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)

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 35, Number 5

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. N. Letnick: Merci, Madame la Présidente.

Aujourd’hui nous célébrons la Journée de la francophonie. Today is B.C. Francophonie Day.

The theme of today’s celebration is health, and it’s a great pleasure to celebrate the French language and culture as an integral part of our province’s economic growth and heritage. Ever since 2002, the province has joined Canada’s other provinces and territories in formally recognizing March 20 as the International Day of the Francophonie. Because we’re not in session on March 20, today is the day that we celebrate.

[1005]

We have the pleasure, in the gallery today, of people joining us: Ms. Padminee Chundunsing, president, la Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. We have Dr. Brian Conway, president, RésoSanté Colombie-Britannique, and Louis Giguère, executive director, RésoSanté Colombie-Britannique.

Will House please make them feel very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I’m very pleased to introduce a group of student leaders and their staff from BCIT Student Association. We have Shubhi Singh, Heyden Vargas and Sameer Ismail. From the University of the Fraser Valley Student Union Society, we have Sukhi Brar; and from Camosun College Student Society, we have Andrea Eggenberger, Shayli Robinson, Rachael Grant and Michel Turcotte. They are all here for a few days speaking to many people in this House about building a strong B.C., one student at a time. I hope you will make them all very welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s a real pleasure for me this morning to welcome an old friend of mine. She’s not old. She just happens to be a friend that I’ve known for a long time. Her name is Karin Penner. Karin was the manager of the Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce for several decades, I think at least 50 years. I was a member of the chamber of commerce in Cranbrook for a long time and was president for two years, in 1997 and 1998, and we had a lot of fun together.

She is one of those people — rare people, really — that you have in a small community, that you can’t do without. Everybody loves her. She’s involved in everything important in our community. She’s not involved in politics, which tells you something about how important politics are to most people. She is somebody who helped me — I can’t tell you how much — in the years that I worked with her and taught me so much about being a better person. So to Karin Penner: thank you so much.

Please help me welcome Karin to the chamber.

J. Thornthwaite: I have two special guests today. It doesn’t happen very often. In fact, it’s never happened. I have my two sisters, one of whom is from Whistler, so the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky will be very interested to know her, Claire Thornthwaite. The other one is from down under, Australia, Brisbane, Susan Thornthwaite — or Susan Koreman, her married name.

I’d like the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I’m blessed to have lots of very good friends, but today one of them is in the gallery. She’s one of those friends where you just don’t even have to say anything sometimes, and the laughs ensue. Someone I cherish dearly, Jennifer McEachern, is here, and she has brought her daughter Danielle to observe question period. I would hope the House would make them very welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Along with Karin Penner, there are several other chamber managers currently working or retired, recently retired. I’d like to introduce two of those. The first is Roslyn Castleden. Roslyn was active in the chamber of commerce network. She recently retired, in 2012, from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, where she was the director of chamber development and services.

She’s a founding member of the B.C. Chamber Executives association. She was a member of the Chamber of Commerce Executives of Canada. She was recognized as a fellow of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. But most importantly, she’s a mom and a grandma. She lives in Tsawwassen. Would the House please welcome Roslyn Castleden.

My second guest that I’ll be introducing is a really, really good friend, Judi Ainsworth. She is universally loved coast to coast in the chamber movement as well. She’s highly respected and highly regarded. She has displayed exemplary service to the chamber of commerce movement.

[1010]

I know her from North Vancouver when she was a chamber executive in North Vancouver. She retired and then started a new career and a new job in Qualicum Beach, where she’s recently retired from the chamber of commerce. She has received every major award there is in chamber land. She’s served, as I said, two local chambers with distinction. She’s my mentor and my friend. Would the House please welcome Judi Ainsworth.
[ Page 11448 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my pleasure today to introduce two incredibly special people in my life. Claudia Blair and Graham Smith are visiting today from the community of Tyee Lake.

Graham served as the director for the 1988 Northern B.C. Winter Games and the Williams Lake Stampede, his last year as first vice-president. He has also worked at the Commonwealth Games in Victoria and the world track and field in Edmonton.

Both Claudia and Graham served as directors for the 2002 B.C. Winter Games and the 2010 Olympics.

Claudia, who’s originally from my hometown, Quesnel, has served as the executive director for the Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce for the past 31 years. She is one of the last remaining members of the network council who designed and implemented the visitor centre network with the Ministry of Tourism for the province of British Columbia.

In 1992, Claudia was presented with the commemorative medal for the 125th anniversary of the confederation of Canada in recognition of significant contributions to her community and to the province. She was also honoured and received the 2007 B.C. Chamber Executive of the Year and in 2013 received the Queen Elizabeth 11th Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Karin, Roslyn, Judi and Claudia have made such a significant impact on the chamber movement and to supporting our communities across British Columbia. To our coaches, our mentors, our friends: please would the House — bienvenue — make them feel welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: Keeping in the chamber theme and people who have made a very significant contribution to the chamber movement in British Columbia and in our community, I’m very pleased to welcome Bonnie Bates Gibbs, who is the former CEO of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce. I had the great pleasure of working with her when I was on the board at the Kelowna chamber and as president of the chamber. She was the one who provided a lot of guidance, kept me in line and really helped foster the business community and economic development in Kelowna and the Okanagan.

She’s also recognized as the B.C. chamber Executive of the Year — a good friend. I’d ask the House to again, with all of her colleagues who are here today, recognize their significant contribution to the chamber movement in British Columbia and welcome her to the House today.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M208 — COURT ORDER ENFORCEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 2016.

A. Weaver: I move a bill intituled Court Order Enforcement Amendment 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.

A. Weaver: Registered retirement savings plans, known as RRSPs, were first introduced federally in 1957. Legislation enabling registered retirement income funds, known as RRIFs, were subsequently brought forward in the late 1970s. RRSPs and RRIFs are protected in this and most other provinces from creditors in the case of personal bankruptcy. Protecting these funds provides a glimmer of hope that individuals undergoing bankruptcy will not be destitute in their old age.

In 2008, federal legislation was passed to allow for the creation of registered disability saving plans, known as RDSPs. The RDSP is a federal tax-deferred long-term savings plan for people with disabilities who want to save for the future.

Unfortunately, under our outdated Court Order Enforcement Act, 1996, RDSPs are not listed as a registered plan in B.C.’s legislation and are, therefore, not exempt from creditor protection. Should an individual with an RDSP go into debt, their savings in the RDSP will not be protected from seizure.

The same is true for registered education saving plans, known as RESPs. Recognizing that a child should not have their education investment seized due to the misfortune that befalls their parents, the Alberta government also passed legislation two years ago protecting these from creditors.

This bill amends the Court Order Enforcement Act to ensure that RESPs and RDSPs are protected by law from creditors.

[1015]

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

Bill M208, Court Order Enforcement 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MEMORIAL EVENT IN ABBOTSFORD
AND FARMWORKER SAFETY

R. Chouhan: Last Sunday families and friends gathered in Abbotsford to remember three workers, Sarabjit Sidhu, Amarjit Bal and Sukhwinder Punia, who were killed in a van accident on March 7, 2007. The van was
[ Page 11449 ]
driven dangerously by the van’s owner, a labour contractor, who did not have a proper driver’s licence. The 15-passenger van was overloaded. Seats were replaced with wooden benches, and it had only two seatbelts. The tires were mismatched and bald. In addition to three deaths, 14 others were seriously injured.

Despite the bad weather, more than 100 people attended the memorial. I was joined by members for Vancouver-Hastings and Abbotsford South. In the memory of these farm workers, a beautiful Golden Tree Monument was unveiled last year. It commemorates three lives cut tragically short, and it is also a testament to the strength of their families, whose lives were shattered by this tragedy.

The Golden Tree is a reminder to us all that we must continue to work together to make sure that farm work is safe. It’s a unique, world-class work of art. It’s a tribute to thousands of farmworkers who work in British Columbia, planting, harvesting and processing food to sustain our lives.

Farm work continues to be one of the most dangerous work. Every year in British Columbia, on average, three farmworkers are killed and over 120 are seriously injured. Farmworkers are amongst the most exploited workers in Canada. Next time when we sit for a meal, please think about these workers, their working conditions and the hard work they do to put food on our tables.

JOURNEE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

Madame Speaker: Member from Maple Ridge–Mission.

M. Dalton: Merci, Madame la Présidente. I’m pleased to announce the proclamation of March 15, 2016, as Journée de la francophonie à Colombie-Britannique. The event will be celebrated at noon here today in the rotunda. The theme of this year’s celebration is French health services.

Through the Canada–British Columbia official languages agreement on French language services, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the British Columbia francophone affairs program partnered to deliver access to many French health services, including a French version of the successful Healthy Schools program.

Francophones and francophiles form a considerable segment of our society, and their contributions help make our province such a great place to live. B.C. Francophonie Day is an opportunity to showcase the value we place as British Columbians and Canadians on the French language, culture and traditions which contribute to our rich linguistic and cultural diversity.

Today’s proclamation of B.C. Francophonie Day honours our vibrant and dynamic French-speaking community of more than 70,000 francophones, as well as close to 300,000 British Columbians who speak French. French-speaking British Columbians contribute to the economic, social and cultural fabric and prosperity of our province and will continue to be a vital force of our success for generations to come.

Partout au pays, des Canadiens choisissent de vivre en français. Félicitations à tous les Francophones et Francophiles Britanno-Colombiens pour leur contribution. Bonne Journée de la francophonie. Merci.

[All over the country, Canadians choose to live and prosper in French. Congratulations to all Francophone and Francophile British Columbians for their contribution. Have a great Francophonie day. Thank you.]

[French text and translation provided by M. Dalton.]

PARKS AND RECREATION
SERVICES IN BURNABY

K. Corrigan: I wanted to highlight some of Burnaby’s parks and recreations services. Burnaby has set aside 25 percent of its land base for parks, consisting of over 160 parks for conservation and recreation.

Feature parks largely protected as habitat and refuge lands for passive recreation include Burnaby Mountain and Capitol Hill conservation areas, Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake, Central, Barnet Marine and Fraser Foreshore parks, as well as six ravine parks.

Burnaby has over 120 sports fields and ball diamonds, including nine artificial turf fields. The city also operates two 18-hole golf courses, two pitch-and-putt courses and two driving ranges. Burnaby golf accommodates over 200,000 rounds annually, which is among the industry leaders in Canada.

[1020]

On the recreation side, Burnaby has six community centres, including the newly opened Edmonds Community Centre, which has already won B.C. and an International Olympic Committee award. There are four ice rinks and two skate parks. Bonsor Skatepark won an international design award in 2009. There are four indoor and four outdoor pools; four senior centres and four youth centres; Swangard Stadium, which can hold up to 15,000 people; and an international rowing course on Burnaby Lake.

Burnaby provides programs for all ranges and abilities, from toddlers to seniors. The city also believes facilities and programs should be accessible to all citizens, regardless of income level. Therefore, the recreation credit program helps low-income residents by providing anonymous credit to be used to offset program costs or admission fees. Over 12,000 people are assisted annually through the program.

Those are some of the wonderful parks and recreation services in Burnaby. Next time I will highlight the city’s cultural services.
[ Page 11450 ]

SOCIAL WORKERS

Madame Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock.

G. Hogg: Merci beaucoup.

Social workers play a very unique and special role in the delivery of care in our society — social workers like Brendan, who made sure that the children and youth who went through the Kelowna MCFD office had a voice.

Brendan believed that every child deserved to have their uniqueness understood. He helped people to believe in themselves and in the value of every person. Brendan died unexpectedly after devoting 38 years of his life to improving the lives of children and families throughout the Okanagan. He was exceptional, but the values he reflected are reflected by social workers across B.C. every day.

This week is Social Worker Week in B.C., and March is Social Work Month in Canada. While we formally recognize and appreciate social workers at this time, they support individuals and families each day of the year and in all stages of life. They console families after death. They drive through snowstorms in northern B.C. to save abandoned children.

They are often faced with making the most difficult of decisions, decisions that will have a lifelong impact on the individuals and families that they serve. They make the best decisions possible with the information available. They can do everything according to best practices and still have a negative outcome. We cannot accurately predict human behaviour.

They strengthen our communities, build relationships, and enrich lives. They believe in the dignity and worth of all people. They nurture diversity, and they help to build brighter futures by helping us all to understand the benefit of looking after each other.

Please join me in thanking our social workers for their dedication to and service in improving the lives of all British Columbians. Merci.

HOSTING OF 2016
RUGBY SEVENS WORLD SERIES

S. Hammell: As foreshadowed last week by the member for Surrey–White Rock, this past weekend Vancouver hosted the world rugby sevens series, the only Canadian tournament out of ten international stops. Being there was amazing, from two points of view.

First, rugby sevens is played under the majority of the same rules as a traditional rugby game and on a field of the same dimensions as a 15-player game. But while a regular Rugby Union match lasts at least 80 minutes, a normal sevens match consists of two halves of seven minutes and is played with only seven players.

This leads to incredibly fast-paced and free-flowing action, which makes it an ideal spectator sport. When the players are into it and passing from one to another while dodging their opponents, their movements are smooth and fluid — truly amazing to watch.

The second point to note is many of the spectators wear costumes — wild costumes, wild makeup — superheroes, animals, everything you can think of everywhere. Clearly, I need to get out a bit more.

I watched Fiji’s opening game against Samoa and Canada’s opener against Wales with friends from the local Fijian community. The current World Series point leader, Fiji, put on a great show and, after a few razor-close games, ended up at a very respectful fourth place. Canada’s team finished the tournament with a great 5-1 record and captured the bowl final.

An added bonus was the donation by our province of $100,000 and Rugby Canada’s donation of $2 from every program sold to aid in the disaster relief in Fiji after the devastating effects of Cyclone Winston.

[1025]

I hope next year’s tournament is just as successful and does lead to B.C. becoming Canada’s number one rugby destination.

RICHMOND RCMP

Madame Speaker: Member for Richmond-Steveston.

J. Yap: Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente.

We know that members of law enforcement make our neighbourhoods safer each and every day, working to reduce property crime, improve road safety and disrupt organized crime. But sometimes we overlook the tremendous community impact that police officers make at the same time that they are fighting crime.

In my community, members of the Richmond RCMP are truly making a difference both on and off duty. The detachment is the third largest in Canada, with 229 regular and civilian members and 200 volunteers serving more than 207,000 Richmond residents.

While they’re known for their sharp minds and keen skills, they’re increasingly becoming known for their big hearts. Examples include Const. Gurch Bharaj, who was investigating a break and enter at a Richmond home last fall. One of the items that was stolen was a hockey bag belonging to six-year-old Grant Chen. Constable Bharaj took it upon himself to make things right, replacing some of the equipment out of his own pocket.

The Richmond RCMP also generously donated $500 towards this year’s Dreams Take Flight event, which treats deserving children to a day of fun and adventure in Disneyland. On the day of this special flight, officers also show up at the airport to give the kids a great send-off.

The Richmond RCMP detachment prides itself on offering an open, effective and service-oriented police service, from good old-fashioned foot patrols to newer outreach methods, like Twitter, to the acts of kindness that I have described. They have prioritized community en-
[ Page 11451 ]
gagement with many positive payoffs for our community.

Kudos to officer in charge, Supt. Renny Nesset, and the fine police officers and staff that he leads on a daily basis.

Oral Questions

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
WORKERS COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS

Madame Speaker: Member for Nelson-Creston.

M. Mungall: Merci, Madame la Présidente.

Well, yesterday we asked the B.C. Liberals to stop clawing back four-year-old Brennan Smith’s WorkSafe death benefits, which are meant to help with his needs following the death of his father.

In the minister’s response, she talked about people getting jobs and that if they have jobs, “families can have access to the supports that they need.” Brennan’s father lost his life on the job, and supports are there to help Brennan’s needs now that he doesn’t have his father.

The problem is that the ministry takes those supports away every single month simply because his mother receives social assistance. My question to the Minister of Social Development is: doesn’t she think that this is wrong?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: First and foremost, my sympathy goes out to the family who has been affected in this situation. While I can’t comment on the specific case for privacy reasons, as the member knows, the member opposite from Nanaimo mentioned this case yesterday. I spoke to him afterwards to discuss it. We also talked about how an MLA’s role in this House is to advocate for their constituents, and the best way to advocate for their constituents is to bring this to the attention of those who can make change.

This was not brought to me. If it was, I could have been more proactive. That being said, we’re always looking at ways to improve our policies, such as the change that we made last year to the regulations to fully exempt CPP payments for orphan benefits.

Our intention in this type of situation is that these benefits would be consistent with that change, and staff is currently working on that as we speak, now that it has been brought to our attention.

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

M. Mungall: I think it’s important to note that this chamber is exactly one of the places that we use on a daily basis, as all MLAs, to advocate on behalf of our constituents.

[1030]

It’s sad for the state of democracy that this government thinks that that’s somehow wrong to do. The minister should be ashamed to make that suggestion.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: Let’s go back to some of the comments that the minister made yesterday, and maybe she can explain why she made those comments. Without even knowing why Brennan’s mother has to access social assistance, the minister responded to our question with: “We have to always remember that it is a taxpayer-funded program, and it is the program of last resort for individuals.”

Let me reassure the members opposite that Brennan’s mother did access social assistance as a last resort. She did go to this government as a last resort after the death of her husband. She’s doing her best to raise her son, but she’s worried for his well-being. She would be worried less if she was able to be assured that she was going to get that mere $286 a month.

The minister has made a commitment here today that she’s looking into it. Will she commit today that it won’t just be Brennan’s mother, Ms. Little, but that she will ensure that this policy never impacts another child again?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member knows, I can’t speak to the specifics of a case here in the House, and that’s why I encourage all members on this side of the House or other sides, when they have an issue with a constituent, to pick up the phone and tell me about it so that I can be proactive.

We have reached out to this particular individual, and we are working together to try and find the solution to ensure that this is rectified.

S. Simpson: My question is to the same minister, and it’s in regard to the policy related to this, not so much to the specifics of this case. The minister will know that the Premier and the Labour Minister repeatedly talked about protecting workers and reducing workplace deaths. But when a tragedy occurs, this government’s policy today says that you claw back the death benefit. WorkSafe provides that death benefit as part of its mandate. Current policy says this government claws it back.

Will the minister tell us whether she’s talking about trying to address an issue specifically for this family, or is she talking about changing the policy so death benefits can be received without being clawed back by anybody who faces that tragic situation?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As I’ve already said, we are always looking for ways to refine our policies in this ministry. We have done a great deal of changes in the last few years to improve those policies, such as the change to the regulations that last fall exempted CPP orphan’s benefits. This situation with Workers Compensation Board falls under the same kind of specific benefits that are consistent with that change, and I have directed my staff to look for a solution.
[ Page 11452 ]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The minister hasn’t provided much clarity in this answer. The minister is saying: “I’ve asked my staff to look at this.”

The question I have for the minister is: can she tell us whether it’s her view that the policy is incorrect, is wrong, as it’s being applied today, that it should not be the policy, that in fact families who get put in that tragic situation should be able to collect those benefits? What is the minister’s view on that? When can we expect to have some resolution to this from this minister and some clarity for Brennan, for his mother and for other families that get put in this horrible situation?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As I already said, my staff are working on it, so the resolution will be done as quickly as the regulation can be changed.

[1035]

YOUTH DEATH CASE AND SUPPORT
FOR YOUTH AT RISK

D. Donaldson: Yesterday we learned of yet another tragedy in our child protection system. We understand that a 19-year-old First Nations woman, Patricia Evoy, who recently aged out of care and who had been receiving services from the ministry, has died.

Can the Minister of Children and Family Development tell the House why yet another young person her ministry was charged with helping has met an appalling end?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The death of a child or youth is always a tragedy, and I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the family and friends of this young person.

The police and Coroners Service are currently investigating the circumstances around this death. I understand the Representative for Children and Youth is also following this closely. Youth who turn 19 who have been in the care of the ministry within 12 months would also have their death reviewed by the provincial director of child welfare. That’s a change that we made after the tragic death of Paige.

I cannot speak to specifics of this case, and the member knows that, but as I said, the death of a youth is always a tragedy, and our hearts go out to the family.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: It’s been ten months this week since Paige’s Story was released by the Representative for Children and Youth and five months since the government released its response to the Paige report on the day of the federal election. Based on what we’ve learned so far, it appears that Patricia Evoy shared many of the same challenges as Paige.

This minister says she has learned from the Paige report. She claims to have put plans and timelines in place to take action, but today we are faced with the death of another young aboriginal woman known to her ministry. Why?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I would caution the member from jumping to conclusions about a death that is new and that we don’t have all the answers on yet.

What I will say is that we know that the transitions for youth, whether they have been in care or whether they are a youth transitioning from their family home to independence, are difficult. They are more difficult for youth who have other challenges in their lives, who are vulnerable.

What we know today is that the supports offered in British Columbia to those transitioning youth meet or exceed what is available across the country. But no one wants to see any vulnerable youth struggling. Jurisdictions across the country are grappling with how better to support youth through that period, and we’re committed to doing more.

Just last year we’ve made a number of changes to further assist youth. We spent $18 million on new supportive housing for youth. We provided $250,000 to establish the learning fund for young adults. We invested another $250,000 in the youth futures education fund to look at help covering costs beyond tuition for those youth who are accessing post-secondary education. We’re continuing to look at more ways that we can assist youth to make a smoother transition.

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING AND
POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSINGS

R. Fleming: Last week I was invited to Osoyoos, where I met with parents, trustees, civic leaders and the business community, all united in trying to work together to save their schools. The loss of either school in this town would dismantle their K-to-12 education system and devastate the ability to attract and retain skilled workers, businesses and supports for families.

People in Osoyoos have now requested to meet with the Premier. They have made requests to meet with the minister. They have made requests to meet with their local MLA. None of those have been satisfied.

They want the Minister of Education to understand that his provincial cuts are not finding low-hanging fruit in the school district, but they are, in fact, the tipping point for the district being forced to consider school closures in Osoyoos.

[1040]

My question is to the Minister of Education. Will he meet with the community? Will he listen to them? Will he work with that community to keep schools open in Osoyoos?
[ Page 11453 ]

Hon. M. Bernier: First of all, I’ll correct the member opposite. I was invited up by the local school board, and I was very pleased to meet with the school board in that area.

One thing the local school board did say to me is that these decisions are made at the local level. The school board actually said that they don’t need political interference by members opposite coming up, trying to persuade people opposite. The local school boards — they’re the ones who live in the districts.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Bernier: They’re the ones who understand the stresses and the issues in the area. They’re the ones that are neighbours, grandparents, parents of the students in that area. That’s why they’re in a better position to make the decisions at a local level — unlike the member opposite, who feels that Victoria should be making those decisions.

Our government knows that it’s the locally elected trustees, the ones elected by the local constituencies, who are better in the position to make the decisions.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I should have been more specific. Will the minister meet with the people of Osoyoos — not for a photo op last December, but in the middle of the school closure process? That’s the question.

The problem here is that the government isn’t listening. The school district itself….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: The elected trustees — they know, as do the people of British Columbia, that the provincial budget decides what the funding level is for education in Osoyoos and every community in British Columbia. People in Osoyoos know this. They know what is forcing school closures right now. What is forcing school closures right now….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order. The Chair will hear the question.

R. Fleming: People in Osoyoos and elsewhere in British Columbia know this. What is forcing school closure discussions is this government’s $54 million cut. Now, the B.C. Liberal government has utterly failed to make the case for this cut. Districts have already made major administrative spending cuts over the last decade. B.C. has the leanest school administration in Canada and, in fact, in North America, yet the Premier says there’s low-hanging fruit to cut.

The problem is that we’re the second-worst funded province in Canada on school funding — period.

The minister ought to know by now that it’s kids in communities that are paying the price. He hasn’t budged in the face of evidence. My question to the Minister of Education is this: shouldn’t he be the minister for education, not just the Minister of Education? Why does he keep defending a $230 million tax cut that his cabinet has passed on to the people of British Columbia and failing to stand up for public education in British Columbia? That’s what his job is.

Hon. M. Bernier: I would take the member a lot more seriously if he actually didn’t spend his time doing photo ops while he was up there for his last visit as well.

One of the things I will defend, like the member opposite does not seem to get clear….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Bernier: We have had year over year over year in record investments in education in the province of British Columbia.

I’ll explain to the members opposite why we’re able to do that. It’s because of the strong economy that we have here in the province of British Columbia. I know the members opposite had a hard time in the 1990s, when we had the economic train wreck under the NDP, to make investments.

But under this government, since 2001, we’ve been able to build 48 new schools, replace 70 schools. We’ve increased space in 186 schools, and we’ve upgraded 149 more schools in the province of British Columbia. That’s because of the strong economy we have here in the province of British Columbia — record investments for the students of B.C.

[1045]

J. Wickens: If we want to talk about record levels, since this government was elected in 2001, it has closed over 240 schools in British Columbia. That is unprecedented. Now school districts across the province are looking at closing 42 more. A flawed government-commissioned report recommended reducing learning supports, increasing class sizes and closing schools in almost every neighbourhood in Vancouver. As a result, the school district is looking at closing 12 more schools and repurposing many others. These closures are going to gut our Vancouver neighbourhoods.
[ Page 11454 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Wickens: Why is the Minister of Education letting these school closures happen when he knows that they hurt students and that they hurt our families?

Hon. M. Bernier: One thing I’ll mention to the members opposite — they still don’t seem to understand — is that we have 70,000 fewer students in the province of British Columbia. But at the same time, we have record investment.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. M. Bernier: I think I’ll actually maybe help correct the member opposite as well. In the last campaign, she was quite pointed at the teachers and the support workers and the hard-working people in her district when she said that the students were not even getting basic education. That’s an unfortunate comment when we look at the hard work that teachers are doing every day, in a district — that member opposite’s district — where we’ve seen a $70 million increase in the budget in Coquitlam.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll repeat the answer, since the members opposite weren’t listening.

School district 43 has seen a $70 million increase. So even though the member opposite doesn’t want to talk about that…. We’ve also had over $100 million worth of capital investment in her riding. I don’t hear her celebrating that either, and that riding has some of the best outcomes in the province.

S. Fraser: I was invited to attend a standing-room-only public meeting in Courtenay last week dealing with the potential closure of the Puntledge Park Elementary School. I would note that I did not see the local MLA there.

There seems to be a pattern there. The Premier showed up. She flew in for a photo op in 2011 at Puntledge Park Elementary School.

Interjections.

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

S. Fraser: I was there to listen and learn. I listened. Here’s what I learned. Puntledge Park is at capacity. It is already seismically safe, unlike the school that the kids would be forced to go to. Kids with special needs do especially well at Puntledge Park.

Puntledge Park combines the natural forest — there’s a salmon-bearing stream — as part of the curriculum, in innovative ways for the students. Puntledge Park attracts young families who move to the region for economic development. It’s part of what the school does. It is everything you expect in an excellent public school, yet it is at risk for closure.

How can the Minister of Education justify the potential closure of this extraordinary public facility?

Hon. M. Bernier: As I mentioned at the onset, closing a school is not an easy decision, and it’s a decision made by the local community. It’s unfortunate that the members opposite seem to feel that that decision should be made here in Victoria.

What I’m starting to see now is a bit of foreshadowing of the 2017 election platform of the B.C. NDP. They’re going to be closing schools. They’re going to be getting rid of the school trustees.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please proceed, Minister.

[1050]

Hon. M. Bernier: What the members opposite are trying to say is that they should be making the decisions, not the local school board. The local school board has tough decisions to make. They are making those decisions. When you look at district 71, it is a tough decision. They have 1,800 fewer students in that district. Closing a school is not an easy thing to do, but when you have 1,800 fewer students, sometimes that’s what needs to happen.

S. Fraser: Maybe the minister wasn’t listening. This school is full already. It’s judgment day for Puntledge. Tonight the board will make a decision, and the minister won’t acknowledge the fact that the funding that he keeps talking about doesn’t even keep pace with inflation, with ever-rising MSP taxes by this government and massive increases to hydro bills.

Schools like Puntledge are at risk, and other schools around the province are at risk, because this government puts a tax break for millionaires ahead of protecting public education.

Again to the minister….
[ Page 11455 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: If the school board is forced to shut the doors on Puntledge tonight, how is this minister going to justify that decision, along with dozens of other schools in B.C., which is detrimental to the communities in this province?

Hon. M. Bernier: The members opposite are still on the same mantra of thinking they can make a better decision than the locally elected school boards, who are duly elected in the community to make those decisions. In district 71, as I mentioned, there are 1,800 fewer students. At the same time that they have 1,800 fewer students, their funding has gone up by $10.5 million in that district.

Now, that’s money that comes from this government because of the strong economy that we have. Why? Because we say yes to investments here in British Columbia. If the members opposite want to stop saying no and maybe join this side of the House, say yes to Site C. Say yes to mining. Say yes to all of the things that bring money into this province and that go towards investments to help the students of British Columbia.

PERMIT FOR SOIL DUMPING IN
SHAWNIGAN LAKE WATERSHED

D. Routley: There’s a mountain just north of here, and there’s a lake below that mountain, and on the side of that mountain is an abandoned mine. That mine is being filled with toxic soil, right above the lake which is a drinking water source for tens of thousands of people.

This government refuses to act to defuse the tensions there in Shawnigan Lake. They refuse to protect the drinking water of thousands of residents. They refuse to act when violence erupts as a protester was assaulted. Threats have been made. Now the operator of this toxic soil dump has served many of the protesters with threatening legal letters from their company’s lawyers.

Will the minister step in and provide the leadership required, by stopping the dump?

Hon. M. Polak: Monitoring continues. Testing continues. Results are posted on the web. To date, there is no evidence of anything leaching from the containment facility. Testing that was done after surface water runoff showed that there was nothing that put the environment or the health of citizens at risk. This has been confirmed by the medical health officer.

In addition to that, we have continued to be in contact with the Cowichan Valley regional district to reach out and, hopefully, have people turning down the temperature on this so that we don’t see the kinds of clashes and division in the community that have been there to date.

[1055]

ACCESS TO ADULT BASIC EDUCATION AND
ENGLISH-LANGUAGE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

K. Corrigan: Just over a year ago, the B.C. Liberals cut funding for adult basic education courses. In 2014, the government had made similar cuts to ESL upgrading as well. Adults now have to pay for both. Now FOI documents show that enrolments for adult basic education have decreased by 20 percent, with further declines expected, and enrolments for ESL upgrading are down by an astounding 65 percent.

To the Minister of Advanced Education: why has this government chosen to slam the educational door on thousands of people seeking to improve their skills?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite has known full well, for over a year, that adult basic education is provided in this province to anyone with an income less than $23,600 for free, along with transportation subsidies, child care, tuition and book allowances. For a family of three, $36,200 is the threshold, and beyond those two thresholds, if their income is within 10 percent above that amount — that is, $40,000 for a family of three or $26,000 for the individual — they receive 50 percent of those amounts.

This has been a very successful program, and it’s led to substantial enrolment in the field.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: So a $230 million tax cut for millionaires, and at the same time, if you’re making more than $23,000, you don’t get to get into college to upgrade your education.

Time and again we asked why this government has turned its back on adult learners in this province. The minister’s defence was to say that students — as was said today — who could not afford to pay could simply apply for the adult upgrading grant. Now our FOI has shown, as well, that thousands of students are simply not eligible for the grant. At Camosun College, for example, over a third were ineligible.

My question to the minister: why is this government so determined to punish people who want to upgrade their English or their high school courses so they can improve their lives, further their post-secondary education and become more productive and successful citizens?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: All of us in this House look forward to greater prosperity for all British Columbians. The government side of the House is actually doing something about it.

We have a $1,200 grant for every child born after 2006, to enhance their ability to get into and fund their higher education. We have the single-parent initiative, which
[ Page 11456 ]
provides funds much like the grants I’ve described earlier. It provides for transportation, child care subsidies, so that single parents can get back into the educational system for a full year, completely indemnified for the costs, so that they can share in the prosperity that is growing this province, so that there are more and more job opportunities in this province, so that all British Columbians can get the education they seek — to make themselves into a better place.

[End of question period.]

Hon. R. Coleman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining us in the Legislature today are two great British Columbians, philanthropists and founders of the Zajac Ranch for Children. It is a phenomenal facility in the Fraser Valley that changed many children’s lives. Mel Zajac — an Order of B.C. recipient and also the Order of Canada — and his wife, Wendy, are joining us in the chamber. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call, in Section B, the continued committee stage of Bill 9, and in Section A, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

[1100]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — MOTOR DEALER
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On section 10 (continued).

M. Farnworth: This question. I’m asking it under section 10, but it may also technically apply to the previous section, around the levy and who contributes to the levy — one of the clarifications I want to suss out.

We have the current retailers contribute to the levy. Will wholesalers also now be contributing to the levy as they are coming under the act?

Hon. M. Morris: The answer to that is no. The responsibility stays with the dealers.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister outline the rationale for not including wholesalers in that?

Hon. M. Morris: There’s no contract agreement between the wholesaler and the dealer, so it would be between the dealer and whoever purchases a vehicle. If there is any issue there, the dealer would directly go after the wholesaler themselves.

[1105]

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

M. Farnworth: Section 14 deals with the statute of limitations. This will now be prescribed under regulation, thanks to changes that are going to be made later on within the bill. My question on this section is: why is this being repealed in favour of a statute of limitations to be set by a regulation? Why not just put it in the act?

Hon. M. Morris: Moving the limitation period into the regulations is consistent with other jurisdictions, like Ontario and Alberta, and it provides us some flexibility to make those changes in the future. Currently if there was an issue, the two-year limitation period would be after the transaction date itself, which, in some cases, could extend the issue considerably into the future.

M. Farnworth: I’m not quite sure what is being accomplished then. If I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, right now we have a prescribed statute of limitations. It’s two years from the time that the claim is first, I guess, identified. Why would it make any difference if you now decide to do it by regulation?

I can understand the minister saying, “Okay, Alberta and Ontario do it this way,” but there are seven other provinces besides British Columbia presumably doing it under the statute of limitations as prescribed by the legislation. If the minister could offer more clarity on that, I would appreciate that.

The second issue is that, okay, if we’re going to go and do this now by regulation, when will that take place? Until it takes place, I guess the existing legislative timeline continues to be enforced?

[1110]

Hon. M. Morris: Under the current legislation, it says it’s two years from “the refusal or failure of the motor dealer to pay.” We want to change that to two years from the transaction date, and the current scheme under the current act will stay in place until this comes into force.
[ Page 11457 ]

M. Farnworth: Doesn’t that, then, mean, in essence, that the time period is shortened? If you go from the time the dealer refuses to pay, presumably what that means is that there has been some issue raised prior to that in which the dealer has said: “No, we’re not paying.” Then you’ve still got an additional two years from that.

Now, by doing it this way — from the date of the transaction — you have a two-year period from the date of the transaction, which presumably would have been…. It could be some considerable time before the dealer refuses to pay. In essence, you’re really shortening it up quite significantly for the consumer.

Hon. M. Morris: We’re not necessarily going to make it two years. We’re going to consult. We want to set a reasonable transition date for the limitation period. We want to be fair with this, so there’s going to be a lot of consultation with the dealers, as we go through this, to make sure that it’s fair for them.

Under the current practice, what I understand happens is sometimes it can take up to ten years after the transaction date before any action is taken. By that time, there’s a lot of evidence that’s lost. There’s a lot of memory that isn’t as sharp as it once was. So we’re going to take a look at this to make sure that we bring in a fairer limitation process for this.

M. Farnworth: I understand the issue around after ten years. The memory isn’t quite what it was. I know I can’t often remember what I had for….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, I see my colleague is questioning that. “Steel trap,” he says. Yes.

Well, look, if that’s the case…. I’m happy to hear the clarification around consultation. The minister intends to consult with the industry. Does the minister, then, intend to consult with consumer groups who have an interest in this particular area?

I guess my concern is this. We have a statute of limitations that’s pretty clear. It’s, in essence, two years. It comes from the time that the complaint is made, and people understand that.

What I’d like to hear, then, from the minister is a commitment that we will not see, in essence, a shortening of that statute-of-limitations period from the consumer’s perspective. If they’re going to move it from the point of the transaction, then it has to be long enough to take in the reality of what the minister has just, in fact, stated, which is that these disputes can drag out and drag out and, during that time, the evidence is lost.

[1115]

Memory does change, and the reality is that if you’re not careful, you shift the onus from the beneficiary of the legislation being the consumer to someone using it as a way to go: “You know what? Time has passed. It’s too late. So sad. You’re not going to end up getting compensated.”

I think that’s the concern. The consumer’s interest has got to be paramount in this section. When the minister is making that change by regulation, that, I think, needs to be first and foremost in his consideration.

Hon. M. Morris: Comments are noted. We will be consulting with consumer groups as well. One of the groups that we’ve consulted with already is the board for the fund. They’ve given us some history as to how a lot of those transactions progress over time. There will be lots of consultation on this.

M. Farnworth: My final question is, then: is it the minister’s expectation that the changes will not result in a shortening of the statute-of-limitations period from the point of view of the consumer?

Hon. M. Morris: You’re correct. We will not be shortening that time period for the consumers.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

M. Farnworth: Section 15 deals with appeal mechanisms for the motor dealer customer compensation fund and the decisions by the board. There are a number of questions that arise out of this. Section 18.1, subsection (2)(b), allows for people to file for a reconsideration after 30 days have passed. This can happen under “special circumstances.”

Can the minister explain and provide in more detail what kinds of special circumstances they are anticipating? What kind of special process do they think will be, in fact, taking place under the changes proposed in this section?

Hon. M. Morris: If the person can’t make the 30 days, then they can apply to the board for special circumstances. Those special circumstances would be taken under consideration by the board. That would be for an illness, perhaps, if an individual was sick or they’re seeking legal advice or there’s new evidence that they want to consider. It gives the board a broad range of areas to examine under those special circumstances.

M. Farnworth: Is there a sense of….? Okay, so there’s the 30 days, but the minister said they may be a bit longer. What would be the ultimate length that he feels the board would be prepared to consider as special circumstances?

[1120]

Hon. M. Morris: That would be up to the discretion of the board. The rule they follow is that they want to ensure that an injustice would not result from them not
[ Page 11458 ]
extending the time to accommodate the special circumstances of the person.

M. Farnworth: I guess, at the end of the day, if someone is not satisfied or if they feel the board is being unfair, then they would have the ability to pursue the issue through court action. Would that be correct?

Hon. M. Morris: Correct. It would be a judicial review.

M. Farnworth: Of course, those things are never cheap. Having said that, though, is the minister able to give me any indication of how often that has happened, where it has gone from people being dissatisfied with the decision of the board and then deciding to pursue it through a court action?

Hon. M. Morris: In the history of the board, there’s only been one judicial review.

M. Farnworth: The other question is…. Obviously, if individuals are not happy, they can pursue through the courts. I’m glad to hear that, in the history of the fund, that’s only happened once. Are decisions available to be reviewed by the Ombudsperson?

Hon. M. Morris: Yes, they are.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

M. Farnworth: I’ve got a number…. Section 17 and section 18 are very much linked. I will just propose to the minister and the Chair that the questions I’ll ask under section 18 can apply to both 17 and 18. So if we can pass 17 and just deal with everything under 18, that would be great.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

M. Farnworth: Currently the compensation awards are capped at $20,000, even when the loss is greater than $20,000. Does an individual have to pay back to a fund moneys received from outside the fund, even when those moneys bridge the gap between the capped award and the full extent of the loss?

Let’s say there was the ability to get additional money for the issue. The fund covers up to $20,000. If the damage was more than that and you had the ability to recoup outside of that, is that possible? Or would you have to pay that money back — so the $20,000 is actually the only maximum amount that you can possibly get?

[1125]

Hon. M. Morris: Under the current legislation, if an individual gets $20,000 compensation and they’ve already received $15,000 from the fund, they have to pay that $20,000 back. Under the proposed legislation, if they were to receive that same scenario, they would keep that extra $5,000.

M. Farnworth: Okay. Let’s make sure I’ve got this right. If the claim I have is the $15,000 that I have coming to me through the fund, but I get additional moneys from outside for the same thing, I get to keep the additional moneys from outside. I’m not capped in that regard, as it comes down, under the new section, as opposed to what exists right now.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Perfect.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

M. Farnworth: This is more just a tongue-in-cheek question. There’s a misc bill that’s correcting some of the errors in this legislation that we are dealing with before we’ve even passed it. I’m just wondering why we were not able to fix the errors that are in the misc bill to fix this bill at the time the bill was drafted.

Hon. M. Morris: Tongue-in-cheek question. So that head note under application of the Interpretation Act is not part of the enactment. It’s only an editorial note, and therefore, is not changed legislatively. It follows basic plain-language drafting styles, and it’s just in there to help us understand the legislation.

M. Farnworth: Just on a curious question, and this is probably as good a section as any. When this act is passed and it’s proclaimed and given royal assent, who is the monarch in whose name royal assent is given?

Hon. M. Morris: The reigning monarch, who is Queen Elizabeth II.

[1130]

M. Farnworth: Not the 11th, as we heard earlier today. It’s not the first time. The Government House Leader and I had a good chuckle over it. I reminded him of a former cabinet minister from our side of the House who once welcomed Mr. XXX to the building. It happens.

Okay. So we’re good on 20.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.
[ Page 11459 ]

M. Farnworth: Section 23. These sections establish the motor dealer consumer advancement fund. The revenue will be the administrative penalties that are also being introduced under this piece of legislation.

Now, the purpose of this fund is to educate consumers and dealers about consumer protection measures provided by the VSA, to increase compliance with the act and to pay for costs associated with imposing or enforcing payment of administrative penalties. The administration of the fund will also be covered through administrative penalties. The fund will be overseen by the VSA.

It raises a few questions. Can the minister expand — and I use the term “expand” — on how the fund will promote greater compliance with the act, aside from increased education and awareness of the MDA? For example, will advancement funds go towards increased compliance and consumer affairs officers?

Hon. M. Morris: Those funds are not intended to fund operations of the VSA. Those funds will be used to educate the consumers, to bring them up to speed on some of the different things through brochures and other media. It also supports programs like Walt the Curber — so to reduce those kinds of incidents there. It will not be used to fund other compliance officers or more compliance officers.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister, then, tell us what the anticipated size of the fund would be? Given a sense of how many administrative penalties have been levied in the past, what kind of revenue does the minister expect, on an annual basis, is likely to be achieved through the administrative penalties that are in fact levied?

[1135]

Hon. M. Morris: This is designed to be revenue-neutral. Last year there was about $75,000 taken in under the business practices procedures. The $75,000 is used for programs like the Curber program and other educational programs that the VSA administers.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister, then, outline how both those programs work? How does the education program work — who it’s targeted at and the costs that are spent on that? Also, then, the Curber program. How does the Curber program work — and the amount of money that would be spent on the Curber program?

Hon. M. Morris: The current budget in this program is $82,000, and that’s going to go towards TV ads, newspaper ads. There’s also a pilot program that they’re starting in schools to educate students about what to be aware of when they’re purchasing their first vehicle and also about career opportunities within the automobile industry.

M. Farnworth: Just to clarify. The minister said $82,000 for the program but earlier said this is $75,000. What’s the discrepancy there? I would also assume, then, that the program aimed at students is — what? — grade 11, grade 12.

Hon. M. Morris: Grade 11 students are what they’re targeting it at. That $82,000 includes carryovers from last year.

M. Farnworth: If the minister could outline how the Curber program works, what’s involved with that, that would be appreciated as well.

[1140]

Hon. M. Morris: Walt the Curber is a fictitious character that has been created by the VSA. It’s actually a trainer with the VSA that goes out and mimics this individual and teaches people about what to watch for. When they’re purchasing cars from just any ordinary individual off the street, they never know what they are going to get. They’re encouraging people to buy through licensed dealers.

M. Farnworth: This is probably a good opportunity to ask a couple of questions on this particular topic. It’s related, in a sideways relationship, to the issue of curbers.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, I know. He’s a fair, balanced and wise Chair. I know the minister will be interested in answering the question too.

In terms of knowing what curbers do and Walt the Curber teaching people what to look out for, because you don’t know what you’re getting, and to buy from a dealer….

The other side of that relates to some of the technological advances we are now seeing in the automotive industry, particularly on the electric side — for example, with some of the work being done by Elon Musk and the electric vehicles. They’re looking at a different business model, which is causing some issues south of the border.

Why can’t we buy cars direct from car companies? Why do we have to go through a dealer? Does the minister see challenges, for example, with — in essence, the non-traditional — the emergence of these new companies based on new technologies wanting to pursue a different model, selling direct to the consumer? Has the minister looked at how this legislation will impact on that? Or has the minister not thought about that?

Hon. M. Morris: This legislation will support the manufacturers setting up their own dealerships across the province here. Mercedes has that already. Teslas are sold in that manner as well.
[ Page 11460 ]

M. Farnworth: Consumers are looking at this and going, “Okay, there is significant change,” and we’re seeing that in quite a large number of areas in the economy. This legislation will have the same effect, then, on someone who buys a Tesla, let’s say, direct from the factory as it would if they were buying a vehicle from a dealership. So the same benefits under this act would be available to them.

Would the Tesla factory be paying into this fund if they’re selling vehicles that way here in B.C.?

Hon. M. Morris: The manufacturers are exempt only if they don’t directly sell to a consumer. They need to be licensed if they’re going to sell directly to a consumer.

[1145]

M. Farnworth: Just so I’m clear on that, if I buy a vehicle from a dealer and there’s an issue, the fund is available there for me to access if there’s a problem. If I buy direct from the factory, I can still access that fund as long as they are not selling to a dealership or that they are only selling direct to the consumer.

Hon. M. Morris: If the manufacturer sells directly to the consumer, he has to be licensed, and the funds would apply.

M. Farnworth: As a matter of course, are they licensed, or is that an extra step that they have to undergo? Can they choose not to be licensed, for example?

Hon. M. Morris: If they sell to consumers, they have to be licensed.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer. What the minister is saying, from my understanding, is: “Yes, if you buy direct from the manufacturer, you have access to the fund.” The only way the manufacturer is allowed to sell to you is by being licensed, and in order to access the fund, it has to be a licensed dealer or manufacturer that is selling the vehicles.

Hon. M. Morris: That’s correct.

M. Farnworth: I think we are able to move to that next section. What I think, then, what the minister has answered, is that one of the important areas this section addresses is the fact that technological change in relation to motor vehicles is happening at a pretty quick pace.

I’m happy to see that this section has anticipated that and the change in business models that are coming, that are appearing in the automotive industry here. With the minister’s answer, I’m satisfied with this section.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

M. Farnworth: There are a lot of pages on this particular section.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: We’re almost half through.

Section 26.02(4)(b) says that a compliance order can order a person to compensate other persons for losses they have suffered due to a contravention of the act.

Is the minister able to provide some examples of circumstances when a compliance order would include compensation? I guess, obviously, these would not be covered by the compensation fund.

Hon. M. Morris: This section is intended for dealers who are still in business. The registrar can require the dealer to pay compensation, for example, if the dealer has failed to disclose prior damage to the vehicle.

[1150]

M. Farnworth: So that would be separate, then, from the potential claim that would access the $20,000 fund. This would be if there were other things that came to light. The consumer could be…. You are also able to claim for this as well. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. M. Morris: Yes. If the dealer refuses to pay after the registrar has been involved, then the consumer can apply to the compensation fund.

M. Mungall: I just want to seek leave to make a quick introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: I’d like to introduce the House to my father-in-law, Roman Matieschyn, and his three amazing grandkids — my two nieces and nephew. We have Phoenix and Siryn Cowie and Griffin Cowie who are joining us today.

They’re going to be joining me for lunch in the Legislature. They’re on spring break. This is the first time they’ve ever gotten to see their aunt at work, sitting in her actual seat.

May the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Farnworth: I’m mindful of the hour, so just a quick question before we adjourn for lunch.

For some reason, my colleague to the left of me apparently is anticipating sitting until the end of the day on this piece of legislation.

Interjections.
[ Page 11461 ]

M. Farnworth: End of tomorrow. My colleague says: “Don’t disappoint him.”

Anyway, under the existing legislation, there are administrative penalties that are available to the registrar. With the new legislation and potential for new administrative penalties, can the minister outline the difference between what is under the existing legislation and what will come into force under the new legislation? Or will they be the same?

Hon. M. Morris: Currently, under the existing act, the registrar has no ability to administer penalties.

M. Farnworth: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report amazing progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $64,948,000 (continued).

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order and recognize the minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Merci, Monsieur le Président. Thank you, hon. Chair. Today is Francophonie Day, so we’ll interject a little French, I’m sure.

L. Popham: I won’t be speaking French, but I would like to recognize how important Quebec believes agriculture is to their ministry budget.

My first question…. We’re going to continue with the Agricultural Land Commission, and I wanted to ask the minister if he could tell me a little bit about how the panel system is working.

[1105]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I would also like to remind the member opposite that French is spoken throughout our country. There are many provinces who pride themselves on French and agriculture, including British Columbia.

On, specifically, the question as to how the panels are working, they’re meeting monthly. The applications are being processed expeditiously. Local governments are being informed. I even believe that the panels spoke to my local government in Kelowna just a couple of weeks ago. The backlog that was there last year is all but eliminated. And most decisions are being made by the local panel, involving the local region.

L. Popham: Just as a point of interest, I do know how important French is in our country. My dad is French Canadian. But I’m glad the minister believes so as well.

I would like the minister to comment specifically on the applications moving through the northern panel.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It was great to hear about her parentage — the same as mine, actually. My mother is French Canadian, and my father was English. We have a lot in common besides agriculture.

In 2015, I have been advised that the northern panel has dealt with approximately 125 applications of all types.

L. Popham: I’ve been reading the website of the ALC. It seems to be that the northern panel is acting a little bit differently than the other panels across British Columbia. In fact, there have been quite a few reconsiderations of the decisions that the panel has been making.

I haven’t noticed this pattern in the past. I’m wondering if the minister can tell me about his view about why that’s happening. I know that in the original report that was put out by the former chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, he mentioned that when you have a six-panel system over a one-provincial-panel system, it could lead to situations like I believe we’re seeing in the northern panel.

Is the minister concerned about the actions in the northern panel?

[1110]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, Monsieur le Président, hon. Chair, and thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Of the approximately 125 decisions in 2015, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission took eight of those decisions and brought them to the executive level, the executive panel. The executive panel is made up of the six vice-chairs, one for each of the regions, plus the chair of the land commission. In all eight of those reconsiderations, the executive panel chose to reverse the decision of the local panel in the northern region.

Just a couple of things regarding: “Am I satisfied with that?” I think those were the words that the member used. I would say the system is working the way we’ve designed it, which is for the chair to have the ability on specific issues to take decisions from a local panel and bring them up to the vice-chairs. He’s done that. He’s exercised that authority to, again, respect the act, as he’s done. I believe the system is working well, in that case.

The member opposite also talks about the old way, where we had, basically, the six people for the whole province. Well, in that case, you wouldn’t have any reconsideration because everybody was around the table when they were making the decision.

We don’t want to have 18 people plus the chair around the table making decisions for the whole province. That’s why we instituted the local panels. We also instituted the safeguard that should there be a difference of opinion between what the chair believes the act calls for and what the local panel believes the act calls for, the chair can bring it back for a sober second look at the executive level, and that’s what he’s done in this case.

L. Popham: Are all these reconsiderations happening on the north panel?

Hon. N. Letnick: The eight reconsiderations, of approximately 125, are just from the north panel. There have been no reconsiderations in any of the other panels in 2015, to the best of my knowledge.

L. Popham: Does the minister believe that the north panel is using section 6 of the act as an overriding guide when making their decisions, making sure that preserving agricultural land is their first priority?

Hon. N. Letnick: The decisions that are made by the Agricultural Land Commission and their panel members are independent of government. We have come up with the framework, through the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It’s up to the members of the panels to interpret the act and make their decisions accordingly.

[1115]

The chair has the ability, if he believes — or she, if there’s a female chair — to take decisions that are, in the chair’s mind, needing to go to the executive panel for reconsideration. That is also done without any influence by government.

L. Popham: The minister has put in performance guidelines and performance measures. What I’ve noticed about those is that they are around the application process. Are there any performance measures that look at the panels and how they’re making decisions and if they’re following the act, especially using section 6 as the overriding guideline?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Merci, Monsieur le Président, and thank you to the hon. member on the opposite side. If the member is asking if the minister has performance measures as to how the land commission interprets the act, they’re independent from government. They have to make sure that they make their decisions based on the legislation.

Section 6 of the act clearly says, for those in the audience that are listening, that the purposes of the ALCA are “(a) to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies.” That’s what section 6, which the member referred to, says.

The chair has the ability, of course, if he believes that the local panel has made a decision that’s contrary to the spirit of the act or perhaps is making a decision that might have an impact on a neighbouring region, to bring those decisions up to the executive panel. That’s what the chair has done in these eight cases.

As far as my responsibility goes, in my mandate letter, it specifies that I need to “assess and report to cabinet any benefits or challenges arising in the farming community arising from the 2014 Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act and regulatory changes to the Agricultural Land Commission and agricultural land reserve.” Of course, it’s my intention to do exactly that.

L. Popham: The minister believes that the commission is acting independently, but he’s put performance measures on the commission, which basically are administrative performance measures. But his own mandate letter and the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission have nothing to do with the performance measures. I think that’s questionable.

I think that if the minister can’t see that from my perspective, why I would be questioning that, I’m not sure if the minister understands his job as Minister
[ Page 11463 ]
of Agriculture in relation to the Agricultural Land Commission.

I’m going to have one last question on the Agricultural Land Commission, because we need to move on to bees. This is around Site C.

[1120]

I have noticed that our regulation changed, it looks like, to assist with ease of construction and infrastructure around Site C. Can the minister remind me how much land government excluded from the ALR for Site C and then how much land will be impacted by this regulatory change?

Hon. N. Letnick: For Site C, we have…. Land permanently removed for the reservoir is 2,775 hectares, and land temporarily being removed for Site C but will be put back after the construction is done is 941 hectares. The land that’s being used for roads is not being removed from the agricultural land reserve.

L. Popham: So that’s it for the Agricultural Land Commission. Thank you very much.

I’m going to switch to bees, but I had one question in between this and bees, or maybe two questions. Before we switch to bees, I just have a question regarding choosing chairs for agricultural boards in British Columbia.

I noticed we’ve had a change in the turkey board chair. I noticed that through an order-in-council that came through. It looks like we have a gentleman by the name of Philip Hochstein who is now the chair of the board. I wanted to ask the minister: what type of agricultural background does Mr. Hochstein have, and how would that be related to the turkey industry?

[1125]

L. Popham: I’m going to switch to bees while we’re waiting for Mr. Collins to return.

I have quite a variety of questions around bees. I’ve noticed that the minister is stating quite often these days the increase in honey production in the province. I’d like the minister to expand on that, please.

Hon. N. Letnick: In the latest statistics report that came out just a month or so ago, it shows, for the year-over-year increase from 2013 to 2014: number of beekeepers in the province in 2013, 2,266, and in 2014, 2,405; the number of colonies has gone up from 42,544 to 44,999; average honey yield per colony, from 49 to 85 pounds per colony. Total honey production, yield in pounds: 2.069 million pounds in 2013; and in 2014, almost double that, 3.84 million pounds. The total value of honey in 2013 was $10.58 million, and in 2014, $12.617 million.

L. Popham: I see that Mr. Collins is back, so maybe we’ll switch to my question that I have for him and get back to honey.

Hon. N. Letnick: A similar appointment process happens with the chairs of the boards. They go through a BRDO process, look for qualified candidates. In this particular case, I would have consulted with the chair of the B.C. Farm Industry Review Board, Mr. Les, and asked him for his suggestions as well.

I met with the chairs of the different commissions in 2015, and the chair of the turkey board — his term was coming to a close. I wanted to make sure, because turkeys have been pretty stagnant in growth compared to some of the other boards…. There are all kinds of reasons for that, but a big part, I believe, is the marketing side of things.

I was looking for someone not necessarily with agricultural experience. I was looking for someone with leadership experience, someone who knew how to market, knew how to tackle new markets to really encourage British Columbians to buy more turkeys not only at the special times of the year that we all enjoy turkeys — Easter is coming up, of course, Thanksgiving, Christmas — but throughout the year, and also in parts of our province that maybe haven’t really embraced the whole turkey consumption celebration.

My goal was to find someone that could help promote turkeys throughout British Columbia and encourage people to consume more turkey meat. That’s when Phil Hochstein was presented to me.

[1130]

I thought he would be an excellent candidate to do exactly what I was looking for, notwithstanding that he doesn’t have any direct agricultural experience — which, by the way, neither do I, and I’m the longest-serving Ag Minister in the Legislature today. I think we’re doing a good job.

L. Popham: Getting back to Mr. Hochstein, I’m hearing, then, that the chair of the Farm Industry Review Board, Mr. Les, who is a former Liberal MLA, suggested that Mr. Hochstein might be appropriate to be the chair of a turkey board because of his marketing background, perhaps. A lot of his marketing background, from my perspective, is the money that Mr. Hochstein spends on doing advertising against the opposition party during elections. Maybe that’s one of the indicators on his marketing potential.

I also have quite an interest in Mr. Hochstein’s former statements that he’s made around agriculture. I get that maybe sometimes you don’t need somebody with agricultural experience in that position, but when I go back and I look at the comments that Mr. Hochstein has made around our agricultural land reserve, for example, I really question if he would be the appropriate person to have in a leadership role on an agricultural board.

I’m going to read those for the minister, just so he knows.

“I think we need to look carefully at the notion of growing food locally and energy savings. I think research
[ Page 11464 ]
needs to be done on that. People don’t grow apples here, because you just can’t make money, and it’s cheaper to get them from Washington and California.” “One of the things that’s driving up costs of housing is the ALR. Supply is being restricted by this land use policy. The ALR has become a ‘sacred cow.’ Meanwhile, my kids can’t afford to buy a house.” “Today, more than 30 years after the ALR was established to combat erosion of the farming land base in B.C., it’s about time we question whether that rationale for creating it is still valid.”

There is somebody that is in a leadership role on an agricultural board. I’d like to ask the minister: does he really think it’s appropriate to have Mr. Hochstein in charge of the Turkey Marketing Board?

Hon. N. Letnick: If I didn’t think it was appropriate, I wouldn’t have appointed Mr. Hochstein. After the due process of going through the board resourcing office doing their work in making sure that all candidates are properly vetted and then proposed to me, I then, of course, bring my recommendation to the cabinet.

Again, I want to re-emphasize the reason why I was…. The kind of person I was looking for, for the turkey board was someone who can take the turkey industry up to a new level of turkey sales. I believe that for B.C.’s food security, it’s extremely important to have all our commodities increasing in growth as much as possible. That helps to provide more consumer choice to British Columbians.

Turkeys, quite frankly, weren’t keeping up with the other regulated markets. I thought, and I still do believe, that Mr. Hochstein would do a good job in making sure that turkeys reached their full potential here in B.C.

L. Popham: How many other candidates applied for this position?

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, it’s a process led by BRDO, a confidential process. I don’t know the answer to the member’s question.

L. Popham: Does the minister know how many candidates were vetted?

Hon. N. Letnick: If I don’t know how many candidates applied, I don’t know how many candidates were vetted either.

L. Popham: How many candidates did the minister interview?

Hon. N. Letnick: I don’t make a practice of interviewing commodity board chairs. I never have interviewed them. I’ve interviewed the potential chair for the Agricultural Land Commission, I’ve interviewed the potential CEO for the Agricultural Land Commission, but in my board appointments for chair in the commodity boards, I have not done so.

[1135]

I rely on BRDO to provide me with the list of candidates. Also, in this particular case — and actually, if I remember correctly, in almost every case — I consulted with the chair of the B.C. Farm Industry Review Board on a potential candidate or candidates for a job. Then based on their resumé and the feedback that I get from BRDO and from the chair of BCFIRB, I make my recommendation to cabinet.

L. Popham: This is my final question on this topic. Does the minister believe that the appointment of Mr. Hochstein was a political appointment, for political reasons?

Hon. N. Letnick: Absolutely not. I wanted to make sure, and I still do want to make sure, that we have someone in that role that can really take turkeys to a new level of sales.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: The members opposite find that funny.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: And quite frankly, so does everybody in the room find that funny, but it’s quite serious.

As I said before, I met with the chairs of the different boards, and I challenged them to increase sales. I was not happy with the amount of sales that I was getting from turkeys. B.C. food security is extremely important to me. I want to make sure that British Columbians have the food that they require. Turkeys provide an excellent source of protein, great value, and at the end of the day, I wanted to make sure that we had someone in that role — and we do now — that can really drive the turkey market.

So while it might be funny to other members, for me it’s very, very serious that we continue to see turkey sales grow in this province — not what it’s been doing lately, which is pretty stagnant.

L. Popham: I’m going to move on to honey now, but I guess, as far as the minister goes, nothing says “turkey” more than Mr. Hochstein.

Back to the honey question. The minister has stated that actual honey production — I don’t need the rest of the statistics — has gone up. I believe he said two million pounds since he last updated us. I don’t know if that’s within two years or one year, but there’s been an increase of two million pounds. Is that correct?

The Chair: Minister.
[ Page 11465 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: Merci, Monsieur le Président. I’d like to introduce Paul van Westendorp, who is here with us — the apicultural specialist, plant health unit — and thank him for his great work on behalf of honey producers and British Columbians throughout the province.

What I said before and what I have said consistently throughout my speeches lately is that the total honey production yield has gone from, in 2013, 2.069 million pounds to, in 2014, almost double, 3.84 million pounds.

L. Popham: How are those statistics gathered? How do we know how much honey is being produced?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Merci, Monsieur le Président. The government does a fall survey of all registered beekeepers in the province with a very high return rate, and they use the same methodology every year to get the results.

[1140]

L. Popham: I understand this is a voluntary survey. I have been doing my own survey, and many, many beekeepers that I’ve been speaking to are a bit confused by that number. Given the situation in honey production last year, some of the things that have been brought up to me are that it was a very dry year and that there was burn off, so they didn’t see their numbers increasing.

They’re wanting to know what areas of the province have had such an increase in production.

The Chair: Ministre.

Hon. N. Letnick: Merci, Monsieur le Président. The numbers that I’ve provided you are from the latest B.C. Stats booklet — again, they’re 2013 to 2014. If the member opposite has been talking to her honey colleagues in 2015, that might be different than the 2014 numbers that I’m quoting here.

Having said that, the regions of the province do differently. Some regions some years are more productive than other regions, given drought or other considerations. I understand that, in particular, the Kootenays and the Cariboo and other places in the Interior did very well in 2014 compared to Vancouver Island, for example.

L. Popham: The minister…. I’ve recorded him saying it. I’ve printed off his statements that honey production has increased by two million. He’s using old statistics — well, his latest statistics. But on the ground, we know that’s actually not true. In fact, most honey producers believe that honey has decreased.

At what point are we going to have access to the data that’s more current?

[1145]

Hon. N. Letnick: The 2014 numbers are the latest numbers that are published in the B.C. Stats book, which is available through the Ministry of Agriculture and to all British Columbians. It takes a while for all the different statistics that are collected for that book. I’m sure the member opposite has had a chance to peruse the book. It’s very comprehensive and provides government and British Columbians with a good indication as to how the different commodities are doing and other agricultural facts.

I do understand, however, that the latest honey results are available. They’re going through the ministry, working their way through. You heard it here first, folks. The 2015 numbers are comparable to the 2014 numbers in honey production as well.

I will endeavour to see how fast we can get the specific niche of the honey numbers out to the public, because I know how important it is to the member opposite — and to all of us, of course — in advance of the next edition. Otherwise, we’d have to wait till December for all the stats to come in.

L. Popham: Is there anybody that represents honey production or pollinators sitting on the minister’s advisory board?

Hon. N. Letnick: It looks like I’ve gotten a little notice that our time is up but to answer the question before I recess. There is the president of the B.C. Ag Council. The honey producers are members of the B.C. Ag Council, so he sits on the board.

Like I said yesterday, we have 300 commodities. We couldn’t have a member from each commodity sitting on the board. It would be, obviously, 300 people, which wouldn’t work.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

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

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada