Am I in the ballpark for this first citizens fund?

[1715]

Hon. J. Rustad: This fund was actually created way back then, in the 1960s, of course — the late ’60s. It was created through legislation, and there’s legislation that governs the fund. The total amounts and the principal that’s sitting in that fund is $66.49 million.

S. Fraser: In the last set of estimates, I believe, if I recall, the apportioned amount for the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres amounted to about…. There were 25 centres in the province, so I think each individual one was getting somewhere in the nature of $17,000. Am I in the ballpark there too? Is it going to drop more than that?

Actually, it wasn’t last year. It was probably just prior…. It was a previous minister that I raised this with, because the amount had dropped on the ground. If you were a friendship centre in Comox, you were getting about $17,000 from the first citizens fund, and that was really the only core funding that was being received.

It’s really hard to call it core funding when it’s a dropping fund, as it has been. It had been a reduction. I know the previous minister had told me that there had been an increase in the fund but that the actual amount that was going to the individual organizations was less, I guess because of the interest rate situation.

Do you have numbers for how much an individual friendship centre, one of the 25 in the province, would be receiving through this fund?

Hon. J. Rustad: Of course, it’s probably worth noting that the first citizens fund isn’t the only source of revenue that goes to friendship centres. Obviously, it’s one of the pieces that goes into that. There’s additional funding from a number of other sources.

To the point as to how much will go to each individual friendship centre around the province, or on average, we give the money directly to the centre for the friendship centres, and they then distribute it out to the friendship centres.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we have not made any decisions at this point yet about the funding levels
[ Page 11291 ]
for the organizations in the upcoming year, so it would be hard at this point to be able to say how much each friendship centre could expect in the next year. Plus, as I said, we give the money to the centre, and the centre ultimately makes those decisions for the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

S. Fraser: I guess the minister is aware that the bipartisan Finance Committee that does the travelling tours every year hears loudly that the friendship centres do need some better means of support, of core funding. They have had a proposal on the table for many years…. The Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres has had a proposal that they have presented to the Finance Committee over many years. It has received unanimous support from the bipartisan group and recommendations to government to fund, I think it was, $2½ million as a core funding mechanism for the B.C. Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

[1720]

The minister knows the good work these centres do, especially when they’re dealing with youth that are sometimes coming out of aboriginal communities and into urban centres. If they can get that level of support, it can be a huge investment. A small amount of support, money, can go a long way towards a bright future for many youth.

Has the minister considered the recommendations that have repeatedly come from the Finance Committee to provide that level of support, core funding, for the B.C. friendship centres? It would amount to about $50,000 per friendship centre, based on 25 centres, by my calculations.

Hon. J. Rustad: As I’ve said before, the friendship centres and the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres…. Of course, one component of funding comes from the first citizens fund. In addition to that, there are other sources, including the federal government and the money that flows from the federal government.

Directly to the recommendation that it flows from the Finance Committee, those are decisions that are made by the Finance Minister, as those recommendations go to the Finance Minister. So that question would have to be put to the Finance Minister.

S. Fraser: Fair enough. I understand the minister’s answer, and I won’t quibble. We’ll try to find time to get into…. There will be a lineup of us to ask questions of the Finance Minister, I’m sure, and I will see if I can get an answer from him on that.

I do want to put on record that it is an important…. The minister said there are other funding formulas, but it depends on which friendship centre can get which other ministry to partner on some programs. It happens, but it’s not consistent. The federal dollars that flow to these organizations often come in two parts. It makes it very difficult to keep staffing in place. It’s important that staff do stay in place, especially dealing with youth. A stable staffing contingent means that trust can be built amongst, especially, youth.

The minister probably is also aware that these friendship centres, because of, really…. They’re searching for every dollar they can find through different grant proposals. They spend a lot of time doing that, which takes away from the good work that they do and that they could be doing more of.

I do think it’s an investment. If the minister has any sway with the Minister of Finance — in accordance with the unanimous recommendations, repeatedly, from the Finance Committee — this would be a good place to put the $2.5 million.

Moving right along, then, one of the other…. The business loan program — the minister cited that program also. The business loan program is financed through the fund. Is it through the investments of the principal amount of the first citizens fund, or is the business loan program funded through the surplus? If the minister could explain that, please.

[1725]

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite, as you know, the first citizens fund generates revenue in its investments and what it does. Out of that, for last fiscal year — because we’re not quite sure where those numbers will be for this fiscal year, as decisions haven’t been made yet — the aboriginal business loan program was just over $1 million directly to that program, plus $115,000 for administration. Those were the components that did come directly from the revenues that were generated out of the first citizens fund.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Has there been any contemplation of changing the makeup of this fund? I mean, it is based on interest rates, and interest rates are so low now that you could argue that the fund is not effectively providing the resources necessary for these organizations.

Have there been any discussions in your ministry about how to better serve these organizations that do the work that we need to see done in the province? Because of the interest rates there, you could argue that they’re being shortchanged by this funding model and this model of trust.

I’m not criticizing the minister or the government for this trust. It’s been around a long time. But surely the minister realizes that it was designed in a time when interest rates were in the double digits and it would have provided a pretty viable return for the investments in the seven organizations here.

Has there been any discussion about looking at altering that funding formula or the makeup of this trust in some way to provide more fulsome resources for these organizations?
[ Page 11292 ]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Sorry, I was a little blinded and distracted by my colleague sitting in the room here.

S. Fraser: I was distracted.

Hon. J. Rustad: Well, I was distracted by you being distracted. We could get into a little comedy routine over this sort of thing. Sorry, Mr. Speaker and the member opposite.

The legislation is very specific in terms of what we can do and what we can’t do. The fund, as it is invested, utilizes whatever room and opportunity there is within the legislation that defines the fund that finds the money to produce the returns.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, no decision has been made about this year going forward. We are looking internally as to what can be done. We’ve tried to be as progressive as we can, within the constraints of the legislation available, to try to get the best return we can for these activities that are happening.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

The Chair: Member.

S. Fraser: Thank you, new hon. Chair, and welcome to the proceedings.

Thanks to the minister for the answer. According to a 2014 report, there’s only 4.08 percent of the B.C. First Nations population that’s fluent in their respective languages. This is a big issue. The minister knows that the loss of languages is happening. In some cases, the languages are under threat of extinction, if you will. Many of the elders that are fluent in these languages — and there are not many of them —are passing on. They’re getting of age. The attempt to save these languages is a valiant one.

Dealing again with the first citizens fund, one of the recipients of that small interest-rate portion is the First Peoples Cultural Council. They’re getting about $1 million per year, and they have for the last few years.

[1730]

I’m sure the minister is aware that it’s not enough to archive, not even close, the 34 languages that exist in the province and invest in community-based immersion programs to try to retain these languages. These are expensive ventures.

If they’re relying just on this fund, and it’s only $1 million…. They have IT problems. They’ve got modernization issues even around how they catalogue these things. There are simply not enough funds to do the good work that they do.

Does the minister have any comment on that? Is there any consideration for trying to provide them with the resources they need that could potentially prevent the loss of these languages forever?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, welcome to the estimates debate.

It’s probably worth noting that the First Peoples Cultural Council…. First of all, they do great work. I’ve met with them a number of times and gone through and visited, as I’m sure you have, and seen some of the work that they’re doing.

They receive funding, of course, from a wide variety of sources, including federal funding. One of the components in last year’s budget was $600,000 that was received from the first citizens fund. No decision has been made as to what that level is.

In addition to last year’s funding from the first citizens fund, there was over $400,000 — I think it was around $430,000; we can get the exact number if the member wants, but I think it’s probably in the line budget — that was provided out of my ministry’s operating budget to the First Peoples Cultural Council. That is in there again for this year.

In general they do from time to time come to us and talk about some of the issues they have, whether it’s technology or other types of things. We do what we can to be able to provide and support that work with additional money. For example, out of the previous year’s fiscal year-end, we were able to find a few dollars that we had in slippage from other programs and provide them with an additional $300,000.

We’re doing what we can in terms of supporting the work that they do because we recognize that that work is important. It’s important for nations. It’s important for us and our history in British Columbia and in Canada. We’ll continue to try to work with them and support them where we can.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that from the minister, although one of the key calls to action in the truth and reconciliation report was that we needed to do everything we could to retain the languages. It’s part of identity.

[1735]

While the minister says he’s doing everything he can, my understanding is that there was an attempt to get funding from the First Nations trust. This was by the First Peoples Cultural Council. The minister knows that that trust has got fairly strict guidelines as to how they…. The criteria for getting the funding from the First Nations trust — that’s a $100-million trust — is that it requires matching funding.

They were eligible for $1 million dollars a year over three years from the new relationship trust, but the stipulation was that they needed to leverage matching funds. My understanding is that they were not successful in getting it from MARR. That’s 50-cent dollars to a vital service that even the truth and reconciliation report demanded to be done. Can the minister comment on that?
[ Page 11293 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: You know, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did great work in terms of that. I’ll never forget when they were here in British Columbia. Certainly the recommendations that they brought forward are important components about how we move beyond residential schools and, more importantly, how we build a society that tries to really address some of the social and economic challenges that we see with First Nations.

To that end, the fund that the member mentioned is, of course, at arm’s length from government, and we don’t set the criteria. They decide what they want to do with that. Last year we provided…. Through the first citizens fund, of course, and money from government, we already provided over $1 million to them — I’m not sure why that wasn’t eligible for being leveraged — in addition to the $300,000 that we did at year-end. I’m not sure whether they were able to successfully use that for leveraging of those dollars or not.

I think it’s important to note that the truth and reconciliation components around this…. There is a very significant role for Canada to play at the table around these recommendations on what needs to happen. Given, I think, that it’s a third of all the First Nations languages in Canada…. Or maybe even a higher percentage. I’m trying to remember what that percentage is.

It is about a third of the First Nations languages, of course, in Canada that are in British Columbia. We’re hopeful that the Canadian government, which has said that it will implement all of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, will be able to step up to the plate, and we’ll obviously work with them on that where we can to support languages and the preservation of those important languages here for First Nations.

S. Fraser: On that point, have there been discussions yet with your counterpart in Ottawa around this particular issue, around the importance of…?

[1740]

Based on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action but also just based on historic need, this great organization does not have enough funding to preserve the 34 languages in any meaningful way. They’re doing everything they can, but their funding is insufficient to do that. While we debate this again another year — and maybe the feds will come on side; great — in the meantime, we are potentially losing these languages. It is a desperate situation.

Have there been any discussions with the counterparts in Ottawa to push them to partner in this process? The minister has a good talking point. A third of the languages are here in British Columbia. If the minister can comment on that, that would be great.

Hon. J. Rustad: On that question, I’ve engaged now on numerous occasions with my federal counterpart. We’ve talked about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the recommendations around that.

We have offered to them to set up a committee at a deputy or assistant deputy level to work through those recommendations and what the implications are, of course, for British Columbia and British Columbia’s role in terms of working with them on this — language, of course, being a very important part of one of those recommendations to come forward.

We are engaged with them on this, and we will continue to be engaged with them on this as they come to the decisions that they make. It’s probably also worth noting that British Columbia has put significant resources towards this issue over the last number of years. We continue to support this because we do believe it’s important. But it is time for the federal government to be able to come up to the plate and play a larger role as per their obligations as part of us, as Canada, and their obligations as the federal government.

One other thing, though, I just want to take a moment to highlight, because it is a tremendous success that the First Peoples Cultural Council was engaged in, and that is their partnership with the Royal B.C. Museum and the Our Living Languages exhibit that they did.

It’s a remarkable exhibit, and I know the member opposite likely has had an opportunity, potentially on more than one occasion, to visit and to see that. It was the first of its kind — to have an exhibit in a museum that actually exhibited languages. Museum exhibits are always, you know…. You’re quiet, you’re looking at things, as opposed to actually interacting with them and hearing the languages and learning a little bit about those languages and the culture and components behind them.

I just wanted to take that moment to tip a hat to the Royal B.C. Museum and the First Peoples Cultural Council for that creation that they did. I note, I think, that they had many offers to take that on the road and tour in other locations. It is such a unique exhibit that they were able to create, as part of what they wanted to do in raising that level of awareness of the importance of language, of the diversity of languages that we have in B.C.

It’s probably also worth noting that B.C. is the most culturally and linguistically diverse jurisdiction in North America, if not anywhere in the world, because of the richness that we have with the languages of First Nations. I just wanted to, like I say, have a tip of the hat to the museum as well as to the First Peoples Cultural Council for that great work they’ve done and how they’ve been able to take that and really been able to showcase that as part of B.C.’s culture and heritage and history.

[1745]

S. Fraser: That showcasing and awareness are very important. I, too, salute both the museum and the Cultural Council for doing that work. The partnership is a good one. However, according to the 25th annual report,
[ Page 11294 ]
FirstVoices, they’ve only achieved a 9.08 percent of languages on FirstVoices.com.

This is the challenge I was talking about before. They’re trying to curate these languages, to catalogue them and keep them in perpetuity. They haven’t even met 10 percent of the 34 language groups in British Columbia. That is a challenge for the organization. They do not have the funds. This is an expensive venture. Their system is not up to date now. That function of the Cultural Council cannot meet the needs to curate these language groups.

Has the minister…? Does he have any solution for how to…? Surely, he supports the curating of the languages in some mechanism or another. This is the way to do it. FirstVoices.com is the site. Is there no resourcing, either from your ministry or from another ministry, to assist with that?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned earlier, the First Peoples Cultural Council is supported by a number of agencies outside of government. There are some federal dollars, of course, that go to that as well as what comes out of the first citizens fund and the money that comes out of our base budget in terms of support.

The $300,000, specifically to the technology and the technological need…. The $300,000 that we put in at the end of last fiscal towards that was specifically for their ask around the technology and supporting technology, which is why we did what we could to find those dollars. As we work with them, because we know of the work to do, we’re going to continue to try to find ways to be able to support their needs, both from a technological perspective as well as in terms of general support.

As I mentioned, we are engaged with the federal government through the TRC and through what we need to do with them. We are hopeful that the federal government will be able to play a more prominent role in doing what it needs to do to help preserve those languages and celebrate the cultural diversity that we have in British Columbia.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. I look forward to his continued lobbying with the federal government and other sources to try to help this happen.

[1750]

I still would like to get a little more information, if possible, on any requests that came to your ministry to partner with that funding opportunity and to deal with the preservation of languages with the First Nations trust. It seems to me there was an opportunity to provide $1 million per year for the next three years towards that, which would have gone a long way towards dealing with that curation of languages on FirstVoices.com, if you will. It just seems to me that that was an opportunity lost. I’m not sure the ministry had any role in just turning it down, but it seems to me that would be good investment. Anyway, if the minister has any further information, I’d be happy to hear about that.

I will move on now, noting that we have a lot of issues and a lot of time, here. I’m going to touch on litigation again. The minister, again, opened this with a pretty rosy depiction of our relationship with First Nations and government. Every day, in the papers, we’re seeing more and more nations going to court and litigation. It seems to be a de facto fallback position to unsuccessful negotiations or perception that the Crown is not dealing honourably. In some cases, that’s been affirmed by courts and tribunals.

Surely the cost of litigation is significant. Now, on the last time around…. I asked the minister last year, in estimates, what those costs were, and he steered me towards the Attorney General. She was able to provide me with some of the numbers, but they had budgeted $6½ million on aboriginal litigation.

Is the minister aware…? Does he have…? I may have to do this all over again, but are we looking at a similar amount this year, or is it going up? Last year it had gone up — the actual costs. There was some statement by the Attorney that there was some potential cost recovery of maybe $1 million of that $6.5 million. Again, there was no way of knowing that last year. I may have to go to the Attorney for those answers.

Does the minister or his staff have any idea of what kind of costs we’re looking at this time around?

Hon. J. Rustad: As a province, no relationships are ever perfect. There are always things that come up, and components. Of course, our legal system is there for addressing issues that you cannot come to resolution on.

[1755]

Having said that, our goal out in the province is to negotiate, not to litigate. Our goal with nations has been to find ways to work and improve our relationships. This is why we now have over 400 agreements that we’ve reached across the province on a wide range of things and activities that are happening. Those 400 agreements are with a vast majority of nations that are in B.C.

As we develop our relationship, we are continuing to find new ways — for example, with the Kwagiulth, up on the north tip of the Island. They were in a situation of a difficult relationship. We sat down and tried to work through it, and we entered into a letter of intent around how we’ll work with them in the future in support of the Douglas treaty and the component we have. That was a relationship that obviously was challenging that we went through.

With the Tsilhqot’in — you know, the difficult relationship that we had with the Tsilhqot’in over such a long period of time, 25 years in court, a $30 million expenditure on that — we’re now in a place where we are actually coming together and finding a way to build a better relationship, to be able to build a future together. The other five nations in the Tsilhqot’in could very easily have decided that they wanted to go forward with title cases in creating that.
[ Page 11295 ]

We’ve shown that we’re sitting down and finding ways to be able to develop this new relationship. Like I say, on a wide range of issues around the province, we are able to make a breakthrough. We are able to build those relationships and avoid litigation, whether it’s on the treaty side and the work we’re doing there or other work across the province. We’re quite proud of what we’ve been able to achieve with the majority of nations.

There will always be issues that come up, I think, from time to time. It’s impossible to do this, to be able to completely reach a consensus with nations, but having said that, our strategy has been very positive in how it has built the relationship and how it has been able to see real change for nations.

Oh, and directly to the question — because you did ask a direct question that I didn’t quite answer — as to the exact amount of litigation money that is set aside for litigation and those sorts of things, unfortunately, that is a question that you will have to pose to the Minister of Justice.

S. Fraser: There are a few things that the minister touched on that I’m going to get into more depth on. I won’t dwell on them now.

The minister talks about the great progress on 400 agreements. There are 203 nations in the province. That’s the number that I’ve always used, anyway. I believe that’s correct, give or take. But we’re not talking about, necessarily, reconciliation with 400 agreements. Some of those agreements, as the minister well knows, are like road access agreements. They’re similar to just easements with municipalities and such. These are not reconciliation agreements, in many cases. These are FROs and FCRSAs and that. These are temporary agreements; they have a finite life span.

Many of the nations in the province, and communities within them, are desperate because of poverty and Third World conditions and our signing on to things. It is in no way a vindication of a reconciliation in dealing with the deep issues of treaty, of rights, of title, of self-governance. We’re skirting around the edges of those things. While the minister may have numbers there, they are misleading numbers. They do not reflect the true state of affairs of reconciliation in this province.

As far as the Tsilhqot’in decision and the recent work and agreements that have been made with the Xeni Gwet’in and with Chief Joe Alphonse and Roger William — fair enough, but it was 25 years in the court, and this government pushed hard trying to deny that rights or title existed. Now the courts have said definitively that there’s no further process in the courts, so the government has taken the fallback position of having to work there. But I haven’t seen any changes in how your government works with First Nations post-Tsilhqot’in.

[1800]

The initial response from your government to the decision seemed to be disbelief, and then it was a regroup. Then there were the two All Chiefs meetings that have led to what … I think it was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip who said: “Strike 2.” So we’re not seeing any meaningful change.

The minister laughed about this. Is there recognition that the Tsilhqot’in decision recognized title in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Rustad: The member opposite has touched on a number of things. This will take a little time to talk about, I think, because it’s an important issue that the member has addressed.

When you talk about agreements, just…. It’s almost three years ago now since I was appointed, a little under three years. We had about 18 what we called non-treaty agreements in British Columbia. We now have 130, 140, 150 — some number. We’re signing new agreements all the time. As a matter of fact, this week we have just signed new agreements with nations.

These are significant agreements for nations. As a matter of fact, when I sat down with a number of chiefs at the table — I won’t talk about the specific nations for the chiefs’ identity — tears were in their eyes as they signed this, because they know what it means for their people. They know the difference that these agreements are making and the approach that we’re taking with government.

As we worked with, for example…. I think it was the Chief of Squamish, in one of the agreements that we signed and moved forward. Part of that was training. His words were: “This is reconciliation in action.” That didn’t exist just a decade ago. That didn’t exist even just a few years ago.

The change that we have taken in the province in working with nations is remarkable. It’s probably worth noting that of the 25 years and the strong resistance from government, ten years of that was under the NDP — in that court case and the strong resistance from government. As a matter of fact, with the things that we are doing today and the way that we’re working with nations, that case probably would never even have gone to court over the issue of forestry. That’s what that issue was based on.

We have changed relationships with nations in a remarkable way. Is it perfect? Of course there’s a long, long way we have to go. We have stood up and…. For example, I was in a public meeting with the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, in Saik’uz First Nation. As part of that meeting, they asked that very question that you asked: “Do we recognize that there are rights and title on the land base?” Of course we do. It’s in the constitution. We recognize that title exists on the land base, and the courts have confirmed it. We’re willing, and we sit down and work with nations right across this province on these issues.

Now, can we have 200 tables going at the same time? Obviously, we have capacity in terms of what we’re doing and how we move forward and work with nations, but we’re making progress on a wide variety of fronts with nations and developing with them at the pace that they would like to do.
[ Page 11296 ]

Some nations would like to go faster, and we’re unable to quite get there, because we have a limited budget. We have a limited capacity and ability with what we’re doing. But when you talk about issues of self-governance, when you talk about issues of these kinds of magnitude — or even title — we, as a province, cannot do these things. We require the federal government to be at the table, and the federal government has not been at the table.

We have invited the federal government, in particular this new federal government, to sit down and be part of what we’re trying to do, to work with us. We can be leaders in this country for so many things that they want to do. We’re hopeful that we will see some progress from the federal government to actually sit down and deal with some of these long outstanding issues and deal with their constitutional obligations.

[1805]

But as a province, we continue to make huge progress at working through issues on the land, issues of shared decision-making, how we work together to enhance things like moose habitat, how we deal with predators, how we work together on issues of forestry and mineral extraction, how we try to address being able to create an economy. All of this is, at the same time, being able to address social issues.

Whether it’s health and the determinants that are in place, or whether it’s working with families of missing and murdered women, how we bring together and try to address the child welfare issue, there is such a wide range of things that we are engaged in with nations that just a few years ago many nations would have thought wouldn’t even have been possible.

We have done a tremendous amount, working. That’s why the chuckle when you say you haven’t seen evidence of government doing things. The amount of things that we are doing with nations is incredible. I could sit here and take up the rest of our estimates to list, nation by nation, activity by activity, agreement by agreement — and the significant change.

I’ll leave you with one example — to the honourable critic. That is when you sit down in an area and you have a lady that comes to you…. She gave me an offering of dried meat, and I thanked her very much for it. She said: “Before the programs came around, I was living on the street as a single mom. I had very little support. I was very depressed about my future. I wasn’t able to be a good mother.

“I was able to come in through one of these programs and get training, and through that training, I was able to get a job and come back to college and do additional training. It’s made me a better mother. It’s made me a better member of my community in support of my community. It’s made me optimistic about what I can do with the future and how I can shape and dream.” Something that wasn’t there just a number of years ago.

It’s through the support and work that we’ve done with nations that we’ve seen individual by individual, nation by nation, be able to shape and create such a difference. It’s something we’re very proud of in our government, how we’ve been able to do this. I know it’s not perfect with all nations, and there are challenges, and the leadership council has its own agenda around many of these things. But when you look at the difference that we’ve been able to make for so many lives….

Just the training dollars alone — over 1,000 people over the last year have been engaged in training. With the Pathways to Success, around 75 to 85 percent of those people have gone directly into employment — jobs starting around $19 an hour. Just yesterday we celebrated doing some more with the Tsimshian nations around the Pathways to Success.

All of these things have made such a difference for people, and that is what we’re focused on: what we can do for individual people that support the communities; what we do with the communities to help to build those futures, both economically and socially; and how we can develop a relationship that is built on respect, that is built on recognition and that ultimately can lead to long-term reconciliation and hopefully bring Canada in as being a partner with all of this great work that we are doing.

S. Fraser: Does the minister have any numbers on how many nations are asserting their sovereignty outside of the treaty process and then through the courts ultimately? There’s been a flurry of claims made on lands that are outside of the treaty process, nations that are outside of the treaty process. Certainly, they’ve been in the press of late. Does the minister have any numbers on how many nations are starting to do that now, out of what they see as a failure in any meaningful government-to-government relationships?

[1810]

Hon. J. Rustad: There are a number of cases. Obviously, there are some recent cases and some recent cases in the news, as well as a number of cases that have been filed in previous years that are inactive but are still on the books.

For the exact number of cases and those sorts of components…. That’s not something we track directly. Those cases are dealt with under the Minister of Justice, so, unfortunately, for the precise number, I’m going to have to refer you to the Minister of Justice around that.

With that, I’d like to suggest a brief recess.

The Chair: We’ll take a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:11 p.m. to 6:16 p.m.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

The Chair: I know the five minutes has not gone through, but everybody is back, so I call the committee back to order.
[ Page 11297 ]

S. Fraser: We probed this, last year in estimates. The Acho Dene Koe. Their territory spans northern British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, so more of a complex negotiation situation. That’s three territorial and provincial governments and the federal government.

I have met with members and Chief Deneron. Their claim was accepted 12 years ago in the B.C. treaty process, and they have got nowhere. They can’t even get the government to the table.

I raised this last year with the minister. This is another one that could go to litigation. I’m not a lawyer, certainly, but we have solicitation from all parties federally for B.C., for the minister, to come to the table on this. We have it from a multitude of senators who sent letters to the Premier and to the minister to come to the table and deal honourably with the Acho Dene Koe, who were in the treaty process for 13 years, or had begun the treaty process. The other governments are ready to finalize on their portion of the treaty, but they cannot proceed without B.C. at the table.

Can the minister apprise of any progress on that file?

[1820]

Hon. J. Rustad: As mentioned last year — and I’ll just briefly touch on the same issue from this year — this particular nation has actually adhered to treaty 11. Treaty 11’s territory actually does not extend down into British Columbia.

Having said that, we do recognize that they have some interests and rights within British Columbia. But we do not believe at this point that their claim does not engage the comprehensive land process, which is contemplated under the B.C. Treaty Commission process here in British Columbia for British Columbia-based First Nations….

Having said that, there have been a few discussions that have happened. In particular, I had a discussion just last month with the Deputy Premier of the Yukon around some of the transborder issues that we share — this being one of them — and that we should be looking at and having further discussions at some point in the future around how we try to manage these transboundary issues, but certainly nothing at a comprehensive level.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer, but referring back to his statements in response in last estimates, the minister said: “I do look forward at some point, hopefully in the not too distant future, to be able to sit down and have a conversation with the nation and their interests and about their claims, trying to get a better understanding of their position that the province is in versus the position that the ADK have an interest in.”

It sounds like we’ve gone nowhere since then. I’ve heard from other nations that are transboundary. Of course, for the record, these boundaries were plopped down as boundaries of Canada, and the territorial boundaries and provincial boundaries were put down. They’re still, in relative terms, wet ink, compared to the millennia that First Nations have inhabited these areas. So the boundaries are arbitrary in many….

In the real world, if you have a trapline that your family has been involved in forever, whether it crosses the border from Liard River and into British Columbia, or whether it goes into the Yukon, the reality is that there are rights and title, potentially, for nations that span these boundaries.

I’ll ask the question about the Teslin Tlingit, also another cross-boundary First Nation. Have there been any discussions with them around addressing their rights and title issues?

Hon. J. Rustad: British Columbia is a vast province with 203 nations, plus or minus. The reason why I say plus or minus is that some seem to be splitting off, and some seem to want to join together, and the number could change around that. Significant interests by all those nations around here.

I appreciate the interest of nations that aren’t founded within British Columbia but have interests that extend across into British Columbia, and I’m certainly willing to engage the member opposite with regards to those interests.

Specifically to the nation that he has mentioned, we haven’t had any direct conversations around that. It was part of a discussion that I had with the Deputy Premier up in the Yukon about the need to sit down and try to work together. We have talked all about working together on things like missing and murdered women and family gathering and these type of things and how we want to take this approach.

They’re following a very similar approach to what we’re doing here in British Columbia, and we want to take that to the national table and talk about a number of things. As part of these discussions, we also talk about the fact that we do have some First Nations that do cross the borders, and we need to be able to work together to try to resolve those issues over time.

[1825]

S. Fraser: Sure. I agree with the words there, but we have…. The Acho Dene Koe were in the treaty process. Thirteen years ago they joined the treaty process. Their state of claims was accepted.

I’ll reiterate. Every other party…. The Yukon government, the Northwest Territories government, the Canadian government, all at the table, all of those groups — and the minister must have heard this when he visited the Yukon — have been soliciting you, the minister, and the government and the Premier, to do their part in addressing the B.C. component of that cross-border claim.

The minister hasn’t moved anywhere from his statement of last year. Is there any hope that the minister will
[ Page 11298 ]
respect the requests of multiple senators, MPs and government representatives from the territorial governments to the north of us?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the questions raised, I’ll reiterate. This is a nation that has adhered to treaty 11. Treaty 11 is not part of British Columbia. Their territory does not extend down into British Columbia.

We do recognize that the nation has rights — or has a claim of rights — within British Columbia. I’m sure that at various levels within government there is some engagement with them associated with their traplines and other activities around hunting within British Columbia. We are willing to sit down and try to work through what some of those issues could look like.

Having said that, though, I’ll reiterate what I said last year and what I’ve said earlier, which is that it still remains our view that the transboundary claim does not engage the comprehensive claim process contemplated by the B.C. Treaty Commission process for British Columbia–based First Nations.

S. Fraser: And that would be the same treaty process that has no chief commissioner? Do we have a chief commissioner in the wings?

Hon. J. Rustad: At this point, there is no chief commissioner. There’s an acting chief commissioner who is doing a very good job on behalf of the B.C. Treaty Commission here in British Columbia.

S. Fraser: Treaty 8 is within the boundaries of this province. Treaty 8 Nations have opposed a number of projects, but let’s go to Site C. They have taken a position in court against the government on this. This is territory that they have achieved. They have a treaty; it’s treaty 8, right?

[1830]

They know — and the environmental assessment shows — that this project will seriously impact their territory and their ability to partake in the rights that they have, and it will affect future generations in perpetuity.

How does the minister justify rolling right over them with this project?

Hon. J. Rustad: Site C is…. As government, you have to look at what the interests of all 4.6 million people are and weigh them against the interests of individuals and of nations, obviously, in the province. When you have to make decisions that are in the interests of the province, you have to weigh many, many issues. In particular, we know, through the report on Site C, that there are unmitigatable impacts on First Nation rights, particularly in the Treaty 8 Nation associated with Site C.

We recognize that, but we also recognize that as a government we need to make the right decisions based on the needs of the province of British Columbia, both the current and future generations within this province. Sometimes that means, when issues are unmitigatable, there is no way to be able to address those issues as they’ve been laid out.

However, that is also, as the courts have described to us, why we have done extensive consultation with those nations. We’ve worked with them on this project through what those issues are. We’ve worked around how to mitigate where we can, and as the courts have directed, we have worked with the nations in terms of what accommodation may be appropriate for the impact on their rights by the Site C project.

Now, specifically to those engagements and components, those obviously fall within B.C. Hydro and their engagement with Site C and with the nations around that. I’ll do my best to be able to answer questions that you may have around that, but you may also need to be able to go and talk to the Minister of Energy and Mines specifically around the activities that B.C. Hydro has engaged with the nations on.

S. Fraser: While I appreciate the answer, it’s not…. B.C. Hydro isn’t the government. This is a government-to-government relationship.

The minister said it right. These are unmitigatable effects, devastating effects, to a territory of nations that already have a treaty. You talk about the government making tough decisions in the best interests of the public. Well, that’s very much debatable, not just from the Treaty 8 perspective but from us in the opposition and many others that believe that if, indeed, this project had merit and was in the best interests of British Columbia, then the government would allow the B.C. Utilities Commission to have done its job. That platitude doesn’t help here.

[1835]

I don’t know if the minister was here last year when Chief Roland Willson arrived on the front steps of the Legislature with a cooler full of fish that were contaminated by methylmercury already from existing reservoir systems. Their rights to engage in economic activity and livelihood activity like fisheries have been already severely diminished. To continue that process as though they don’t exist is not a government-to-government relationship. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the West Moberly First Nation or the Blueberry River First Nation.

Things are not all well, as the minister has suggested in his opening statements. This is considered to be a betrayal by government and a failure to deal in any kind of honourable way with the nations involved.

Again, this is a project that…. The minister can defend it all he wants. In some people’s minds, it’s indefensible. If it was defensible, then it would have been allowed to go through the process that is there to protect the public, including Treaty 8 Nations and members, which is the B.C. Utilities process. That was denied.
[ Page 11299 ]

We’re seeing that we’re in court still. We’re in court on that. The government is proceeding as though that’s not occurring, as though the Tsilhqot’in decision didn’t exist — as though that never happened. I don’t believe that we’re seeing the end of that litigation.

I understand it was just a week ago that multiple water licences were issued on this while First Nations are in court. Not even the attempt to show any respect for the rights that Treaty 8 Nations are trying to uphold — through the courts, now, because they can’t do it in an honourable government-to-government relationship.

Does the minister have any comments on that?

Hon. J. Rustad: The member opposite has gotten a little bit political with this, so my apology to him for some of the answers that I’m about to give — in advance.

As we have engaged…. Really, the Treaty 8 Nations have been engaged since the 1980s on Site C, if not even earlier. There has been a long, long, long process that has gone on with the Treaty 8 Nations. In particular, the member opposite talks about whether it went through a proper process. There was a panel review that it went through and looked at this in detail. Many, many components were brought in, in consideration of this.

The member opposite says that it should go to the B.C. Utilities Commission. The B.C. Utilities Commission doesn’t have the capacity to do this. They looked at…. That’s why the panel report and components were in place.

But what I find most disturbing is that it was that government that actually excluded B.C. Hydro from the B.C. Utilities process, in terms of these projects, when they were in power in the 1990s. I find it somewhat hypocritical to be thinking that that should be a process for one but not for the other.

Having said all of that, of course, I also take great offence to what the member said around First Nations — proceeding with this as though they don’t exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have been significantly engaged with the Treaty 8 Nations.

We have entered into new economic and community development agreements. We have entered into regional coal agreements. We have entered into economic community development agreements. We have entered into pipeline benefit agreements. We have entered into agreements to deal with recovery of moose. We have entered into agreements around forestry and forestry management and revenue-sharing around this.

We are entered into negotiations around Site C with these very nations. I would encourage the member opposite to ask B.C. Hydro, through the Ministry of Energy and Mines, about those agreements with them. We have been very engaged with these nations on this specific issue, as well as on a broad range of issues within the territory of the Treaty 8 Nations.

We’ll continue to be engaged with those nations and trying to work through their concerns, working through how we can try to build through what is in the interests of the province and what is, obviously, the interests of the nations and how they want to see things for their people.

[1840]

You know, the member opposite likes to say no to virtually everything — no to Site C, as well, as he’s just reiterated here as part of it. I get that. I get that they don’t want to see anything happen and don’t want to see anything happen around this.

But as a government, you have to make decisions around what’s in the best interests of the province. You have to be able to lay foundations, just like they did in the 1950s when the members opposite — obviously not this particular member…. Neither of us were born. Well, maybe he was. I wasn’t born back then. When the decisions around the original dams happened up there, the member’s party opposed that too.

They opposed it all, saying that it was the wrong decision. It was the wrong thing to do and create. But those decisions back then created a positive legacy for the province of British Columbia. Site C will also create a positive legacy of low-cost power that will support British Columbia and the economic growth in British Columbia for generations to come.

It’s something that is a foundation for what we need to do to be able to build a healthy economy, which is why we came to the decision that we did that we needed to move forward with this project at this time.

We do recognize, of course, that there are the issues around First Nations, which is why we’re engaged with them. But to suggest that we have acted as if they do not exist is just blatantly false.

The Chair: Member, as you do stand, I just want to note that we’re getting close to the end of the day, so this will be the last round of questions and answers. I’ll prepare the minister for the next step after this set of questions.

S. Fraser: Well, since we got political, I take the minister’s points. I disagree profoundly on so many levels: So 100 kilometres of Treaty 8 territory gone, flooded, unmitigatable — if that’s a word — for future generations. And the loss that has to the region as far as agricultural land and everything else — ranchland, wildlife corridors. And cheap power — $9 billion, $10 billion, $11 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion, based on this government’s track record on major projects, is not necessarily in the best interest of this province and certainly not in the best interest of Treaty 8 Nations and those generations that are to follow.

The minister is not the minister responsible for the dam, but he should well be aware of the impact this is having on those First Nations that have inhabited that region for millennia. They see it, rightly, as their territory, and they believe they are being trampled on.

I’ve been up to Fort St. John enough times in the last year and met with Treaty 8 to know that is the feeling up
[ Page 11300 ]
there. The minister may make these comments in this place. But they don’t reflect reality — not on the ground, not in Fort St. John, not in the northeast of this province.

The question was…. I’d like to go on to the treaty process, which probably should wait till the next sitting of this place tomorrow morning. But since the minister has that document in front of him that was so carefully written by the Chair — thank you — I’ll take my seat and await his sage statement here.

Hon. J. Rustad: Just before I wrap up, to the member opposite, as I’ve said, we recognize that the Site C dam is going to create unmitigatable issues for Treaty 8 Nations.

I have met with most of the Treaty 8 Nations on their traditional territory in their communities. I have engaged and talked about this as well as about many other issues and the way that we’re trying to develop our government-to-government relationship. I have gone up — in some cases, many times — to some of those communities. There are a couple that I have not had an opportunity to meet with yet directly, but I will be doing that.

[1845]

The reason why I’m doing that is because I know we want to respect the treaty that they have, the Treaty 8. We want to continue to develop our government-to-government relationship that we do have with them. On many fronts, that is exactly what we are doing. We’re working through and developing a relationship that has been able to create some very positive change for those nations.

I recognize that Site C is a very difficult decision. There is an impact, and there are many people that are upset about that. It is a challenge. There’s no question. But that in no way diminishes our desire or ability to be able to develop relationships with the nations, as has been evident with the wide range of agreements that I have talked about with you that we have entered into just in the last few years with those nations.

With that, I look forward to the questions and the process that we’ll do tomorrow.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of International Trade and report progress on the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:46 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