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)

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 9

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Guy Dauncey, who’s in the gallery today. Guy was recently elected a fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The Royal Society of Arts is a London-based British organization committed to finding practical solutions for social changes. Their mission is “21st century enlightenment, enriching society through ideas and action.”

Guy joins a worldwide network of innovators who have received this prestigious award. The royal society was founded in 1754 in Covent Garden, London, based on the belief that the creativity of ideas could enrich social progress. He is in good company, along with Charles Dickens, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, John Diefenbaker and Stephen Hawking.

Guy is an author, speaker, organizer and consultant who specializes in developing a positive vision of a sustainable future and translating that vision into action. Guy epitomizes the aim of the RSA to bring about positive social change. He has worked tirelessly since the 1970s towards achieving a brighter future and a sustainable planet.

Please join me in welcoming Guy Dauncey to the House today, in recognition of this incredible honour he has received.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 2, and in Section A, continuing the estimates for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST
(FOREST MANAGEMENT) ACT

(continued)

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to continue remarks on Bill 2, which I began before noon.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I think that at that time, I was getting into a bit of the history of what may make up what you could call an unlikely story in terms of the Great Bear Rainforest assembly — how it was born out of conflict that was international in its scope and dimensions and, of course, the conflict that it generated within the province.

[1335]

That’s why I think that members of both sides of the House in this debate…. Many of their remarks could be difficult to distinguish from one another because we’re talking about something that is a success for British Columbia. In this case, we have created something that will last forever, for future generations. It has been an accomplishment of both parties, beginning with one government and successfully being…. Instead of a complete reversal, we have seen a continuation of momentum towards higher levels of protection and better systems of management — ecosystem-based management — in the six million hectares or so that encompass the GBR.

I talked a little bit about what was going on in the 1990s in this province, which, of course, flowed from the 1980s — very bitter decades where forestry, instead of being a source of pride and wealth that would be shared with every British Columbian, became a bitterly divisive sector of the economy that pitted conservationists and environmentalists against forest workers and forest companies.

That was something that had to be solved. In fact, one of the things that the incoming Harcourt administration both campaigned on and pledged to create processes to overcome was the phenomenon of the war in the woods in British Columbia, the valley-by-valley struggles that plagued our province, that were divisive and disruptive to communities. It also was the beginning, really, of a debate and a massive shift in thinking about forestry, about resource management and about ecosystem protection in B.C.

All of that was going on, and I spoke to that briefly already. There were some things that were happening at a higher scale that I think are important to this discussion, to this understanding of why we have Bill 2 before us today. That was that in 1992 Canada became the first industrialized country in the world to ratify the United Nations convention on biological diversity. That was a commitment that was made by our country before that international body, following that. It was not universally loved by all parts of the country, all provincial leaderships.

By 1994, in fact, there was a consensus, and the text of the UN charter on biodiversity was endorsed and ratified by legislatures throughout Canada, like ours. So you had an international pledge by Canada to protect areas of the land base, to set aside pristine areas, and you had provincial endorsement of that. And then we had areas of British Columbia that had been identified but were still the source of conflict around conservation proposals.

The Great Bear Rainforest. It’s interesting…. First of all, the moniker, of course, for this region now rolls off the tongue very easily. It’s terminology that all British
[ Page 11620 ]
Columbians understand. They know where the geography is, and they know of its importance.

It was actually a creation of environmental campaigners who wished to convey the significance of this area of British Columbia that had been largely untouched by industrial development, was unique in terms of its biological diversity and was incredibly substantial in terms of the size of the area. I think the number of watersheds contained inside what became known as the Great Bear Rainforest…. That was what the campaign was about, by Greenpeace and other organizations, both domestic and international environmental campaigners.

The credit really goes to those who, I think, were able to raise an incredible amount of awareness about the unique values, natural values, the idea of having a land use process that resulted in what the GBR was all about. For a long time, you couldn’t get everybody to sit at the same table in British Columbia.

[1340]

The government had, I think, very good intentions and brought science-based information and advice. Ultimately, that was part of the decision-making under the Harcourt administration around land use planning and processes, which was the precursor that led to the GBR.

But for many, many years, as I was saying, we couldn’t get everyone at the table. First Nations started to appear. We had a brand-new treaty-making process in British Columbia as well. That was an engagement that many First Nations began to participate in.

But the environmental groups — many of them felt that if they gave up the valley-by-valley campaigning approach, which had been successful for them on many, many occasions, they would be sitting at a table while ecosystems they were trying to protect from logging would be logged off. There was suspicion.

I have to say that I don’t have a full appreciation of the entire story about how some of these areas of mistrust were managed and eventually overcome. I think there are a lot of individuals who come from government and from business and from the environmental community that, through sheer force of personality and reason and relationship-building, were able to contribute to moving in the direction towards this conservation area. It took a long, long time.

I think that in terms of one of the benefits that Premier Campbell expressed in the years following 2001 — when it was made clear that he had no intention to reverse the directions set by Premiers Harcourt and Clark — there was this desire to create a new relationship. So the GBR had a lot of details filled in. One of them was that there would be some logging activity that would continue there. They’d be in identifiable management areas.

These have been skirmishes and disputes right up until the point that we’re discussing this today. There’s no question about it. But there were a lot of details added into the conservation area as we went.

One of the principles that was put in there around this new relationship was that First Nations people were going to have access to timber and jobs. That was incredibly significant. That was essentially a major reform of the tenure system, if you like, that was finally being inclusive to economic development opportunities for First Nations.

We now have something like 70 percent of the old-growth and forest canopied areas in the GBR absolutely protected. We have working forest areas that are selectively logged using ecosystem-based management techniques, light logging techniques, in the remainder of the lands.

We have industry leaders that have been able to conclude these decisions with their counterparts in the environmental sector — organizations like the Sierra Club and others. They have agreed — using the same scientists, looking at the same information — about where the significant conservation areas are within the GBR and how best to manage them.

We have had a lot of discussions about bringing more integrity and strength to the species-at-risk legislation that the province of British Columbia has, to complement what the intentions of the GBR are. Those haven’t been concluded by any stretch. We continue to have an incredible need in the province of British Columbia for more conservation officers and conservation efforts and, once species at risk have been identified, creating rescue and recovery plans for species that could go extinct, including in the GBR.

Those are all real live issues that continue. But we do have a listing process for these systems. We do have legislation that has been reviewed in British Columbia. We have federal and provincial laws now.

[1345]

Many will argue — and I think I’m sympathetic to it —that that legislation needs to be improved so that we are, in fact, doing what’s most important, which is having strong land base decisions to protect the habitat that supports the species at risk. That is the greatest risk to biodiversity in British Columbia.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks that British Columbia has a significant onus internationally and on this continent to be a leader and be effective at preserving biodiversity, because we have the greatest amount of biodiversity of any jurisdiction in North America.

Habitat loss is the greatest threat to B.C.’s biodiversity. Something like 86 percent of species at risk in British Columbia are affected by loss of habitat. That speaks to why the Great Bear Rainforest is so critically important and why other areas in the province of B.C. ought to have the similar attention of government — this one and the next one — to identify and to protect habitat areas.

One can think of four risk areas where habitat loss is a real and present issue in British Columbia. You’ve got right here, on southern Vancouver Island, a habitat loss that is threatening the viability of species diversity. The
[ Page 11621 ]
Lower Mainland of southwestern B.C., of course, and parts of the Rocky Mountain Trench have been identified as areas that need higher levels of protection and management.

One that I’m familiar with and I think is very interesting is the Okanagan Valley — interesting because it contains one of Canada’s only desert ecosystems. There is an active live proposal there by Parks Canada to create a national park in the Similkameen area of the Okanagan, and there would be tremendous benefits from there.

This is a well-studied proposal. I know the province has currently walked away from the process on this, but we have a new government in Ottawa, and I think there is interest there in working with people who live in that region, where it is well supported, to see if that national park proposal can be revived again.

Obviously, tremendous benefits there — in terms of habitat loss, a national park would offer the highest level of protection possible. Again, in terms of First Nations and local communities deriving economic benefits, which is a feature of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement, a national park in that part of the southern Okanagan would also help create jobs for First Nations people and incredible tourism potential.

Don’t take my word for it. Just look at the benefits that have accrued to Newfoundland and Labrador. Since they have had significant national park investments in that jurisdiction and marketed it effectively, they’ve had a massive increase in tourism visitation there and all of the good things that flow from that in terms of growth in GDP and jobs and opportunities for small business.

That’s the interesting thing about conservation and about environmental protection: to get to this agreement, people had to get past the idea that there is a zero-sum game of doing things the old way, in terms of the logging practices that previously went on in this area, or embracing a new approach, the ecosystem-based management approach, which is at the heart of this agreement. That was a debate we couldn’t get past for a long time.

I think the proof, now, of its success is that we do have economic activity, resource harvesting, happening in the GBR at the same time that we have created a binding, legal framework around how that land is managed, on the basis of a process that involved everyone and, in British Columbia, created that rarest of situations where there was an actual consensus of all of the stakeholders and people involved in the development of that deal. That’s something we should bear in mind for other opportunities that present themselves in British Columbia.

The importance of conserving areas of B.C. that are viable…. The forested area that we’re talking about in the GBR is a significant carbon mitigation benefit to the province of British Columbia.

[1350]

There are others in B.C. that are going to be critical to a climate action strategy that works — that can account for emissions and can store carbon and prevent it from being released into the atmosphere. That’s what countries around the world have put their minds to do. That’s what the recent summit, again, created an international declaration to do. Right here in British Columbia, there are additional opportunities to do just that. We need to look no further for inspiration on that than the GBR.

There are other parts of British Columbia where a similar benefit could accrue to our jurisdiction around conservation. They also provide…. I want to stress this again. Environmental protection is not an anathema to economic development. In fact, it goes hand in hand with it. I’ve given some examples of that today. I think the GBR is an exemplary one. The contents of Bill 2, in terms of what amendments, what additions to the Great Bear Rainforest…. The legislation that governs activity in the Great Bear Rainforest helps to build further upon that.

I will just conclude by speaking to what I expect will be unanimously passed in this House. Again, to just reflect upon what an incredible and unlikely positive outcome based on, at the outset, a bitter, divisive conflict in B.C. — a requirement to change the mindsets by all of the different actors in our economy and in communities around B.C., which was a source of contention and even hostility in parts of B.C. over many years.

People were committed to getting an outcome that was good for jobs, that was good for conservation, good for the environment, good for biodiversity and all of the commitments that we made internationally, which sometimes we pay lip service to and fail to put concretely into action.

It’s a tremendous, tremendous success story to see the Great Bear Rainforest internationally recognized in this day and age by jurisdictions all over the world. We did it here in British Columbia. We overcame great adversity. There are so many people that played pivotal roles, who are unsung. They come from industry; they come from the environmental sector; they come from local government; they come from the provincial ministries — people with incredible skills who had the patience to try and build a consensus.

Here we are, in the year 2016, having made giant steps in 1999 and 2000, further steps in 2001. The measures were taken in 2006 around further definition of ecosystem-based management and logging restrictions. In 2009 — again, the amendments. And in Bill 2, we’re revisiting what has been a tremendous work in progress but one that was not obvious at all in terms of the conclusions that we reached.

I look forward to hearing discussions on some of the details of the bill, between the critic on the opposition side and the minister. Here at the second-reading stage, I’m very pleased to have added my voice to members on all sides of the House about this tremendous source of pride, the Great Bear Rainforest, for all British Columbians.
[ Page 11622 ]

M. Dalton: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act.

Just to begin with, B.C. has one of the highest percentages of parkland and conservation areas anywhere in the world. It’s something that we as British Columbians are proud of. It’s not something that’s done willy-nilly. There’s a lot of engagement with the public, with First Nations and with interested parties, and this has been evident as we’ve gone forward over the years with the Great Bear Rainforest.

[1355]

This is truly a global treasure. Our province has different monikers, including what’s on our licence plate — “Beautiful British Columbia,” “Super, natural B.C.” This rainforest, the Great Bear Rainforest, certainly epitomizes this.

A few months ago I was in Maui, and I was talking with some Hawaiian residents who had visited British Columbia. They just went on and on about the beauty of British Columbia. That’s something that wherever you go in the world, when you meet people who have visited our province, you hear the same thing: how enamoured they are with the nature, with the beauty, with the greenery of British Columbia.

The Great Bear Rainforest covers an area of about 400 miles in length, from north of Vancouver Island, on the mainland, going up to the Alaska panhandle. It’s covering about 32,000 square kilometres, which is about the size of Switzerland. The Great Bear Rainforest makes up about one-quarter of the world’s coastal temperate rainforests. It’s one of the most pristine wilderness environments in the world.

Quoting from Hello B.C., it says that it’s “a vibrant and diverse ecosystem…a place where the waters teem with an abundance of marine life, including whales, sea otters, dolphins and sea lions. Lush forests rise from the water’s edge and carpet the landscape in green. It’s a labyrinth of fjords stretching inland to the glacier-capped Coast Mountains, and towering granite cliffs give way to the fertile estuaries where bears and eagles gorge on salmon that have returned to their natal streams.”

I spent a number of years growing up across the waters from the Great Bear Rainforest, on the north tip of Vancouver Island. Dad was in the military and lived in Canadian Forces Station Holberg. Dense, lush vegetation — there are ferns, towering Douglas firs and lots and lots of rain. For footwear, normally we wore, as kids, rubber boots, because it rained so much.

One of my fondest memories was with my dad. I think the first time I went there was 1968, when I was eight years old. We went to San Josef Bay. It was a four-hour hike at that time along corduroy roads that the Danish settlers had set up years earlier. There was a colony that was set up that, after the First World War, disbanded because it was so remote. When you get to San Josef Bay, it’s just beautiful — very sandy beaches, similar to Long Beach with the high breakers.

Or you could have gone up to Cape Scott. That was about a 12-hour hike at that time. Now it’s a lot shorter.

The reason I’m bringing this up is that a number of years after we moved from that base to Canadian Forces Station Chibougamau, in Quebec, this area was made into a provincial park. The old-growth forest remained there. It was extended years later, and you have the North Coast Trail, which is similar to the West Coast Trail that we have in the southern part of Vancouver Island.

I know that, as a child and looking back, it was one of the most serene and meaningful places, actually, that I can think of — that area, up in the Cape Scott area. I’m very thankful that the province has preserved this area for British Columbians, some 50 years after I first went up there with my father and gained a real appreciation for the outdoors.

We’re doing something similar in the Great Bear Rainforest. I remember, in the time living up in north Vancouver Island, that there were tracts of land that were cut, and I was disappointed, as a youth, seeing the areas cut. Having gone back there afterwards and over the decades, the untrained eye would not even know that there has been cuts. I’m happy that there’s a park there but that, at the same time, there’s room for logging and for our economic well-being.

That’s, again, similar to what is happening with the Great Bear Rainforest. National Geographic hails the Great Bear Rainforest as “one of its best trips.” This was done a couple of years ago, in 2013. “It’s a place that draws the serious adventurer, the casual explorer and travellers seeking to connect with nature and experience a cultural, spiritual and sensory journey.”

[1400]

We’ve gone through a long, thorough process to reach the place where we’re at today, one of collaboration by many diverse groups. It’s our responsibility to make sure that we leave our province better off for the next generation, and this forest management agreement does just that. This is a monumental agreement acknowledged around the world for its significance. This agreement preserves the pristine wilderness of the Great Bear Rainforest while also continuing the ancient tradition of making a living off of the land.

This act will create special forest management areas where commercial timber-harvesting activities will be prohibited. This agreement promises to protect 85 percent of the regions of the old-growth forests, with logging in the remaining 15 percent.

The ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest is a collaboration between 26 First Nations, the province, forest companies and environmental groups. It’s a remarkable achievement. These key stakeholders and First Nations partners collaborated with the government to create the policy framework for the proposed legislation.
[ Page 11623 ]

The environmental groups and forest companies include, from industry, the Coast Forest Conservation Initiative, B.C. Timber Sales, Catalyst Paper, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper and Western Forest Products. From environmental groups, we have the Rainforest Solutions Project, ForestEthics Solutions, Greenpeace and Sierra Club of B.C.

When it comes to commercial logging in the region, the amount of protected old-growth forest in the area will increase from 50 percent to 70 percent. It will include eight new areas set aside for logging.

This act will establish new timber supply areas and reconfigure existing ones in order to better reflect the boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest. For coastal forest companies operating in the area, they will benefit from certainty that will come from having a secure land base.

Forest companies will have a defined forest management area of 15 percent where logging can occur. The act will create a stable land base that will support an allowable annual cut of 2.5 million cubic metres over the next ten years. This is a decrease of the existing allowable annual cut, or AAC, of about 3.2 million cubic metres per year. This will provide certainty for jobs, investment and the markets.

The chief forester was involved in the forest analysis that contributed to the recommended AAC, and he also participated in discussions for the Great Bear forest range management area during the ten-year allowable annual cut adjustment period.

This agreement recognizes aboriginal rights to share decision-making and improves economic opportunities for 26 First Nations that reside in the area. The protection of 85 percent of the old growth and second forest growth preserves land and cultural, ecological and spiritual ties, which are so vitally important to the people who have lived there for millennia. It also includes more protected areas for freshwater ecosystems and the diverse species that live in the region.

The remaining 15 percent of the region will help support coastal logging and economic opportunities for the First Nations who live in the region. They can continue their ancient tradition of making a sustainable living off the land.

First Nations will now have significantly increased participation in the forest sector, providing economic opportunities and jobs for their communities. This agreement not only leaves the great treasure of preserving the Great Bear Rainforest, but it also is the result of collaboration between First Nations, industry, government and NGOs. That’s the big success.

I want to congratulate everyone who was involved in this process over the years. Their hard work and dedication have paid off, and we now have this great beauty of our province protected.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise with my colleagues on both sides of this House to support, as well, Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act.

This is truly a remarkable event when we find 26 First Nations, the province of British Columbia, several — in fact, numerous — non-governmental organizations and forest companies coming together to reach an agreement in terms of what can be logged, what will be logged, what should not be logged and how logging should be done in an area on the west coast of our province known as the Great Bear Rainforest.

[1405]

The bill before us, Bill 2 — let’s be clear that this bill is really a bill about what can be logged, what can be cut. It leaves a lot, as we’re seeing from other bills, up to regulations that will be put forward through order-in-council at some point in the future. I don’t want to diminish the importance of this bill, of course, but again, I want it to be very clear that what we are debating is what can be cut in the Great Bear Rainforest, rather than, in some sense, the ways in which we do cut or the overall ecosystem-based approach to forestry that’s being taken.

Let me also acknowledge that, as with any bill or any agreement, there will be those who think that government gave away too much. There will be those who think that government didn’t give away enough. There will be those environmental groups that think this was a sellout. There will be those environmental groups that think this is a great success.

This is true of every agreement that is made. But what’s important to recognize is that we were not at the table. Who was at the table? Well, 26 First Nations, a number of environmental groups and a number of forest companies. To get agreement on this is truly an important event.

G. Heyman: With respect to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Thank you very much, and thank you to the member.

Joining us in the gallery above me today is a grade 5 class. In fact, the class is split in two from Talmud Torah School in Vancouver-Fairview. I met them at the door. They’re accompanied by teachers Lisa Romalis, Becky Chan and Nicole Andersen.

This is almost a school within a school. There are 75 grade 5 students. We had a very brief discussion about the bill that we’re debating right now, and they’re pretty excited about being here for such a momentous occasion. I hope the House will make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to sit down and allow the member for Vancouver-Fairview to introduce
[ Page 11624 ]
a class, because it is so incredibly important that we engage our youth in our democracy.

Thank you to the member, and thank you to the class for being here, even though I can’t see you up there.

On to the agreement that we’re debating, Bill 2, Great Bear Rainforest Act. I’m sure that each and every young person in that class is going to go home riveted to the screen and watch all debates today and make sure that they study this, because there will be a test on Friday next week on what you have learned about the Great Bear Rainforest. I’m just joking.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: There’s no test. I’m only joking.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Oh, it’s Good Friday, of course. It’s a holiday.

Coming back to the agreement, as I mentioned, there will be some who don’t think enough was given. There will be some who think too much was given. But I say to those people and to those groups: “You were not present at the table. I was not present at the table.” Those who were present at the table — 26 First Nations, the province, non-government organizations, forest companies — came to an agreement, a monumental agreement, that protects vast areas of our Great Bear Rainforest.

Now, the issue of protection is a complex one. As we know, the forests make up more than half of the Great Bear Rainforest — a total of 3.7 million hectares, or 9.1 million acres. The land use orders in this bill identify 1.36 million acres of managed forest that will support a sustainable harvest, which creates stability for First Nations, workers, communities, investors and customers alike.

One-third of the Great Bear Rainforest is fully protected in parks and conservation areas, and about 9 percent of the total — that’s about 15 percent of the forested area — is available for timber harvesting in the managed forest. The managed forest comprises 550,000 hectares, or about 1.36 million acres, where harvesting of old growth and second growth is guided by ecosystem-based management.

[1410]

We’ll explore at committee stage what this government’s interpretation of ecosystem-based management is, but I would like to outline the subtle differences between the various land use zones. It is complex, and it is something that I think that not all will appreciate.

Hon. Speaker, 471 hectares are fully protected in what are known as parks and protected areas. Now, protected areas generally have one or more existing or proposed activities that are not usually allowed in a park — i.e., perhaps a proposed industrial road, pipeline, transmission line or communications site. Allowable activities and management direction are determined by specific provisions and special conditions when the area is established as well as relevant sections of the Park Act and the Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation, as identified in the order-in-council.

Conservancies are also being used. Now, 1.5 million hectares, or about 3.7 million acres, are in a designation that protects ecological values and recognizes the importance of specific areas for First Nations.

What are conservancies? Well, conservancies are slightly different, again, from the protected areas. They are Crown land set aside for four things: “(a) the protection and maintenance of their biological diversity and natural environments; (b) the preservation and maintenance of social, ceremonial and cultural uses of First Nations; (c) the protection and maintenance of their recreational values; and (d) the development or use of natural resources in a manner consistent with (a), (b) or (c).” As I say, conservancies are a designation that protects ecological values but that recognizes the importance of specific areas to First Nations.

Hon. Speaker, 764,000 acres are being designated biodiversity, mining and tourism areas. These are areas where the primary use is biodiversity conservation and protection of ecological and cultural values, but commercial forestry and hydroelectric generation linked to the power grid are not allowed.

Then there are the special forest management areas, 675,000 acres of which are preserved. These are areas where hydroelectric generation, mining and tourism development are allowed as long as they maintain ecological integrity. Commercial forestry is not allowed. It is expected that some of these will become biodiversity, mining and tourism areas or conservancies over time.

So the land plan and the land use zones are quite complex and lead to a rather beautifully coloured map — which I’m not allowed to show, as it would be considered a prop — which we have to consider when we look at the Great Bear Rainforest.

When I quote a couple of leading voices on this agreement, I think it’s important to recognize that there is widespread support. Vicky Husband, as we all know, one of B.C.’s leading environmental voices: “‘It is impressive that environmental negotiators were able to get so much when government wanted to give so little.’ But she is dismayed the deal has allowed the government to cast itself as green, when it is still allowing ancient forests to be logged and grizzly bears to be shot.” So there is support, but qualified support.

Rick Slaco, who chairs a group representing the logging companies in the region, stated: “What we’re getting for it is a dedicated land base, a defined amount of harvest, a harvest that is conflict-free, a harvest we can plan our business around. It comes with a social licence.” He also noted: “The significant part of this agreement for the forest industry is that we’re still going to cut trees down. We’re going to cut down less of them” — he should have
[ Page 11625 ]
said “fewer of them” — “and cut them down in a different way.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’m glad that the class has now left. I was just correcting the grammar for them there. I should add a [sic] for Hansard there.

“We didn’t do this to go out of business,” he says.

We have qualified support from Vicky Husband, a well-known name. Frankly, to get qualified support from her is quite a sign that this is a deal that has got widespread support in the province — and from the forest industry, as well, when so much land is preserved, is also quite a significant coup that we have.

I do caution some temperance on the rhetoric that we’re hearing from the government. I recognize that the government is proud to bring this to us today, as we are all proud in British Columbia to be able to support this.

[1415]

However, statements like, “We’re green world leaders; this is our gift to the planet,” are a little tough to take from a government that’s purporting to develop an industry that the rest of the world is either moving away from or already has a glut of supply in.

Let’s not forget, too, that in fact, the deal that saved the Great Bear Rainforest has actually been announced something like 15 times already over the past number of years. While an often-cited announcement, it is important to recognize that it is this government and this Legislature that has the honour of being able to prove it today.

While I do caution the temperance, government doesn’t need to oversell this. This sells itself. There’s no need for rhetoric to say how great government is in doing this. This sells itself. We will praise this agreement on this side of the House as much as anybody. So I suggest that in some sense, credibility is lost a little bit if government touts its own success. Let others tout this success, because this is a success, and we are here to actually support government on this.

But it is not the thing that makes B.C., in giving a gift to the entire world, green leaders of the world. It’s an important step, an important conservation step, a historic agreement that puts the rights of First Nations front and centre, the rights of ecological systems there front and centre. We’ll explore this in more detail at committee stage.

As I mentioned, this bill really is about very specific details focused on determining the allowable annual cut and forest licences, tree farm licences that will be affected. It’s not light reading for grade 5 elementary students who may attend it here. The summaries are much easier to grapple with. As the government has suggested, this bill will “enable implementation of unique ecosystem-based management rules to the Great Bear Rainforest that move beyond current legislation while ensuring normal rules under the Forest Act still apply.” This is important, but we need to explore what government is thinking ecosystem-based management means.

Government also is suggesting that this will “legally establish a Great Bear Rainforest area and assign an initial allowable cut of 2.5 million cubic metres per year for ten years for the entire area. After ten years, the allowable annual cut would be determined by the chief forester under section 8 of the Forest Act, as is the case in other management units” — again, something that needs exploration at committee stage as to what government is thinking here in the longer term.

The government says this agreement will “establish new timber supply areas and reconfigure existing ones to better reflect the boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest” — again, something that we’ll explore further at committee stage with respect to what the boundaries are, and how they are defined, of the Great Bear Rainforest.

The government also says this bill will “provide for the designation of new special forest management areas that prohibit commercial timber-harvesting areas.” Again, here we’ll seek information further as to what commercial means in this regard and how the different land use zones come into play.

Government says that it plans to “enable regulations to specify where forest practices may differ from those under the Forest and Range Practices Act and regulations.” Again, this needs to be explored more comprehensively in the committee stage.

Finally, this bill, government states, will “allow the minister to set ‘partitions’ at the licence level, where partitions can be set to ensure a certain portion of a licensee’s annual cut is directed in a particular geographic area or restricted to a particular tree species” — again, a topic that I think needs to be explored further at committee stage.

In conclusion, I, like the rest of my colleagues in this chamber, am delighted to stand and support this historic agreement. I look forward to committee stage, to explore some of the thinking of government as we move towards a discussion of what it has in mind with respect to the regulations that it is empowering in the introduction of this bill.

[1420]

I leave government with a final note. Let us celebrate your successes well. It is far better than when government touts its own successes too much, because people don’t actually value and appreciate the success when it is done that way. It is better when others call you world-class. It is better when others congratulate you. When one congratulates oneself or one calls oneself world-class, it makes one wonder if you are world-class or whether we should be congratulating you.

D. Donaldson: I rise to take part in the second reading debate of this bill, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. It’s an act that establishes the forest
[ Page 11626 ]
management area for the Great Bear Rainforest and gives authorization to cabinet to make decisions about forest harvesting in the affected region. It also authorizes the minister to grant relief from penalties under the Forest Act for contravening cut control limits if actions taken under this act contributed to those contraventions.

It’s an area of the province that actually spans over three million hectares. The very northern part touches on and is part of the constituency I represent, Stikine, the part of the Great Bear Rainforest that abuts the Alaskan Tongass rainforest. I’m quite familiar with the area from the land perspective — not as much from the marine perspective.

What this act does is it speaks to forest management. Under the proposed bill here, 15 percent of that over three million hectares will be open to logging, which amounts to about 550,000 hectares that the forest industry has to work with. The other 85 percent of coastal temperate rainforest is in various forms of protection from industrial activity, but mainly from logging.

As many of the speakers on our side have pointed out, this act been a long time in coming. It’s based on an agreement and quite a process involving many different perspectives and many different stakeholders and many different world views.

I recall Rick Jeffery, when he was one of the chief negotiators for forest companies when the work was being done to come to a consensus on what should happen on the land base, having a certain perspective. Now he’s the CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association, and he says, of this agreement and this act: “It provides a certainty.” That’s important, because it provides certainty around access, and that certainty around access provides certainty around investment as well. The ecological integrity will be protected under this act, and human well-being will be taken care of as well.

It is the largest tract of intact temperate rainforest in the world. I think, oftentimes, when you live in an area like that, like I do, it’s hard to appreciate how significant your own backyard is. If you look around the world, this is very significant. It’s very significant for current generations but also for future generations, when we’re dealing with issues of enhanced climate change, issues of biodiversity and all of those kinds of issues.

You know, we have a bit of an idea — many people have an idea — that we know everything about the natural world that needs to be known. And yet we find new discoveries every day in the natural world. The discoveries are only able to be found when we deal with intact ecosystems.

[1425]

All of the products and the various medicines and the various solutions that we have to challenges we face today are based in the natural world. If we eliminate large tracts without knowing exactly what the future worth could be in areas like medicine and others, then we are limiting future generations’ ability to find solutions and to overcome future challenges. It is important, what we’re talking about here today, and it is important that we are ensuring that over three million hectares are going to be kept relatively intact, based on ecosystem-based management principles.

The creation of this area that’s described under the Great Bear Rainforest Act, this bill, goes back a long ways. I actually had some involvement. I was working, in late 2000 and early 2001, on the joint solutions project, which my colleague has described in his two-hour address to this bill. It was one of the ways that the different stakeholders were trying to come together to arrive at some common ground on what the future of this land and coast should be. My role was a community economic development lens on what human well-being could be derived from this intact land and coastline.

CED, community economic development, principles are principles where local people should have the largest say over what happens in their own backyards, from an economic development perspective, and should be the principal drivers of that economic development. CED principles are principles of justice and equality and that power is shared. You know, what we’ve seen as coming out of the agreement and the Great Bear Rainforest Act is that some of these CED principles have infiltrated into what’s happening on the land base.

I think of Rick Jeffery talking about how it provides a certainty, this agreement and this act, for the forest industry, but it also provides certainty for other economic generators for communities on the coast. I think of the bear-viewing industry that has expanded incredibly along the coast. That’s resulted in tens of millions of dollars being spent and distributed in local communities.

We had a presentation night hosted by many of those companies that are focused on the Knight Inlet. Again, it’s the CED principles that were part of this agreement and around ecosystem-based management that allows for non-extractive economic uses of the land base as well.

G. Heyman: With respect to my colleague from Stikine, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Again, thank you to my colleague from Stikine.

Joining us in the gallery above is the second group of students from the Talmud Torah school, grade 5 students from the school in Vancouver-Fairview. They’re joined by teachers Lisa Romalis, Becky Chan and Nicole Anderson. They are having a quick but exciting tour of the Legislature.

They were asking me earlier who would be in the House. They’d heard about the Great Bear Rainforest and I think are happy to be able to witness a small piece of the debate on this historic achievement.
[ Page 11627 ]

I hope that my colleagues will join me in making the students very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: Those days when I was involved with the joint solutions project, back in late 2000, early 2001, were very, very intense days.

[1430]

There was a lot of disagreement amongst the stakeholders, the various people who had an interest in this Great Bear Rainforest land base — whether it was large forest companies, whether it was people in smaller communities who were dependent on logging, whether it was First Nations, whether it was other people in communities along that coast who had an interest in intact ecosystems. The provincial government was at the table as well. These were very, very intense times. As I said, forest companies and environmental groups were represented. But people remained at the table.

In 2001…. This was the year that I left working on the joint solutions project. It was around this time that the forest companies agreed to suspend logging in the area and environmental groups agreed to suspend their boycott activities of the forest companies that were operating in that area. At the same time, indigenous leaders became engaged by the provincial government.

Although this had been going on for a while and there were conflicts, by 2006, an agreement was in place around ecosystem-based management on the area known as the Great Bear Rainforest. Now we have, ten years later, the actual act that will govern the logging activities and where they can occur in the Great Bear Rainforest.

This was, I guess, what could you say is an ultimate example of a consensus-based approach. Its genesis was out of conflict around different world views and different perspectives on how the resources in the Great Bear Rainforest could be used or observed or not used. But over time and over incredible dedication on pretty well everybody’s behalf who sat around the table, a consensus and agreement was reached in 2006.

A lot of that grew out of relationship-building. Again, my colleague has talked about that. Over the years, people at the table came to know each other as human beings, really, not as people who were representative of a single point of view.

Like most people, there are complexities, and there is a spectrum of values. You can hold one value and another value, and they might not combine often. But by people getting to know each other around the table over a number of years and in oftentimes high-pressure circumstances, an agreement was reached in 2006. This bill, ten years later, puts meat on the agreement that was reached from the forest activities point of view.

Many First Nations traditional territories are covered in the Great Bear Rainforest, and they’ve become signatories to the agreements and supporters of this act as well.

The supporters of this bill are quite diverse. We have organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and ForestEthics. We also have the Coastal First Nations and forest companies led by the Coast Forest Products Association that Rick Jeffery now heads. A pretty wide spectrum of interests there represented who are supportive of this bill.

As Richard Brooks, the campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Canada, points out, this agreement — and now this act and this bill that we’re considering today — holds out hope for other areas currently in conflict to move towards collaboration. I want to talk a little bit more about that in relation to this bill, because I think there are some lessons to be learned that need to be applied more widely.

It’s still going to take eyes on the ground. I have no doubt, with the interest that we’ve seen over the last 16, 17 years, that there will be a lot of interest and eyes on the ground.

[1435]

The ecosystem-based management approach is not just about logging — we’re seeing this Bill 2 deal with the logging part of it — but other industrial uses of the land base, as well, like mining and energy production, and also the non-consumptive uses of the land, such as the bear-viewing industry that I referred to before.

There’s going to be a lot of need for eyes on the ground to ensure that the intent of this bill, Bill 2 that’s in front of us, is actually carried out. I look forward to the committee stage and to hearing from the minister, from a provincial perspective and from his ministry’s perspective — or her ministry’s perspective, depending on who’s going to be actually responsible for eyes on the ground — how that’s going to transpire, because that’s definitely something that’s going to be needed.

As we know, there’s going to be a ten-year review after this bill is passed — that’ll be in 2026 — so again, important to hear more detail on how that review will be conducted and how it relates to the amount of logging and where it can occur, because things do change over time.

I want to get back to what I think are the really interesting and significant parts of Bill 2 and what it represents. It represents that certainty aspect that Rick Jeffery talked about from the forest industry perspective and the ability to reduce current conflict and move towards a more collaborative approach that Richard Brooks from Greenpeace Canada talked about in relation to this bill and this agreement.

I think what this bill gets at is that it’s not an either-or approach. It’s not: either we have industry with jobs, or we have concern about the environment and no jobs. It’s not an either-or. Oftentimes these kinds of conflicts over the land base are presented as that. Really, what this bill, and the agreement it’s based on, typifies is a sharing of the land base and how, sometimes, competing activities
[ Page 11628 ]
can occur on the land base. Sometimes there are activities that are mutually exclusive, but in this case, we’re talking about how the land base can be shared.

It reminds me of the land and resource management plans that were initiated in the 1990s that were exactly about that. They were initiated by the NDP government in the 1990s to try to overcome conflicting uses of the land base and conflicting views about how the land base was managed. Primarily, in those days, it was around industrial logging activities.

I, as well, in 1991 and 1992, worked on land and resource management plans in the Morice forest district, in the Bulkley forest district and in the Kispiox forest district as an independent consultant. Those were extremely worthwhile enterprises, worthwhile processes initiated by the NDP government of the day.

Those documents are still worthwhile today. I mean, they get updated now and then, but they are the basis of how we operate on the land base. Again, though, they primarily focused on forestry. One that I was involved with specifically…. Generally, I was involved with the Morice, Bulkley and Kispiox LRMP when it came to public consultation around the forestry aspect. The one in Kispiox, also, an offshoot of that, was the land use plan that created the Babine River corridor.

[1440]

That is an incredibly important corridor for grizzly bears. They come from miles and miles away. Just like the bears in the Great Bear Rainforest are integral to that agreement, the Babine River corridor grizzly bears come from hundreds of miles away to use the Babine River corridor area during salmon spawning. It’s an important, obviously critical, part of the grizzly bear diet.

That process was around how we get to the fact that we need to have industrial logging activities to support human well-being, as Rick Jeffery put it. But we also recognize that there’s a need for continued biodiversity — with the grizzly bears. That was what that process was about. It worked quite well. Now we have the Babine River corridor, we have the Babine River trust, and we have lots of eyes on the ground in that area as well.

The issue that gets back to Bill 2 is that this was a process initiated by the government of the day, the NDP government, to try to reduce conflict and try to work out how we shared the land base.

Many of those land and resource management plans did not have a very rigorous component to other activities on the land base. They had a lot of focus on forestry, just like we have in Bill 2 — and the bill we’re considering today is, really, a forest management act. But the LRMP process did not have as much rigour when it came to sharing the land base around mining activities, for instance, or, what’s become even more prominent in the last five or six years, energy production. That was not even a topic, really, under the LRMP process back in the ’90s because a lot of the alternative sources of energy hadn’t been well-thought-out or well-planned-out at that point.

There is still a need to revisit land and resource management plans just the same as in Bill 2. We’ll be revisiting Bill 2 in ten years. It’s in recognition that priorities change and techniques change and things change over time. The LRMPs, although focused on forestry to try to reduce conflict, did not have a lot to say about mining, energy production.

Water use is becoming a very important topic these days. We know what’s happened in California, and with enhanced climate change, we know that this can be an issue into the future. It’s an issue now.

Those kinds of land and resource management plans that were initiated in the ’90s are similar to what we’re looking at today with the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and now the Great Bear Rainforest Act. What I would like to see is that the LRMPs that laid the foundation for trying to reduce conflict on the land base…. I would like to see this government be more interested in updating them to include more of the land uses that we see becoming more prominent these days.

It’s not something that is unknown to this government. We have this Bill 2 in front of us now, which is a bill that I will be supporting. It’s a demonstration of consensus, it’s a demonstration of sharing of the land base, and it’s a demonstration of adding certainty and reducing conflict.

This government, and I will give them credit for this, also undertook the Atlin-Taku land use plan. That’s an area of almost three million hectares as well, so a similar size to the Great Bear Rainforest. It’s an area in Stikine, in the northwest corner of the province, on the traditional territories of the Taku River Tlingit. The community of Atlin is also within the land use plans boundaries. Therefore, it’s called the Atlin-Taku, and the Taku River is representative of that — again, three million hectares.

[1445]

Similarly to Bill 2, it was an initiative to try to come to an agreement over competing resource extraction activities on the land base and competing uses of the land base, as a way to reduce conflict and increase consensus. That land use plan was completed in 2011. I gave the government of the day — this government — credit back in 2011. That was five years ago. I gave them credit for finalizing that plan. It had taken probably around eight years, so it went back quite a ways, to actually get in place. It’s similar to what we see under the Great Bear Rainforest agreement in 2006, and now this Bill 2, this act, ten years later.

The Atlin-Taku land use plan — LUP, as the short form is — took about eight years. The initial four years was the space and time given to the Taku River Tlingit to actually write down and quantify their traditional ecological knowledge — TEK, it’s called.

Similarly, in Bill 2, the Coastal First Nations are supporting this bill. No doubt they’re in support of Bill 2 be-
[ Page 11629 ]
cause their traditional ecological knowledge, which has been 10,000 years in the making, was considered in the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and is considered now under the Great Bear Rainforest Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Again, the Atlin-Taku land use plan that came into effect in 2011 and started eight years earlier…. About the first four years was when the Taku River Tlingit were really able to survey their oral history with elders and quantify and describe the traditional ecological knowledge that needed to be considered, on an equal footing with western scientific knowledge, when decisions were made around the land use plan.

In about 2008, the provincial government came on board in a more significant way with stakeholders. One of the stakeholders was the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. Similarly, in Bill 2, under the Great Bear Rainforest Act, we had different stakeholders coming together, facilitated by government, to try to come up with a consensus that reduces conflict and increases certainty for access and use on the land base.

In the Atlin-Taku plan, the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. came forward and was part of that table too. A lot of the competing interests on the land base…. Just like in Bill 2, where the competing interest on the land base is industrial forestry activity, in the Atlin-Taku land use plan, it was mining.

I’m talking a lot about the Atlin-Taku land use plan in relation to this bill, Bill 2. I’m giving credit to the provincial government for following through on commitments and signing the land use plan off with local First Nations and industry stakeholders in 2011. That was five years ago. Now, we have not seen any significant initiative from the current government when it comes to land use planning.

Again, Bill 2, we have people — who one would think would be at opposite ends of perspective — like Rick Jeffery, from the Coast Forest Products Association, saying Bill 2 is an example of providing certainty, and we have Richard Brooks, the campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Canada, saying it’s an example of hope, to reduce areas that are currently in conflict as we move toward collaboration.

[1450]

Unfortunately, there has been no work on land use planning by this government since the Atlin-Taku land use plan. Instead, the current approach that I’ve witnessed is one-off deals, where industry stakeholders are left to do deal by deal with First Nations, where this government does one-off deals with First Nations instead of a comprehensive approach. I think Bill 2 and the Great Bear Rainforest agreement was a comprehensive approach. That’s what we need more of.

I see my time in this second reading is coming to a close. I will be supporting this act, but what I say is that we need more encouragement for land use plans in this province in order to create that certainty, to create that consensus and to create a reduction in conflict. I haven’t seen that in recent years from this government.

I think that is something that will bode well for all users of the land base, First Nations and non–First Nations alike. Rather than having just one-off agreements and one-off deals, we should be looking at these kinds of comprehensive agreements on land use and sharing the land base, like the Great Bear Rainforest agreement was in 2006, which led to Bill 2, this act.

D. Routley: I rise to speak to Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. As previous speakers have indicated, the NDP, the official opposition, will be supporting this bill. We feel proud as British Columbians of a consensus-based agreement around probably the most contentious industrial issue that British Columbia has faced over many, many decades.

We feel pride in having been a part of the beginning of this process and having implemented many of the tools that were necessary for this agreement to finally be formalized today. Although this agreement was concluded ten years ago, it is only now, today, being formalized in legislation.

A little bit of a refresher on the Great Bear Rainforest. It’s an area of mostly undisturbed temperate rainforest that stretches approximately 400 miles, from northern Vancouver Island up to the U.S. Alaska panhandle. It is an area of over three million hectares of temperate rainforest — that’s almost eight million acres — and 1.6 million acres of that will remain active logging areas. This huge area represents one-quarter of the world’s intact temperate rainforests.

This is a contribution from British Columbia to the global effort to stem climate change. It is also a recognition of the heritage that we have been blessed to inherit, firstly from the First Nations who have cooperated and acted in the best of faith in negotiation with logging companies, with the B.C. government, with the many non-governmental organizations, the environmental organizations that have a stake or involvement in this area.

It represents something that I think is significant in many ways. Now 15 percent of the Great Bear Rainforest will remain active logging areas. That includes 550,000 hectares of land, so it’s going to be a very significant economic contributor as well. There were 26 First Nations involved in this negotiation — absolutely a wonderful effort on their part.

In British Columbia, the forests are such an integral part of our history, economically and socially. In my own life, my work life in early days, working in this province, was all related to the forest industry — planting trees, logging, working in sawmills, building houses.

[1455]

The wood of the province has been an important part of my life and a crucial part of the B.C. economy. It re-
[ Page 11630 ]
mains the number one export value in British Columbia. Over $12½ billion last year of forest-related products were exported. It remains such a vital element of our economic well-being.

But the history of it is a source of great conflict. We have seen the war in the woods in the ’90s. It was reconciled by the declaration of protected areas, the declaration that B.C. would see 12 percent of its land base made into parks. That was another example of negotiation between environmental groups, industry and government in this province that led to a peace that allowed the industry to continue.

The industry. It was a source of such great pride and strength in this province, but it had been dragged into a place of conflict and negativity. The pride that British Columbians felt who were loggers and forest workers was very much damaged by a sense that they weren’t acting in the best interests of the province. We now know, with a more mature view of this entire issue, that that is as far from the case as it possibly could be.

Forestry is our only natural resource industry that is absolutely renewable. It is the ultimate renewable industry. Managed properly, our healthy forests are the lungs of the planet and the heart of our thriving economy. This is something that we’ve, I think, always recognized as British Columbians. But we’ve been cast into periods of conflict and unwillingness to sit at the same table with each other on this issue for a very long time.

What I think is significant is that this agreement represents an opportunity to build a pattern for the future in negotiations around the forest industry and around protection of habitat and protection of endangered species.

There are, obviously, some issues that will remain contentious around this subject but also around this issue: the determination of what areas can be logged, what areas can’t be logged, will be logged or won’t be logged. That will continue to be an ongoing negotiation that, I’m sure, will have its difficult points and stressful moments.

The allowable activities on the land base will be decided case by case, through eco-based management processes that have been agreed upon by all sides. The many different values of the forest will be respected: the ecotourism values, the bear-viewing values, kayaking opportunities — these activities on the land base that are non-impactful and, in fact, create a greater sense of connection to our forest land base and show the world exactly how beautiful and how strong the natural backbone of our province is.

After a long period of unwillingness to sit at the same table, a mistrust had developed, and that mistrust, in this case, has been overcome by negotiation and years and years of relationship-building that has respected the historical legacy of the province — both First Nations legacy and the forest industry legacy of the province, the communities that were built on this resource industry. They are being recognized and protected.

We will see some logging in these designated management areas. It will be selective logging. Light logging techniques will be used, and all parties will have input into exactly how those things are achieved and carried out.

[1500]

One of the issues that is also impacted by this agreement is that the habitat of many endangered species will now be protected. One of the things that this side of the House has pushed for, for some years now, through private members’ legislation and continued calls to government, is the enactment of endangered species legislation. That is an accompanying piece to this agreement that we have great hope will eventually be materialized, if not by this government, certainly by ours when we are elected.

We recognize that endangered species legislation must include as one of its primary elements the protection of habitat. In fact, when we recognize that such a complex land base has many different elements, some more sensitive than others, some more resilient than others, and more available to industry without great impact…. As we understand this, we can have a much more mature and thoughtful debate around these issues in British Columbia. It would no longer have to be one or the other. It no longer has to be a war between the forest industry and environmentalists. We should all be on the same page. It is the most environmentally renewable industry on the planet, and it is the strongest industry in our province.

I think such an unfortunate history has developed, where the interests of working British Columbians have been pitted against the interests of every British Columbian that cares about the environment. I think that was one of the most unfortunate periods of our province. It began, in fact, at the beginning of the province, when you look at the forest management issues, even of the day of B.C. entering Confederation. Concerns around log exports and other issues that impact the environment were strongly debated even at that time.

We come from a history, in the province, of a sense of inextinguishable resources, unending resources. You can imagine that when these communities were developing more than 100 years ago, they looked at the mountains of this province and the valleys and the carpets and endless expanse of timber and thought that no matter what we did, we could never run out. In fact, over the years, it became more and more clear and evident that that was indeed not the case. We can do harm to this environment that will take many, many generations to recover from.

Over the years, I think we’ve all come to recognize that we need to invest in our land base, to restore the land base, to invest heavily in planting trees and taking care of the land base. Our side of the House has significant issues and differences between the government side of the House on how that should be done and how much investment should be made in renewal of forests. Those things are points of debate that will continue.
[ Page 11631 ]

All of those potential sources of conflict are positively impacted by the positive nature of this agreement. I think British Columbia owes it to our natural history, our biodiversity, our role on the globe environmentally. We owe it to protect our environment. We owe it to our economy to harvest responsibly, to capitalize the natural resources of our province, but in a way that is sustainable and renewable.

[1505]

This agreement begins to point the way, at least, to mechanisms where we can discuss, where we can come to agreement, and through consensus, arrive at a place where there is not only protection for the environment but also certainty for industry operating in these regions, operating in these natural resource sectors. That allows us to…. Instead of arguing over this zero-sum game of either-or, we can begin to have a conversation about how much and where and when — and respect all the values that are at play.

This is a significant turning point. It began in the 1990s with the land use planning process. The land and resource management plans that were brought in and established by the NDP government of the ’90s. This process led to several agreements and, in fact, form the foundation of this agreement.

I think we all need to recognize that the people at the table, over these many decades, have shifted. Governments have changed. Leadership in First Nations has changed. Leadership in the forest industry has changed. Corporate roles in the forest industry have changed. And yet, still, over all this time, we’ve managed to come to some kind of agreement — against, perhaps, all odds.

We’re proud that this achievement has been realized here. But we need to remember that so much credit will go to so many unrecognized faces. Leadership in those labour organizations, unions. Leadership in government. Leadership in First Nations. Leadership in environmental organizations. So many people have contributed to this agreement who will never really be adequately recognized. I think as parliamentarians here we owe it to remind ourselves of the goodwill that has been extended by so many British Columbians to help realize this goal.

I would like to personally pay my respect and tribute to those people and recognize that they have contributed to a significant development of our province — not just an economic development but a social, environmental and natural justice accomplishment.

One of the things that we have become increasingly aware of is the human impact on the environment as represented by climate and through climate change. We can see in B.C. the effects of climate change in the pine beetle epidemic, the spruce beetle and the challenges that our salmon habitat and salmon fisheries face.

Now we recognize, also, that our healthy forests are more than just simply protected natural areas but also play a significant role as carbon sinks, absorbing carbon from an atmosphere increasingly impacted by carbon increases. What we’re doing is providing a protection, a cushion, a sink, for carbon.

We should never underestimate the global significance of the role we can play in the fight against climate change — not simply by the things that we do in our daily lives in managing our energy use and managing our emissions and controlling those but also protecting our forests so that we allow our habitat to play its natural role in mitigating and reducing the impacts of climate change.

As we go forward, of course we need to recognize that all of these issues have been such an unfortunate source of conflict in the province, and even confrontation. We still see such standoffs and clashes in other areas where such a consensus-based approach hasn’t been prevalent but could be very fruitful.

[1510]

When we look at the challenges we face even here on Vancouver Island with the logging of old-growth timber and the protection of habitat, the challenge of raw log exports versus value-added industry…. All of these things will benefit from a similar consensus-based approach. I would encourage government and industry and labour and environmentalists to extend the same kind of goodwill and positive energy to that struggle to find a solution for those issues.

At the same time that we speak of the significance of this agreement, we need to remember that we are not starting on a blank page. We have significant issues still to deal with in terms of public policy that impact our environment. At the same time that the government claims to be green leaders of the world because of this agreement, they pursue non-renewable energy projects without adequate consideration for the emissions and the impact of those.

Yes, we need to congratulate everyone involved in reaching this agreement. But also yes, we need to remind ourselves that we have a long way to go. I’m thinking right now of the legislation controlling the emissions of the potential LNG industry where, you know, we also congratulated ourselves, at least the government did, and promised the cleanest LNG industry on the planet but then excluded 70 to 80 percent of the emissions in that process.

We can’t simply have the hubris or even arrogance to claim such stupendous accomplishment without also acknowledging our failure and the challenges that remain. We need to recognize that we in this province have legislated climate change targets, carbon emission targets, and at this point, we have no hope of reaching those, particularly if the current government’s plans for non-renewable energy industries realize any fraction of the promise that they’ve made.

That does not diminish this accomplishment. This accomplishment by itself does not elevate us away from those failures, but those failures do not really reduce the significance of this agreement either. We must remind
[ Page 11632 ]
ourselves and express some degree of humility, even while we congratulate ourselves for this consensus. Even as both sides of the House agree, we need to recognize the challenges that remain.

We all need to recognize that what was done in the past is probably no longer acceptable in so many ways. We look at the practices of industry on the land base. The demands for change have been answered with environmental regulations and efforts by industry to reduce its impact. Pulp mills in my constituency use 90 percent less energy and water than they did a couple of decades ago. That’s a significant gain in reducing their impact. In so many ways, what we did before is no longer acceptable.

We can all look back at the history of these issues, including this side of the House in our time in government. We have to acknowledge that there were things that we should have done and didn’t do, that we perhaps shouldn’t have done and did do, that challenges remain, that we all need to learn and we all need to apply the best of goodwill and the best of the energy of British Columbia to reform the way we do business, to reform the way we manage relationships, to reform the way we deal with indigenous rights and recognize that our past, while it is a proud history, is also marked by failure.

[1515]

Even today, when we look at some of the issues that are happening in our province that are impacting our environment, we need to recognize that we continue to fail and fall down in our obligation to protect the environment, to develop our economy, and to do all of that in a sustainable way — not simply sustainable in terms of environment or resources but also in a sustainable way in terms of social and natural justice.

When we reach these agreements, if we have forgotten to pay respect and involve and engage and partner with indigenous peoples, then we have failed. If we reach these agreements and fail to recognize the social impacts of rural resource communities in British Columbia, then we will have failed. I think that is what sets this apart — that it is much more of a balance of environment, economy and social justice.

This is a template that we should strive to apply to all of the challenges in this province. It is something that was a long time coming, which took several decades to complete, which was in fact agreed to ten years ago and that is now being enshrined in legislation. We need to thank all of the people involved for what they’ve done.

This act will be reviewed in ten years, in 2026, and hopefully, through all these processes of negotiation and environmentally and culturally sensitive management of this area, that review in 2026 will be one that says that this was a good foundation, that we have pursued these values and extended them to other challenges in this province and that we’ll recognize what challenges and difficulties and failings we have yet to encounter, even inside this agreement and inside this land base.

If we are not willing to examine our actions not only with a view to promote our success but also to squarely face our failure to acknowledge the challenges that we have and we have created for ourselves, if we refuse to recognize our own role when we do not meet the standard of these values that are represented here, if we are not prepared to acknowledge fault, then we will have failed ourselves, this agreement and our province. This political battleground is an important struggle between different points of view, different world views, when it comes to economy and justice and social issues.

This is the place where these contentions are brought and fought. Mr. George MacMinn, who was Clerk or Deputy Clerk of this House for over 52 years, once said something to a student that I brought here on job-shadowing. He said that question period is a place very different from the community where we raise our children to work together in a civil way, to respect each other and to collaborate. That is indeed what we should try to achieve here.

There’s also an important role for this place in managing conflict. He said that there are anger and passion in this chamber so that there isn’t blood on the streets, so that when people have these issues and a complaint or grievance against their government and a sense that justice hasn’t been achieved, this is the place where we release that pressure and take action, hopefully, to resolve those kinds of issues.

[1520]

There will always be that political and partisan conflict here, but it has an important, positive role. People often complain of it, but it’s like complaining that someone else is having an argument. If you are in an argument, then it’s a very important thing; to someone else, not so much.

This will continue to be a place of contention and conflict, inside this chamber, in a healthy way. At the same time, when it results in agreements that are admirable and public policy that is positive, then we need to celebrate that and recognize that. I’ve spent a lot of time recognizing what I see as the failures of this government. So perhaps it’s refreshing to be able to say that I congratulate the government on its current role in a long-standing process, and I will be very proud to support this bill when it comes to vote.

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

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m very pleased to stand and close debate on the bill. I certainly appreciate all of the support for the bill from all members, both sides of the House, who’ve spoken to the bill and indicated their recognition and their support of the significant achievement that we have with this agreement and with this legislation.

Some of the comments and some of the submissions, I think, were a little bit of revisionist history. It was enjoy-
[ Page 11633 ]
able listening to some. I was trying to think, in my closing comments, how I might bring Father Pandosy into the closing here and my family’s journey into the Okanagan in the 1890s shortly after Father Pandosy came to the Okanagan. I don’t think they came through the Great Bear Rainforest to get there, over Mount Waddington or up that way. It was a stretch to try and figure out how to get that into the closing comments, so I won’t even try to revise history and do that.

This is a significant achievement. I just want to make a couple of comments. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said: “Don’t take too much credit for this.” We certainly don’t. I don’t want to diminish at all the very, very significant contributions of everybody who has been involved in this from the beginning and all the way through the process — the environmental organizations, the industry and the First Nations that have all been part of it.

The member said that we need to do that because we weren’t at the table. That’s not quite correct. In this closing part of this agreement, government was very much at the table. The completion of the process and the human well-being component of it with First Nations were dealt with on a government-to-government basis. Our government, our side of the Legislature here, played a very, very important role in completing that human well-being component of the agreement that brought us to this day, to where we are here today with the agreement and the legislation.

The members who’ve made comments have acknowledged the leadership of very, very many people who have contributed to this. From the industry — Rick Jeffery and Rick Slaco. From the environmental organizations — Valerie Langer, Jody Holmes, Jens Wieting and Eduardo Sousa. The First Nations leadership that have contributed so much — Dallas Smith; Art Sterritt; Marilyn Slett; and with the Coastal First Nations, Garry Wouters. I acknowledge the contribution of a number of people within our ministry who played a very significant role — Rory Annett, Craig Sutherland, Dorthe Jakobsen.

[1525]

There was one name that wasn’t mentioned, and I just want to bring that into the record. My deputy, Tim Sheldan, needs recognition and needs to be acknowledged on the very important role that he played in the final stages of the agreements, the agreements with First Nations and all the work that got us to that final agreement and to be able to bring the legislation forward. So I just want to acknowledge that and bring that into the record.

There was also some commentary around — I’m not sure of the exact wording — that this is an incredible but unlikely outcome. I think there were doubters out there as to whether we could actually get this done. I’m optimistic and try to stay positive in all this.

I recognize the timelines that it took and that this was a long process. I can recall many, many late-night conversations and calls with key principals in this, with discussions, with meetings around “are you going to be able to get this done?” and worries, as timelines slipped somewhat as we were going through the process. We would indicate that we think we can get it done by this time. Then that would slip a little bit, because it was a very complex set of negotiations and agreements.

I can recall being on a teleconference with the international community, telling them: “We will achieve this. We will get it done. Just be patient. We’ll get there.” To the credit of everybody, they stayed at the table. As I said, timelines slipped a little bit. But everybody stayed there, and here we are. We’re in the Legislature with the legislation, with the agreement to be able to complete the process.

I have listened carefully to all of the submissions. I recognize some of the comments and questions that have been raised that we’ll be dealing with in committee stage. I look forward to those discussions because this legislation is part of it. There are elements that I know form part of the commentary that members opposite will want to address during the committee stage. I look forward to doing that when we get to committee stage.

Mostly, I’m really pleased to see the support for the legislation. I think we all recognize the meaning, the significance, the historical nature of this agreement and the legislation. I’m proud, as others have said, to be in the Legislature having this debate, coming to this stage of this long history.

It is, and will continue to be, something to celebrate. We all need to recognize and celebrate collectively on this with all of the people who’ve contributed to this over all of that period of time. I’ll look forward to the committee stage. I’ll look forward to the completion of the process.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the act be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act.

BILL 4 — FIRE SAFETY ACT

Hon. T. Stone: I want to start off by thanking the opposition.

Actually, I guess I have to move that the bill be now read a second time — do that first.
[ Page 11634 ]

I’d like to start off by thanking the Opposition House Leader for his indulgence here. I’m just going to speak for literally a minute. Then I’m going to cede my spot to the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness.

[1530]

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to work with the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness. We’re the only province in the country that actually has not one but two ministers who work very closely, hand in hand, to do all that we can to make sure that the province is as best prepared as possible for the variety of different types of emergencies that can beset our province.

The new Fire Safety Act aims to modernize fire safety regulations here in British Columbia. As the son of a firefighter myself — and a fire investigator with the office of the fire commissioner — I’m very proud of the changes that we are proposing here through this legislation.

In fact, this is a piece of legislation that has not seen a substantial revision since 1979. It will improve fire code compliance monitoring, enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections, establish an administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues and shift to more of a risk-based approach for compliance monitoring in the municipalities.

I’m going to leave my comments there. I will now take my seat. I look forward to my colleague the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness, who is doing a terrific job on all of our behalf to ensure that British Columbians are as prepared as possible.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Fire Safety Act.

In my mandate letter, the Premier noted the importance of ensuring that the citizens of our province and other governments, local and otherwise, are prepared for emergencies and disasters. Part of my role as Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness is to work with the office of the fire commissioner.

Whether it’s improving the fire safety of British Columbians or helping to improve the regulatory framework they work in, currently represented by the Fire Services Act, this legislation really hasn’t seen substantial updates since the late 1970s. The safety of all British Columbians is something extremely important to us on both sides of the House. Our government wants to modernize the regulatory framework for fire safety in this province.

The new act will replace the existing Fire Services Act and will include changes that will improve the fire code compliance monitoring by making it risk-based. It will enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections, investigations and evacuations, and it will establish an out-of-court administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues in a more timely and effective manner.

Why do we need this legislation? Well, during consultations with a number of key stakeholder groups across the province, we heard about the importance of proposing these changes. As was noted off the top, the Fire Services Act has not seen any substantial update or change since 1979, and in the 3½ decades since, the nature of fire safety and prevention has changed substantially.

Naturally, as part of our responsibilities, we need to look at modernizing the regulatory framework for fire safety in British Columbia. Now, that was heard loud and clear as we sought the input and guidance of the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Local Government Management Association of B.C., the B.C. Fire Training Officers Association, the Fire Prevention Officers Association of B.C., the Volunteer Firefighters Association of B.C., the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association and, finally, the B.C. Wildfire Service.

Through our most recent consultations and work done in considering legislative changes in the years leading up to the tabling of this new Fire Safety Act, we are putting forward provisions that will benefit our province in a piece of legislation that would replace the Fire Services Act and, ultimately, that will help to modernize the legislation and improve fire safety throughout the province.

How does this work, and what do the changes actually mean? We are improving fire code compliance monitoring of public buildings by making the key change of replacing the current requirement for municipalities to use a regular system of inspections of public buildings with a new risk-based compliance monitoring model. This is a model where condition and use of the buildings will determine the level and the frequency of inspections.

The proposed compliance monitoring model will also provide flexibility by providing for the ability to allow the use of self-assessment in place of inspections for low-risk public buildings, with a lens towards a more effective use of local government resources, leading to an improved culture of safety and preparedness.

[1535]

It would enable local authorities to directly manage fire safety resources by authorizing them to appoint qualified fire inspectors and investigators. This would more appropriately place the control of such appointments in the hands of those who know their communities best. It would replace the current model whereby local governments request that the provincial fire commissioner make these appointments, thus reducing a layer of red tape in the process.

The new Fire Safety Act would also provide the necessary authority for effective inspections and investigations. This would include the right to enter onto or into property to make examinations, to collect evidence, to conduct tests, to require production of documents, to obtain and inspect under warrant and to issue orders pursuant
[ Page 11635 ]
to the act. Local authorities and their fire chiefs will also have the authority to direct evacuations where a fire hazard poses immediate or serious threats to life.

Another proposed change under this legislation would be to make enforcement under the act more timely and effective. To accomplish this, we propose establishing an administrative penalty scheme as a primary way of ensuring compliance with the act. Under the proposed administrative enforcement model, the fire commissioner will have authority to impose administrative penalties for non-compliance with the orders made under the act. The current legislation only provides for in-court prosecutions of offences, which is generally a time-consuming and ineffective instrument of enforcement.

In closing, I want to emphasize that these amendments serve to improve fire safety in British Columbia. The legislation will help us to modernize the regulatory framework for fire safety in the province. I’m pleased to support the second reading of the Fire Safety Act, Bill 4.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and to support Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act. It is, as the minister has stated, an important piece of legislation. It replaces the existing Fire Services Act, which has basically been in place since 1979. This is a significant and important update, and it makes some important and significant changes.

I think the best way to describe those changes is…. In essence, what is happening is we are moving from a standardized system of inspection done by the fire commissioner to one of a risk-based assessment done at the local level by local municipalities. At the same time, the commissioner will continue to set the standards that are required. The inspections will be carried out by inspectors who will be appointed by local government and who meet standards set by the commissioner. No longer will it be that municipalities have no say in the appointment of the inspectors, and that’s an important improvement.

There are a number of issues we are concerned about that we want clarification on and that we will deal with in committee stage. We are going to be supporting this legislation.

I want to talk for a minute about why it’s important that we’re moving to a risk-based assessment system from the current more standardized approach. The clue to that is in the minister’s remarks about the act last being updated in 1979. The reality is that the world has changed significantly since 1979 in terms of construction and construction materials, the types of materials used, the technology that is used in building, our understanding of the nature of risk in terms of its relationship to fire. I think just the need to recognize that….

You may have a building that is solid, up to code. Its use has no inherent risk in terms of catching fire, for example. It’s inspected once a year. You may have another building that has multiple uses, for example, that may have different types of activities taking place that may involve the use of hazardous materials, for example. It may have been built at a significantly different time than a building next door that is completely different, and it is only inspected on an annual basis, for example.

[1540]

The reality is that the type of use, the types of materials, the type of activity that’s going on there…. Really, common sense and a risk assessment would say: “You know what? That particular building should be inspected on a more regular basis than one that has very little likelihood of being involved in a fire.” From that perspective alone, this makes eminent sense.

The development of a risk-based assessment is something that experts in the industry have been advocating for a significant amount of time. That’s a key part of how this legislation was based. It was on work that has been done in some of our institutions. I just want to get on the record the specific…. The University of the Fraser Valley — I just want to give them credit for their Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research. They did a number of studies that recommended a switch to a risk-based assessment, and I think it’s important that we acknowledge that that is a key part of the foundation.

The legislation itself has been…. An important amount of consultation has taken place. The Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia is in support of the legislation and, importantly, UBCM.

When this was first being developed, the public policy aspect work was being done, there were questions raised by UBCM, concerns about UBCM on a number of fronts. One of them, for example, was: was this going to be an example of downloading to local government that they were going to be concerned about? The fact that they are the ones who are going to be able to appoint the inspectors addressed that key concern around UBCM’s position on the legislation.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities also raised issues around regional districts, particularly rural regional districts and their ability to actually absorb what was being done and the costs associated with it. The bill acknowledges…. The version we have here is clearly a result of having listened to what the Union of B.C. Municipalities have had to say.

Those rural regional districts are not part of this, but there will still be questions around that. In the volunteer fire departments, for example, there are still issues around them being able to meet the training standards. So we’ll be having questions to the minister in terms of how they intend to address that issue or if they see that it is a significant problem that needs to be dealt with.

Another important aspect of the bill is the issue around administrative penalties, which I think is an important improvement. Currently, under the existing legislation, if there is an issue, the only way to pursue it is through the courts. That is often time-consuming and expensive, and it’s not the most efficient use of resources.
[ Page 11636 ]

A system of administrative penalties and an administrative review in order to deal with issues that arise, I think, is an important step forward. We will be exploring those in committee stage to see how they will work, how they will be developed, how they’re going to be implemented and, if there’s a regulatory framework that’s required, when that regulatory framework will be implemented. Has the work already been done on that?

At the same time, because there are times when the administrative review system did not necessarily meet the needs of either party in a dispute, it’s also important to note that the ability to access the court system in terms of resolving disputes is also still available. Again, that is a significant improvement.

With that, I don’t have too much further to say, other than that we fully support this particular piece of legislation. We look forward to discussing it and raising some of the issues in committee stage. I know there are other members of this House who have comments to make on the bill as well.

With that, I’ll just let the minister know we’ll be supporting the bill, and there will be some questions and discussion at the committee stage.

[1545]

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I’m pleased to rise in support of Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act. This is legislation that will update the act, which hasn’t seen any major updates for 37 years. This act repeals and replaces the previous Fire Services Act. Public safety of all British Columbians is a priority of this government, and that’s why we are making these updates.

The goal of this new act is to modernize the legislation and make improvements to help ensure the safety of British Columbians. It takes into account a full range of feedback that we have received through an extensive consultation process, including ideas that were generated in previous efforts to update the legislation. The improvements made to the inspection standards and administrative penalties in this bill will save time, save money and, most importantly, protect human life.

This act changes the fire code compliance monitoring by making it more risk-based. That means that riskier public buildings would have a higher standard in terms of their compliance monitoring compared to less risky buildings. For example, a riskier facility such as an oil refinery would have a higher standard compared to less risky buildings such as an office building.

The condition and use of buildings will determine the level and frequency of inspections, and this will lead to a better use of resources. The new act will enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections, investigations and evacuations.

The office of the fire commissioner is a leader in fire safety awareness and prevention in British Columbia. The office offers progressive advice about fire safety, innovative recommendations about fire prevention, and collaborative communications with fire services in our province. The office liaisons between the provincial government and the fire service provide advice on all fire safety and prevention matters. As well, the office reviews and monitors a broad scope of fire safety issues throughout the province.

To ensure that consistent advice and recommendations are provided to the public to increase fire safety awareness, we engaged in extensive consultation with various stakeholder groups and have received a full range of feedback for this legislation. Our firefighters are the ones on the ground and are the best people to provide input to the best way to improve safety.

Our local governments understand the unique circumstances in their communities. They know which buildings are considered riskier, and through consultation, we ask: “What do you need to quickly take steps to mitigate imminent danger or risk?” This act will empower local authorities to make decisions to quickly take steps and mitigate any imminent risk to citizens and firefighters.

These changes will make both citizens and firefighters safer. The changes will grant local authorities the powers that the province already has, under the Fire Services Act, to evacuate in immediate danger or if a serious threat to life or property exists. Some communities have previously passed bylaws to enable such action.

This update will follow those precedents by making this power consistent throughout the province. For example, the changes would grant local authorities the power to close buildings for preventative reasons where its continued use presents serious danger to life and/or property.

Through the consultation process, we listened to the concerns of our stakeholders. Regional districts expressed concerns around the potential increase in responsibility. We decided to proceed with the legislative changes put forth but continue to explore regional district changes. It is important that municipalities are able to take action on imminent threats. We want our citizens and firefighters to be safe.

I also want to mention that non-municipalities still retain the ability to do inspections. As well, it is important to note that Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada supports fire protection for First Nations reserves and that the Fire Safety Act does not apply to these lands.

[1550]

This act also establishes an administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues in a more timely and effective manner. These amendments will create a manageable and streamlined out-of-court enforcement system with administrative penalties that will improve compliance. This helps remove cases from the busy court system. It also enhances the opportunity to achieve compliance through a more expedient and manageable system.
[ Page 11637 ]

It is important to have an effective and timely enforcement system to ensure that noncompliance is corrected, in the interests of public safety. We don’t want issues to be tied up when they can be dealt with quicker, and thus, unsafe conditions will not be allowed to continue for an unreasonable amount of time.

Again, I’m pleased to speak in favour of this legislation. It’s legislation that will help improve safety for both the people of British Columbia and our firefighters, who, we all know, work so hard to keep us safe.

D. Donaldson: I rise to take my spot in second reading debate of Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act. I acknowledge that this Bill 4 will be replacing the Fire Services Act, which hasn’t had any substantial updates since 1979, so I believe it’s obvious that updates are required.

This act, by repealing and replacing the Fire Services Act, will end up requiring municipalities to establish a risk-based compliance monitoring system of fire safety inspections, among other things.

I want to address my comments in second reading debate to an area that I think we need more exploration on during this debate and during the committee stage, and that is volunteer fire departments. I’ve lived in B.C. close to 40 years now, and the only communities I’ve lived in are communities with volunteer fire departments.

It’s significant in rural areas of the province — the volunteer effort that goes into these organizations, the many friends I’ve had who’ve been on the volunteer fire departments and the incredible work they do. They put in a heck of a lot of time not only training but also maintaining the equipment and just being there when needed. I think that this bill has some implications on that. I want to explore that in second reading debate, hopefully in the comments from the minister closing the debate and also in committee stage.

In Stikine, for instance, which takes up a large chunk of the northwest part of the province — it’s the largest constituency, geographically, in the province — there is one paid firefighter, who is the chief of the Smithers fire department. The rest of the fire department there is volunteer. Telkwa has a volunteer fire department. Hazelton has a volunteer fire department. New Hazelton, South Hazelton, Stewart — these are all volunteer fire departments.

The fire coverage we do get is based on people who have a real strong sense of community and, as I say, put in a lot of hours in training and in maintaining and creating and supporting the volunteer fire department. There are fundraisers constantly just to try to keep the turnout gear in the best of shape it can possibly be, and other purchases of more modern equipment, and also to send people on training.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities, in response to this bill, said that volunteer fire departments are concerned they will not be able to afford to meet the higher standards set by the fire commissioner, due to their limited budgets. The result could be a loss of already limited service for rural areas.

[1555]

It’s not so much that people don’t want an improvement and an update in fire standards. Of course they do, and this risk-based approach is addressing that. But how are the increased potential costs going to be paid for by volunteer fire departments, who already are having an extremely hard time getting people to continually become volunteers? It becomes such an onerous task for them.

We have different areas of the bill that are of concern, from that aspect. For instance, the standards that are going to be required now for inspectors. How are those going to be enforced, as far as training goes, by volunteer fire departments? There’s going to be a risk analysis conducted in accordance with the regulations, so there’s likely going to have to be increased training around these new risk analysis regulations. Again, the people I know that are part of volunteer fire departments are amazing. They come quickly when they can, and oftentimes they’re there first, before anybody else.

I’ve witnessed in my constituency, and in Hazelton, especially, the volunteers do such an amazing job. That’s because they’ve been able to acquire some training. Now we know, through this bill, there’s probably going to be more training required. I think about…. In Hazelton, at least, they’re able to partner with some of the First Nations communities that are chock-a-block with Hazelton — for instance, Gitanmaax, where federal dollars are available for training purposes. When training occurs, then the volunteers from both fire departments are able to take it. But a lot of communities in Stikine and in rural areas aren’t able to do that because the reserve communities aren’t as close as they are in parts of Stikine.

Again, the recognition from the government around regional districts was addressed before this bill was drafted — or at least as this bill was being drafted. The risk-based approach for compli-
[ Page 11638 ]
ance monitoring is not going to be applied to regional districts.

You know, I have a regional district — two, actually — in my constituency. The volunteer fire department in Dease Lake, for instance, will be happy to know that. I also have a community, Atlin, that has a volunteer fire department. I’ve visited their fire hall several times. They have a lot of needs for training dollars, but they’re not part of a regional district, and they’re not a municipality. They’re part of an improvement district, Atlin community improvement district.

There are improvement districts around the province. From what I’ve seen in the bill, the risk-based approach for compliance monitoring seems to be silent on improvement districts. I’ll be looking forward to hearing more about that from the minister on whether volunteer fire departments and improvement districts will be responsible for the risk-based approach for compliance monitoring, because regional districts have been exempted from that aspect as well.

Another part of this bill that I’d like to hear more about is volunteer fire departments and municipalities, which will now, for sure, come under Bill 4 and under the new standards: those municipalities — small ones, like Hazelton, for instance — that have response agreements with communities in regional districts.

[1600]

For instance, and this is where I live…. I live in Two Mile, which is in the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine. You might guess, by the name that it’s two miles from Hazelton. We, in Two Mile, under a referendum a few years back approved, and so did Hazelton, that the Hazelton volunteer fire department responds to fires in Two Mile. That went on our property taxes, and it worked out well because, for most, the decrease in fire insurance was more than what the increase was on our property taxes.

Again, I’d like to hear from the minister, either in response to second reading or during committee stage: what implications does this bill have on those kinds of agreements?

Hazelton is going to be required to shift to a risk-based approach for compliance monitoring under the new Fire Safety Act, but their volunteer fire department is providing service to a community in a regional district that isn’t going to be required to shift to this risk-based approach for compliance monitoring.

Again, what are the implications of that? Does that mean that we’ll potentially see less service in areas such as regional district communities that have these kinds of response agreements with municipalities? Perhaps the cost for the volunteer fire departments in these municipalities is going to be too high to actually continue with these coverage agreements with unincorporated communities in regional districts — the kind of agreements that exist now.

Those are important questions, obviously, because people want to have that comfort that a volunteer fire department is going to come, when needed, under these coverage agreements.

One other aspect that I want to touch on in this second reading debate…. This, perhaps, could be something that the minister can respond positively to, because it addresses the concerns of volunteer fire departments that are really, really stretched for financial resources for training and the potential increased cost that could apply under Bill 4. That is the tax revenue generated from the 4.4 percent tax paid by insurance companies on property insurance premiums.

This was a topic that has been brought up before at Union of B.C. Municipalities. It relates to this bill, Bill 4, because the implications of Bill 4, which we’ll be exploring, on volunteer fire departments could be increased cost implications. That could lead, as UBCM says, to a decrease in service, and I’ve outlined where that could happen.

The issue of how to pay for those increased training costs that could arise from Bill 4 is before us, and that’s this 4.4 percent tax paid by insurance companies on property insurance premiums. It goes into general revenue right now.

Many times UBCM has passed resolutions asking the provincial government to redirect the insurance premium tax revenue towards community fire services. This is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, this tax revenue, and it disappears into general revenue. A fraction of it — a small fraction — comes back to the fire commissioner’s office.

For instance — and this was a while ago, so the numbers are obviously higher — in 2003-04, there was a resolution from Dawson Creek that came to UBCM. It talked about…. The revenue collected under the fire insurance tax premiums was $300 million, but only $2.3 million of that went back to the fire commissioner’s office. So a pretty big disparity there.

[1605]

What volunteer fire departments are saying is: redirect that fire insurance tax premium totally back into community fire departments and community fire services, such as volunteer fire services. Then there’ll be less of an issue with the cost of new standards, perhaps, outlined under Bill 4 requiring additional training.

A lot of this training happens at the Justice Institute. You have the example of a small town like Hazelton or Telkwa having to send their volunteer firefighters to training at the Justice Institute down in the Lower Mainland. Those are huge costs. If the new requirements outlined in Bill 4 result in the need for more training, and then that training occurs in a place like the Justice Institute, then of course there are going to be some significant costs for volunteer fire departments and those small municipalities.

One way of addressing that is to redirect the 4.4 percent tax paid as the fire insurance tax premiums directly back into the volunteer fire departments. The response, so far, from government is that the Ministry of Finance says it does not believe it would be appropriate to direct the tax to municipalities to fund local firefighting. I think that most volunteer firefighters in this province would disagree with that approach. That’s a suggestion and something the minister can address — and perhaps lobby her colleagues, especially the Minister of Finance, to reverse that position.

It would make a world of difference for the volunteer fire departments in rural areas and small communities. We’ve got to emphasize: these are volunteers. They shouldn’t be expected to pay for training on their own dime. They’re doing an incredible service. They are putting themselves in danger, often, fighting the fires in the small communities. It’s something that they want to do, but the training should be covered.
[ Page 11639 ]

It could be covered easily — any additional, new requirements, different standards that will arise from Bill 4. That training for volunteer fire departments could be done through this by ensuring the revenue from the fire insurance tax premium is distributed to community fire services like volunteer fire departments.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I look forward to the response and look forward to exploring more of these topics around the volunteer fire departments during the committee stage of this bill.

Hon. M. Morris: This legislation is long overdue. The things that it addresses are things that were near and dear to me over my years as a police officer in many remote areas of the province, including Hazelton and many remote communities throughout British Columbia. People were living in accommodations that caused concern for me and my colleagues, emergency services personnel, just with the way some of these small cabins were constructed: one single entrance in, one way out only, no emergency exits.

Oftentimes all kinds of things were piled around the single heat source in the building. Sometimes the chimneys were constructed in such a fashion that every time the chimney would get hot, the roof structure around the chimney would catch fire. Even though we would implore some of these folks to address the deficiencies that we used to see, things never happened.

What made it even worse was when we would get called to the scene of a fire and find that somebody had lost their life in the same building that we were pointing out deficiencies maybe a year or so earlier on. Really, there was no way that we could enforce those kinds of things on those folks to get those buildings built again. This legislation will help us overall improve conditions throughout British Columbia so that it’s a safe environment for everyone, the folks that live across this great province of ours.

I’ve heard the member opposite, and there’s concern over increased costs. For everything we do in today’s world, there’s a cost assigned to it.

[1610]

The increased training requirements that we have for the volunteer members that work in every volunteer fire department right across this province — the standards are pretty high. We need those high standards to keep these men and women safe when they go into some of these remote environments to put these fires out. They’re dealing with a lot of different chemicals, a lot of different substances out there that we have to be wary of.

One of the major factors that was cropping up toward my latter years as a police officer in remote parts of British Columbia was drug labs and grow ops and those kinds of illegal activities that were taking place in the wilderness. Chemicals all around which nobody really knew what they were, and when something happened — a catastrophe, a fire — we would expect these men and women to go in and deal with it. So the training addresses those types of things.

This legislation will also enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections. They can now go into these buildings and point out the deficiencies that they see, and they can require them to bring them up to standards to make those buildings safer for everybody. If they don’t do that, then there are going to be some administrative powers here so they can, in turn, take action against those individuals and make sure that that work gets done.

It’s a risk-based approach, we know. I certainly know, from past experience…. Sometimes you’re driving for days at a time, from one settlement to another throughout this great province of ours, in the north. It takes a long time to get there and a long time to get back. So it’s a risk-based approach. We’re not going to get to every place.

But it’s something that, if emergency services personnel — a police officer, firefighter, ambulance attendant or somebody from local government — happen to be going into a community, they might take a look around. They might see one or two buildings that are obviously deficient in safety precautions and the way they’re constructed.

It gives them the opportunity to go in and introduce themselves to the occupant and say: “You need to increase the standards here. You need to fix your chimney. You need to ensure that you’ve got a way in, an unobstructed entryway and exit from that particular building in case of a fire.” They can go back and report it to the local fire authorities, whoever has jurisdiction over that particular area. Then they can follow that up with an official visit afterwards, just to make sure that there’s some compliance there.

There were some personal freedom concerns. The recommended change to legislation will grant local authorities the power, which the province already has under the Fire Services Act, to evacuate if imminent danger or serious threat or danger to life or property exists. An example comes to mind in my own riding last summer, where an individual refused to leave his property. There was a forest fire that was threatening the area there, his farm and his worldly belongings. Fire services personnel told him what to expect if that fire got as far as his property. They told him how to protect himself as best he could.

I never talked to the gentleman personally, but I was talking to other fire services personnel afterwards. This gentleman feared for his life. The fire came through there. It was hot. There were embers dropping all over the place. He couldn’t breathe. It was an experience that he never wants to relive again.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Oftentimes, in my role as a police officer, I’ve had the duty to go in and warn people that there’s a forest fire
[ Page 11640 ]
coming. There’s imminent danger coming, and they have to get out of that particular area for their own safety. There was a lot of resistance sometimes. People didn’t want to leave, yet there was no fire suppression equipment in the area to help out.

All of these things are going to ensure public safety. They’re going to ensure that we reduce the number of people who are killed in domestic fires and fires of different structures throughout the province here.

Over the years, there has been a lack of application outside of municipalities with respect to the fire code in buildings. There are small community halls. There are gathering places. There are other public places that community members gather, and they’ve been doing that for decades. That’s where they hold their community dances. That’s where they hold their community bake sales or get together.

[1615]

Oftentimes these structures are far from safe and far from meeting the modern-day fire codes that we have. The argument that we would hear back from them is: “We’ve had this building for 65 years, and we haven’t had a fire here yet. Everybody is safe.”

Everybody runs under the premise that nothing ever will happen, but someday, it could very well happen. This new legislation will give authorities the opportunity to go in and make sure that all these buildings are constructed and maintained in a manner that keeps everybody safe.

As much as good will can be applied, there are oftentimes people who absolutely refuse to comply with any of the requests of the fire marshal or the fire authorities. This act will bring in administrative penalties to give a bit of a lever there and to ensure that the work gets done, at the end of the day. Again, a lot of times, it’s for their own good.

One of the other phenomenon that we see, or that I’ve seen…. I’ve personally witnessed it. In the smaller communities, for many years, you might have an old trapper or somebody that has been raised in that particular rural environment who has built the log cabin or built the structure and lived in it for 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years or more. He passes away, or he’s got health issues and has had to move into a larger centre. Somebody else will take that over.

Oftentimes, it’s people that have never grown up and never lived in that environment before. They come out of a more urbanized environment, where they assume that all these safety precautions are there.

They start their fires in the stove. They have no idea how to control the temperature in the stove. They’ve never heard of chimney fires before, and they put themselves in imminent danger. There have been a lot of fires that have been started inadvertently by people who didn’t really understand how everything worked. That’s another thing that we as officials have to deal with and pay attention to.

I’m certainly in favour of this bill, and I’m looking forward to it passing. I’m looking forward to fire officials finally having the ability to go in and help stabilize some of these homes out there and make them safer for everybody and make sure that if we ever do have a fire, heaven forbid, in some of these remote communities, nobody is killed as a result of that fire.

I think this is a great bill, and I look forward to it passing in the House.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, am in support of this legislation — long overdue. I thank the member opposite for his comments. I think focusing on safety is very important.

One area I would like to share that I hope can be addressed either through this legislation or future legislation, whether it be the fire code, the building code…. It may be something a fire chief or a fire commissioner could address.

It’s the issue that we have in my community in the West End, but it’s also in False Creek. It’s starting to spread throughout the region as we get higher and higher buildings, whether it be in Coquitlam, Surrey or elsewhere. That’s an issue of lockboxes. That’s an issue of access for firefighters, for paramedics, for police.

What is the problem? Well, for most people in this province who live in a single-family home, they may not see this issue, because you go to the door, and that’s the door for the home where you might get called for a police incident, for a potential fire, for something like that, for a heart attack, what have you.

But in the case of many buildings in my community and many highrise buildings — Coal Harbour, in condo towers, in rental buildings — there is very little way to access the unit that you’re calling from.

If the firefighter…. If they receive a call or a dispatch to go to a unit on the 18th floor or fourth floor or whatever floor, they may find that they arrive at the door of the building but that they actually can’t get in. It’s something that adds time. Some firefighters I’ve spoken with have told me that the issue is so bad, in some cases, that they’ve lost buildings. Buildings have gone up in flame because they couldn’t get inside fast enough to deal with the issue. The doors — they’ve had to break through them. That adds time.

[1620]

As you know, time is something you often don’t have in a fire. It’s something you don’t have in a heart attack or a stroke situation. It’s something that a recent study showed people don’t have in apartment or condo towers, suggesting that if you live above the fourth floor, your ability to survive certain kinds of heart attacks decreases simply because of the additional time it takes first responders to get to you.

Something I think we need to see in B.C. — we don’t have it — is mandatory lock boxes in front of apartment and condominium towers. That could also apply to office
[ Page 11641 ]
buildings for after-hours situations. Calgary has a really interesting approach. I believe it’s a digital or computer-based system where they can get access through punching in a code to get into buildings.

Victoria, I believe, had a system for a while where you would type in the address and the key would shoot down to the fire hall so you could get it to get into the building appropriately. In Vancouver, the more fastidious, the more safety-minded sort of buildings, will have lock boxes out front that the firefighters have keys to so they can access the building without having to break through the doors.

It’s something I hope is addressed soon. I’ve raised it with our city council. They’ve said they’re looking into it. But it’s really something that we should require in all buildings, because there’s no reason why our firefighters, our paramedics or our police should have to be stuck outside of a building. Maybe there’s a situation of violence. They can’t get in unless they break through the door, and then there are the insurance costs, etc. Maybe it’s a false alarm, and they end up having to break through the door. Then somebody else has to pay to replace it all.

It doesn’t make sense to me that we’re stuck in that kind of situation. I really hope, through either this legislation or through government action, we can get to a place where that safety is primary. It’s something that we just do. It’s accepted. This is how you do it.

The other issue — which again, I hope that this legislation, through its risk-based approach, can look to fix — is that in some cases, in some condominium buildings in my constituency and in others, you can’t get between floors — if somebody called and said: “Well, we’ve got an issue. We think that there’s a fire on the eighth floor. It looks like it” or “We’ve heard somebody screaming for help. We think it’s the sixth floor, but maybe it’s the seventh.”

If you managed to get through the door to begin with — if you had a lock box, perhaps — then you’d be okay. But if you didn’t and you smashed the door and got to the elevator, you’re not always able to access the floors that you want to get to, because the halls are locked, the elevators don’t let you get there — and, in some cases, if there’s a fire you wouldn’t want to use the elevator to begin with. If you get to the sixth floor…. Maybe someone lets you in and helps you up to the sixth floor, but you need to get to the seventh. The doors are locked between floors.

Again, it’s an issue that needs to be addressed, and I hope — through the fire code, through the risk-based approach, through action from the ministers, if they hear this — that they will fix the situation.

The firefighters, the paramedics I talk to say they believe that these kinds of barriers to access have cost lives, have cost people their lives. They’ve made situations sometimes worse for people. They could have had just a small injury, but because the delay was so long, they got into a really tough situation which affected their health in a much worse way. And as I mentioned earlier, in some cases, this has led to buildings burning down, fires getting out of control, just because of these access issues.

I’ll finish there and say I’m happy to support this legislation. I hope the minister, in comments down the road when we get to that portion of this discussion, might be able to help me to understand what sorts of actions we can expect to address this problem.

M. Hunt: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 4, which is the Fire Safety Act. I had the awesome privilege of serving for three years as the local government rep on the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. I was able to deal firsthand with some of the challenges — or learn firsthand the challenges — that are facing fire services throughout this province, whether large or small, urban or rural, full-time or volunteer.

I’m very proud to rise and support Bill 4. It’s the result of years of collective efforts to update the Fire Services Act, which this bill will repeal and replace. The last update to the Fire Services Act was over 20 years ago, but this is the first significant set of proposed amendments since 1979. The main focus of these amendments is the fire code compliance, which is critically important to the whole issue of fire prevention.

[1625]

May I begin by stating that the men and women of our public safety and emergency services across the province do outstanding work to protect our communities when fire strikes. But an often unrecognized achievement of their great progress is the progress that they have made in fire prevention. Human lives and significant amounts of property have been saved by effective monitoring and preventive measures by local governments and their fire safety personnel.

I know that just in my city of Surrey, our fire service members give away smoke detectors. If you are someone who is slightly disabled or a little older, they will actually not only give you the smoke alarm; they will come in and install it in your house or your apartment for you if you have any limitations on that.

Having strong legislation that ensures these personnel can carry out their duties effectively is critical to ensuring public safety in our communities. Bill 4 will do just this, through a number of important amendments to the existing legislation.

Most significantly, this legislation is going to improve fire code compliance, the compliance and the monitoring of that, by making it risk-based. Previously, it was inspection-based, and as the previous speaker from Prince George mentioned, often it wasn’t done. Often in rural communities, you had community halls that have been there for years and years and years and everybody loved it. They felt it was safe, and they were perfectly happy with it the way it was.

But now the monitoring will be risk-based, so the local government will be empowered to use their authority to mitigate imminent fire risks, rather than the previous
[ Page 11642 ]
system where they routinely had to refer their concerns to the provincial government for the fire commissioner to respond. This old system was full of uncertainty, and concerns about the ability of government to address safety risks in a timely manner was a grave concern.

Now local governments will be able to take immediate action where imminent risks are found. This will mean safer communities for citizens and the emergency personnel who serve them.

Bill 4 will also make substantial changes to penalties for non-compliance that will save time, save money and, most importantly, help save lives. A streamlined, out-of-court enforcement system and an array of administrative penalties will help ensure our busy court system is not overburdened when fire prevention authorities enforce regulations. Inefficiencies and delays from the old administrative system will be eliminated so that safety concerns are addressed quickly in a manner that is fair and transparent for all parties.

As I mentioned earlier, the legislation is the product of an extensive consultation process. A wide array of stakeholders were consulted, including the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. and the wildfire management branch. It is important to continue to work with these organizations and other partners in our communities because fire safety is always a shared priority for all of us.

Understandably, with increased powers and penalties come questions about freedoms and privacy. I would like to briefly address these concerns as well.

The fact of the matter is that this legislation grants local authorities power that the provincial government already has. We realize that local authorities are better positioned to respond to safety risks immediately. By granting local authorities these powers, we will improve fire prevention measures while continuing to respect the property and the property rights of these property owners.

Bill 4 will modernize legislation, will make sure that the safety of British Columbia continues to be a top priority for all levels of government in this province, and that’s why I will be supporting Bill 4.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure concludes the debate.

Hon. T. Stone: On behalf of both the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness and myself, and the rest of us in government, we certainly have appreciated the comments that various members on both sides of the House have offered as part of the second reading for this bill.

[1630]

We will look forward to getting into, obviously, more detail, as a number of the members have expressed in their second reading comments, during the committee stage. But at this point, hon. Speaker, I’m pleased to move second reading of the Fire Safety Act, Bill 4.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I now move that this bill be referred to committee stage at the next sitting of the House.

Bill 4, Fire Safety Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call committee stage of Bill 3, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016. I would just respectfully request a two-minute recess so that the minister can summon her staff.

Deputy Speaker: The House in recess for two minutes.

The House recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 4:35 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Mungall: It’s great to be going through committee stage of Bill 3. I have quite a few questions. The first one is, for section 1: what is the government’s intention behind making these amendments?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The change will permit the minister to designate someone as a person with disabilities if that person is in a prescribed class of persons. The amendment will simplify and improve the application and adjudication process for a persons-with-disabilities designation by permitting the minister — me — to designate a person as a person with a disability under the act if the person has already been approved for another prescribed government program or benefit.

Many of those applicants for designation as a PWD have been approved already for receipt of government benefits in other programs and services designated for persons with disabilities, so accordingly, such persons will not have to complete the ministry’s application and adjudication process, which might be very similar in consideration as the information from other government programs as well.

M. Mungall: I’m wondering. The minister mentioned classes. I’m sorry if I didn’t hear her say what classes of
[ Page 11643 ]
people she is referring to, or groups of people. If she can just comment. Who will not be needing to fill out the existing 28-page application for PWD?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Brought in by regulation, there are four programs that are classified under this change: the Community Living B.C. program, the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, the B.C. PharmaCare plan P palliative care program as well as Canada Pension Plan for disability.

M. Mungall: The minister mentioned that this will be brought in through regulation. Can she explain to the House why this is going to be done through regulation and not through legislation?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Basically, by doing it through regulations, it allows us the flexibility that over time, should there be other programs that we deem eligible for this particular regulation, we can add them to the program as well. Currently we have identified these four programs that fall under the assessments that we see qualify for the PWD application process, and it will make it easier to add any other ones, potentially, over time.

[1640]

M. Mungall: That being said, that would be a good thing, to add other designations over time. But I would imagine it would also give government the ability to remove the existing designations, as well, through something as simple as an order-in-council.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There would be no intention to proceed in that manner.

M. Mungall: My next question is…. The minister has identified these four groups of people who will no longer have to go through an onerous 28-page process to receive PWD, persons with disabilities. But I’m wondering why the ministry has only identified these four groups, if there are other groups that, perhaps, they have left out. If they have, why?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: These particular programs are the ones that we’ve identified at this time. As we continue to look and review other programs in the future to see if they have similar eligibility or adjudication processes or requirements, those could be added.

M. Mungall: I’m imagining a review was done that identified these four groups. I’m just wondering why that review did not yield other groups that should be identified for this legislation and upcoming regulation.

[1645]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There has been a thorough review that we have put in place. We will continue in the future to do interjurisdictional scans to ensure that we are looking at other potential programs that could be eligible. But at this time, this is what we have found. We will continue to work with stakeholders and other ministries within government to ensure that, if there are potential other programs that can fall under this, they will be added.

M. Mungall: I don’t want to suggest that this isn’t self-evident, but I’m just going to be asking these next upcoming questions for the record. I think it’s important to have this on the record.

Can the minister, then, explain why the four designations…? Starting with Community Living B.C., why was that identified to streamline their application process?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: When we were looking at programs, we were looking also at the majority of our caseload and where the majority of our caseload was making their program transition. For instance, the CLBC program sees about 650 people transferring or transitioning into that program each year.

M. Mungall: I appreciate the answer for CLBC. If the minister can elaborate, as well, on the Ministry of Children and Family Development At Home program — why that program was identified as a program that needs to have a streamlined application process.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The Ministry of Children and Family Development At Home program has about 140 potential transitions from that program into PWD.

M. Mungall: Just to make sure we have everything clear and on the record. The Ministry of Children and Family At Home program has 140 people that are expected to transition each year. That’s the reason that group was identified to streamline their process — because we know we can anticipate that there will be a group transitioning each and every year?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite would be correct in the fact that identifying these individuals is the whole point of making this change. It’s to simplifying the transition process for people with disabilities who have already gone through an assessment process. As they’re transitioning into PWD, they will not have to repeat the same process.

M. Mungall: A similar question again. I know that on the surface, it may seem very self-evident, but this is committee stage, where we dig deeper and try and get as much background and fulsome information as possible for the public record. Why it’s further important, as well, is because this is all going to happen under regulation. This is merely enabling legislation. The bulk of the work will require regulation, which is not done in the public viewscape.
[ Page 11644 ]

Then, I would move on to the next group of people, which is the B.C. PharmaCare plan P palliative care group. They were identified to have a streamlined process, so if the minister can just explain to the House why that group was identified as well.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again it is based on looking at our caseload. From the palliative care plan C, there are about 90 clients each year transferring on to PWD.

[1650]

M. Mungall: Then my same question for the Canada Pension Plan disability. Is that the same scenario that you’re looking at — a large caseload moving every year from that program on to PWD, and therefore it makes sense to streamline the process?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, that would be correct for the CPPD. It’s about 120 individuals each year that we see transition.

M. Mungall: With the CPP disability, I’m just wondering why we would be seeing people transition from CPP disability to PWD, if the minister has any information on why that is. Is it because their CPP runs out? Why is that transitioning taking place?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Certainly it would depend on each individual circumstance or life circumstance, depending on where they are coming from. But also, we could say that if somebody’s CPPD benefit is less than our PWD benefit, they would be eligible for PWD, as well, as a top-up.

M. Mungall: I think that answers the question. Somebody is receiving less benefits under CPPD. Then, of course, you would want to move to PWD, even though those rates are, I think, widely acknowledged in British Columbia as poverty-level rates. But they are still better than what some people might get on CPPD.

That being said, going back to just the process of application, the minister mentioned that the ministry did a review. Did they review the entire application process? In reviewing that application process and, particularly, reviewing what people were saying about that process during the public consultation period that led up to Accessibility 2024, what did the ministry find, if they did indeed do a review of the actual application process for PWD for all applicants?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: This is simply the first stage in streamlining the process. It was what people had mentioned in the Accessibility 2024 consultation. It’s what we heard. In fact, I just have some quotes to read into the record. The member opposite likes to make sure things are on the record, so I will do my best to make sure things are on the record.

Jane Dyson, the executive director of Disability Alliance B.C., says:

[1655]

“We’re extremely pleased with this most recent innovation from the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation as part of Accessibility 2024. We know that this change, like those implemented over the last 18 months — for example, the annualized earning exemptions, the increased asset limits and the removal of restrictions on cash gifts — will help British Columbians with disabilities live with more independence and dignity in the community.

“Streamlining the PWD and simplifying the PWD benefit application process for the four groups described in today’s announcement will make life easier and less stressful for hundreds of people and their families annually.”

Richard Faucher, the executive director from Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, said that the changes announced are a sign that families have been heard and that navigating the system is becoming easier and easier for families and people with disabilities. We also think that people with developmental disabilities are being understood.

Michelle Goos is a parent of a daughter with a developmental disability. She says that today’s announcement improves the lives of those people who are going to apply for their next step in their life. “My daughter, and many others, is one of those people. Cheyenne has just turned 17, so by May, she will start the PWD process, and we are thrilled that she is eligible for CLBC’s services and won’t have to go through all the paperwork and that she will not have to tell her story over again.”

This, again, is just the beginning stages of streamlining the process to make it easier, in response to what we heard in Accessibility 2024.

M. Mungall: If this is just the beginning process…. Let me back up a little bit.

Absolutely, in Accessibility 2024, there is clear guidance. I just picked up the document, and on page 10, it says: “Commit to policy reforms to address income assistance issues raised in disability consultation.” The application, particularly for PWD, is noteworthy. It’s been something that people have been concerned about and noting its onerousness since it was first changed under the Liberal government in 2002.

With the current review having been done, and identifying four groups, the minister talks about an ongoing review. Can she please explain exactly what’s being done on an ongoing basis? Let’s go with that for now.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I think what the member opposite is getting at is where we’re going from here and what the next steps are. Certainly, when we’re looking at Accessibility 2024, we have to start from somewhere, and this is simply the starting spot. We will continue to make our changes. I’ve said it many times in this House. We continue to refine policies and make changes that will improve the lives of people with disabilities. That was continued
[ Page 11645 ]
work that we will do on an ongoing basis to ensure that those people who participated in the consultation, those people with disabilities around this province, are heard and supported in the best way possible by the government.

[1700]

Some of the changes I’ve already mentioned are the changes to the income and assets policy to remove the financial barriers for people with disabilities. That was increasing the limits from $5,000 to $100,000 for families with a person with a disability and increasing the asset limit from $10,000 to $200,000 for families with two persons with a disability, allowing people who are receiving persons-with-disabilities income assistance to receive recurrent cash gifts with absolutely no effect on their eligibility for assistance, with no effect on the cheques that they receive each month, as well as exempting inheritances, trust payments and some types of student funding as well.

I think it’s important to note at this time, too, for the record, that this application, as much as some people see it as cumbersome and lengthy and long, is, more importantly, an application form that was actually expanded at a time where we were able to expand it by the definition of disability, which explicitly included mental health disabilities for the first time. Had we stopped with the original application, which we had prior, there would be many, many people today who wouldn’t qualify for PWD because that application didn’t meet the criteria or have the information that needed to be received in order to qualify.

By making the positive change of bringing that application in, we actually have seen a dramatic increase in the rise of people with disabilities who receive income assistance from this province. And that is a positive.

M. Mungall: I just heard what the minister had to say, and I think she confused the difference between creating a system that acknowledges a variety of different disabilities — and, therefore, providing supports for their disabilities — and creating an application process that can be quite onerous. The application process does not have to be a difficult one to go through so that we can increase the number of supports and the eligibility criteria. So I think there’s a bit of confusion going on there.

I want to go back to the minister’s comments around an ongoing review. I was specifically asking a question — if there was an ongoing review of the application process. The minister mentioned some other things that the ministry has done, which leads me to believe that there is a review of services in the ministry. So I’m asking, specifically, if it’s just the application process that the ministry is conducting a review of.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, this is an ongoing review. This is just one agenda item in the review. It is something that we are doing in consultation with the stakeholders, with the physicians and other health care professionals who also helped design the current application that we have in place.

M. Mungall: As the ministry was reviewing the application process, and also concluded that these groups should be streamlined rather than have to go through that lengthy application process, I am just wondering why they didn’t decide that more work needed to be done on the actual application process for the 90,000 other people who receive PWD — in terms of addressing the difficulties that have been identified with that application process.

[1705]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Just to clarify for the member opposite — because I think it was confusing in her opening remarks when we first were talking about this bill — that the 90,000 people have already gone through the application process. They are already receiving PWD benefits. They are not going to be struggling with the application form.

That being said, there have been a number of improvements that have been made with the application form over the years. It’s an ongoing enhancement that we continue to do as we work through it with stakeholders and receive feedback from clients.

M. Mungall: My first question, then, is: how many people do apply for PWD every year?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Approximately 12,000.

M. Mungall: So approximately 11,000, then, would be going through the regular PWD application process — now that we have a streamlined process for about 1,000 people. Is that correct?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: That would be correct.

M. Mungall: Then for the application process for this 11,000 each year, the minister talked about continually making improvements. Can she please name some of the improvements that have been made in recent years?

[1710]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We continue to make those ongoing improvements for the PWD process. Some of those improvements have included implementing the Ombudsperson’s recommendations as well as the advocate’s suggestions, such as providing written reasons for the decisions, to assist in the appeal process; providing multiple channels for applying, which includes on-line and on-phone as well as face-to-face interactions; improving, as well, the timelines for the adjudication process to now be within 99 percent.
[ Page 11646 ]

As a result, over 80 percent of the applications are approved.

M. Mungall: What is the uptake of the on-line application process? How many people are applying on line?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We don’t have that information with us here, but we can certainly provide it to the member.

M. Mungall: If the ministry doesn’t have the on-line uptake, do they have the phone? I’m wondering, just in terms of breaking it down, if we know how many people are applying on line, of the 11,000, and how many are applying by phone and how many are applying face to face.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’d be happy to provide that information to the member, and then, of course, vet them through estimates.

M. Mungall: The reason I ask is that I know in my office and I know that all my colleagues on this side of the House…. I can only imagine that members on the opposite side of the House get regular phone calls and emails and walk-in visits from constituents about some of the struggles that they’re experiencing with the application process.

When the minister says that there are ongoing improvements, I’m curious to know if these improvements are addressing the issues that we hear in our offices on a regular basis. Specifically, those issues are that the on-line application process, while it may work for some, does not work for all, particularly the people who lack computer literacy and people who might have vision limitations.

The phone process is just a disaster. It’s the only way to truly say it honestly. People are continually not able to get through. I know that the ministry has made efforts to improve the situation with the phone, the 1-800 line. But it’s so bad that nine non-profit organizations got together last spring to file a formal complaint with the Ombudsperson on behalf of the many, many, many people with disabilities that they work with and people who receive income assistance as well.

These tools, now being two of the most common ones to which people with disabilities are being directed to apply for supports…. It concerns me that this bill is not addressing those situations, as well, and looking at this broader review.

My next question, then, would be to the minister about…. She mentioned her review. She talked about how it has identified multiple things and the things they are doing to improve the application process. Has this review looked at the troubles people are having with the on-line system as well as the phone system?

[1715]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In addition to the feedback that we get from both stakeholders and clients, as well as keeping track of our service quality standards, the quality of assessed applications is done twofold. The number one way is through the number of applications that meet the adjudication process on time, and the second is the approval rating as well. Both of those criteria are on an upward trend.

M. Mungall: Well, we’ll explore that issue, I’m sure, more in estimates, around an upward trend and where the baseline was at and so on. But I want to kind of get back to some of the issues that could be brought up with this bill.

One of the things is the on-line, the phone and face-to-face application, but there is also a component around the forms that health professionals need to fill out. In my conversations with several health professionals who need to fill out the forms for PWD applications on a regular basis, they’ll say that it’s quite cumbersome even for them and that they’re generally requesting that their patients come to two, three or four appointments just to fill out the paperwork in full.

Hearing that feedback, I’m wondering, first, if the minister has looked into that issue. Has she been speaking with health professionals about their part of the form and the amount of time and energy it takes for them to fill that out? I’m wondering if the minister has then looked at the cost to the health care system to take three or four appointments to fill out a PWD form.

We’re looking at 11,000 people each year doing this. Is this a good use of taxpayer dollars, or do we need to be reviewing that form, and this is something that this legislation should have addressed?

[1720]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The application form was designed in consultation with the physicians who are filling it out. It was in conjunction with stakeholders. It was other health professionals who helped design it. They will certainly be part of that process as we continue to make improvements to help simplify the PWD process.

What’s critically important is that the application form is thorough and it has comprehensive medical information on it provided by the medical professionals. That is required to ensure that the criteria for disability assistance is met.

As much as we can, going forward, we will ensure that they are part of the conversation — the medical professionals — to help make any changes we can in the future.

M. Mungall: My next question. I mentioned that a lot of the changes to PWD, a lot of the changes to income assistance, first came about under this government in 2002. I remember in the announcement for this legislation…. In fact, the whole event was introduced by the Minister
[ Page 11647 ]
of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction, and what she was pointing out was that this is ultimately reducing red tape for, as we’ve identified, four groups of people.

However, this red tape was initially created in 2002, so I’m wondering if the minister can share with this House why she thinks that that red tape was created in the first place.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Prior to 2001 there was certainly no auto-in for these four groups of identified individuals. So clearly, this is red-tape reduction — that is, streamlining access to PWD for these individuals who will receive an auto-in which never existed before.

M. Mungall: Now that the government is recognizing that this had been considerable red tape added to people’s lives in 2002 — and that is clear when we look back into history — why did it take government 14 years to recognize this red tape and to get rid of it?

[1725]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As we continue to make these improvements, it certainly is proving the utility of the provincewide consultation that we had with the process of Accessibility 2024. These changes are breaking ground in Canada to include a cluster of designated groups just like this.

M. Mungall: We know that these groups are going to be recognized, that all of this will come through regulation, and we know that there is an appeal process for anybody applying for PWD.

What will be the appeal process for these four groups, should the ministry decide to deny them PWD status for whatever reason, whether it is as they transition or later in life?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: They will not need an appeal process. They are receiving an automatic in to PWD because they’ve already received the assessments from the four designated groups that we identified. They’ve already had the application process and the assessments done. They, therefore, qualify for PWD and will not need to appeal.

M. Mungall: Is there any point though, then, that the ministry could remove them from having a PWD status?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We certainly don’t anticipate a situation like that arising. That being said, procedurally, they would have the same right as any other PWD applicant to appeal if that was something that came to light.

M. Mungall: In just reviewing the questions I had and some of the questions that came about as a result of the minister’s answers, I feel like I’ve come to completion.

But just for the record, just one more question. In the bill, it says: “HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows.”

I just want to confirm that Her Majesty is, indeed, Elizabeth II and not Elizabeth the 11th.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Ha, ha.

M. Mungall: Great. Thank you very much, and that concludes my questions.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I move that the committee rise and report the bill without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 3, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I request a five-minute recess, if possible.

Madame Speaker: This House stands recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 5:30 p.m. to 5:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading of Bill 15, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Polak: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 15. Contained in this bill are proposed amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. Firstly, the proposed amendments establish one new class A park.
[ Page 11648 ]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The new park, 120 kilometres east of Prince George, will be known as Ancient Forest/Chun T’oh Wudujut Park. Chun T’oh Wudujut means “the oldest trees.” The park is 11,190 hectares in size.

Secondly, the proposed amendments add lands to five existing class A parks and one conservancy. So 2.2 hectares are being added to Prudhomme Lake park, east of Prince Rupert, as the result of a private land acquisition in 2015, and 1.9 hectares of foreshore are also being added to that park.

Also, 0.4 hectares are being added to sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ park as a result of an acquisition in 2014; 98 hectares are being added to Tweedsmuir park as a result of an acquisition in 2013.

The existing 19-hectare component of marine foreshore of Halkett Bay park, in Howe Sound, is proposed to be extended to include the waters fronting the point and the east side of Gambier Island, an addition of approximately 136 hectares. The purpose of extending the foreshore component is to protect a rare glass sponge reef located in 30 metres of water.

[1735]

Approximately 236 hectares of Crown land are proposed to be added to Okanagan Mountain Park, opposite Peachland, to provide increased protection to lands currently under a map reserve.

Approximately 28.5 hectares are being added to Sheemahant conservancy. These lands include two former cutblocks and segments of forestry roads that were previously excepted from the conservancy.

Thirdly, the proposed amendments modify the boundary of one class A park. The boundary of Nahatlach Park is proposed to be modified to remove approximately 1.2 hectares from the park as part of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s negotiated settlement for a government trespass on Boston Bar First Nation reserve land. The amendment to Nahatlach Park will come into force by regulation at the time the agreement between the government of B.C. and the Boston Bar First Nation is ratified.

Fourthly, the amendments change the name of four parks and correct the spelling of one park. Tazdli Wyiez Bin/Burnie-Shea Park is being renamed Burnie-Shea Park at the request of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, who do not feel that the First Nation name they originally provided for the park correctly reflects its meaning. So sẁiẁs Park will now only be known by its traditional Okanagan language name, as Haynes Point is being removed from the legal name of the park. And sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ Park will only be known by its traditional Okanagan language name, as Okanagan Falls is being removed from the legal name of the park. Halkett Bay Park is being renamed Halkett Bay Marine Park to reflect the increased significance of the marine component of this park. The spelling of “Geoffery” in Mount Geoffrey Escarpment Park is being corrected to Mount Geoffrey Escarpment Park.

Fifthly, the amendments replace written metes and bounds descriptions with legally mapped boundaries for the following parks: Garibaldi Park, Halkett Bay Marine Park, Prudhomme Lake Park and sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ Park. Official plans are more accurate, understandable and practical for field surveying than the older metes and bounds descriptions.

Finally, an administrative correction to the area figure of Quesnel Lake park is made, changing it from 872 hectares to 992 hectares.

These are the amendments in Bill 15. I look forward to members’ comments during second reading debate.

G. Heyman: I can’t think of a better way to end this part of our session, before we leave for a two-week break, than to talk about B.C.’s parks and this bill that makes additions to B.C. parks.

We all know parks are beloved by British Columbians, and to see a bill that is adding area to parks is substantial — as well as the great significance of creating a new park in northern British Columbia, a park that will protect a significant amount of old-growth timber in that area.

The other feature that I think is also worth celebrating about this bill is that a number of the parks are being renamed with their original indigenous First Nations names. I, perhaps, haven’t had as much opportunity as the minister to practise the pronunciation, but the new park…. I will do my best. My apologies to anyone if I do not do an adequate job in the pronunciation. Chun T’oh Wudujut Park, near Prince George, 120 kilometres east, as the minister has pointed out, will be welcomed by First Nations in the area, by hikers in the area and by others who have worked very hard to protect this significant area of beauty, of walking paths, of old-growth forests.

I think we’ve all…. We’ve had a lot of discussion earlier on Bill 2 about the value of old-growth forest, the many roles that old growth plays in protecting ecosystems and protecting the ecological integrity of an area, allowing species to survive without interruption in their homes as well as the role of old growth in sequestering carbon, which is increasingly important to all of us in this age of climate change.

[1740]

I think that any time we recognize the indigenous people of this province by changing the names that settlers and colonizers gave to areas that are treasured by British Columbians and replacing them with the original names, the indigenous names for the area, is a good day. It’s a sign of respect.

It helps British Columbians to achieve some connection with what was here before our ancestors arrived, with the history — not just the couple of centuries’ history that sometimes some of us learned in schools but the history, which goes back millennia, of the First Peoples
[ Page 11649 ]
of this area. It is with great pleasure, I think, that we will support this bill, the expansion of parks, the creation of the new park, the protection of old-growth forest.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about the addition to Prudhomme Lake Park, a park that is close to Prince Rupert and that I know well from my years living in the area. I know how much the small parks in that area, along that stretch of highway and north, mean to the people of northwestern B.C. Prudhomme Lake is a beautiful spot. Many people have stopped in there for a short break or for a longer period of time.

The expansion of this park, particularly the expansion near the foreshore, will really add to the intrinsic value as well as the appreciation of people in the area of this beautiful area of British Columbia and this particular little gem of a park.

I remember for many, many years, as I travelled back and forth between Terrace and Prince Rupert as part of my work, that Prudhomme Park was a landmark for me. It was sometimes a place where I stopped to get a bit of a break, a bit of a rest. It was sometimes a place where I stopped for a short walk, just a breather on my way.

It is, like every park in British Columbia, something that is part of our heritage, something that puts us in touch with the natural beauty around us. That, of course, is the role of parks. It’s not only to protect particular areas of great ecological significance, areas of great beauty, areas of irreplaceable old-growth forest; it is a reminder to all of us that British Columbia is a vast landscape, a home to a great variety of species and ecosystems, perhaps more than anywhere else in Canada.

It is a reminder that our very existence in this province depends on the sustaining of the natural world. It is not only part of what increases society’s health, increases our personal health; it’s part of what increases our economic health. Without sustaining the ecological services on which we depend, the price of dealing with their destruction or replacing them, if they can be replaced at all, is significant.

It pleases me to be able to stand, before we leave this House for this part of the session, to talk about the expansion, the protection, the creation, the honouring of First Nations’ heritage by the naming of these parks, the renaming of some of them, and the naming of the new class A park — a gem in the Prince George area and something that will be much appreciated by all those who, as I said, have worked many, many years on protecting and creating it.

That’s the good part, but I think it’s also important that we talk in this House today about some of the changes to B.C. Parks over the years. We have seen an expansion of parks, but we have also seen a reduction, in some ways, in our ability to protect these parks, in our ability to provide services in these parks, investment in these parks, as well as the costs that have been added, as recently as a couple of days ago, to the ability of many British Columbians to simply enjoy an affordable family holiday in a campground.

[1745]

We have seen fees go up. It may not seem like a lot in any given year. It may be $1 or $2 or $5 or $6, but it mounts over time. In the case of some group campsites, we’ve seen a very significant 20 percent hike just in a single year.

When we talk about Bill 15, the addition to parks and the creation of new parks, I wish we could also be talking about some additions to the resources to maintain these parks, to enhance these parks, to enhance the experience of British Columbians who are enjoying these parks.

Just to give you an idea, hon. Speaker, of some of the changes we’ve seen over the last few years in B.C. Parks, we have seen a 50 percent reduction between 1993 and 2013 in the number of full-time-equivalent B.C. Parks staff — down from 378 to 190. That’s a pretty substantial cut, and it does inhibit the ability of the province, through its dedicated park staff, to actually monitor and watch over and answer the questions and help enrich the experience of people who go to B.C. parks.

We’ve seen a 50 percent reduction in the number of full-time park rangers between 2001 and 2013. Now, I understand that there are private operators now working in some of the parks, but that is not quite the same thing as people who lead interpretive walks and people who have made their choice in life to work in parks because they value and enjoy that form of public service. We’ve seen these cuts, and in no way have the private operators replaced what we’ve lost.

We’ve also seen a 60 percent funding cut to park ranger staff since 2001, and the number of B.C. parks whose operating seasons have shortened since 2009 is 45. So while the parks are there, their operating hours are shortened, and they’re not as accessible to British Columbians who wish to go and enjoy nature, enjoy their heritage, enjoy the parks that we collectively own as British Columbians. That is regrettable, and it’s something that I would like to see reversed. Many British Columbians would like to see it reversed.

Just to give you a sense of the difference, our neighbours in Alberta spend $25.29 per hectare in the Alberta parks system — I’m using 2013 numbers, but they are the most current that I currently have — and in British Columbia, we spend only $2.29 per hectare in our park system. That’s a difference of $2.29 versus $25.29. Very substantial.

While we are celebrating today the expansion of these parks, the renaming of the parks and the creation of a new park, we are not seeing an expansion of the dedicated staff, the interpretive staff, the dollars that are spent on our parks or the resources that are put in place to enable our parks to be better maintained, to be better serviced, to be better staffed and to be more accessible and better able to be enjoyed by the British Columbians who
[ Page 11650 ]
see our parks system as such a critical part of being a British Columbian.

Many people come to British Columbia because of our natural beauty, and the parks are a way for people to enjoy the beauty, for people to get in touch with nature — for want of a better term — not just see it in a painting, not just see it in a photograph and not just see it in a television show, as important as those are, but to actually be there, to hear the silence, to see the stars uncluttered by the lights of the city and to let their spirit calm a bit. And, most importantly for many families, to take their children and enable their children to overcome what has been called so often a nature deficit….

[1750]

These are important things, and it’s worth investing in. It’s worth this government investing in, it’s worth taxpayers investing in, and it’s worth all of us investing in.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

While I think that it is important, and I applaud the minister for finding a way to expand parks, for finding a way to create a new class A park, particularly one that people in the area wanted so much, we could do better. We should do better. I hope we do, in the pass.

In closing my remarks, let me appreciate the connection of parks with the First Nations history of British Columbia. Let me appreciate the additions to the parks. Let me appreciate the creation of a new class A park, but let me also remind the minister that on this side of the House, we would like to see — as many British Columbians would — more resources devoted to our parks to overcome some of the reduction of those resources that we have seen over the past years.

With that, seeing some of my colleagues eager to leave, I will take my seat.

G. Heyman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, safe travels to your ridings.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, sits April 4 at 10 a.m.

Safe travels, all.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $245,937,000 (continued).

S. Robinson: We’re back now from lunch, and I’m not hangry anymore. I was getting a little hangry. I was sounding a little chippy, because I was starving.

I want to go back to the question I asked just before we took the break. That’s about the service plan — reviewing and monitoring the policy,legislative and regulatory framework and proposed changes. That’s what the objective is.

I asked the minister if he could share with me what legislative changes are being considered. The minister, if I recall correctly, had talked very well about the work that his staff does around supporting all the various local governments. That’s great. I know that they do that. That is the job of this ministry.

The minister didn’t address any legislative changes that are being considered. That’s really what I’d like to have the minister focusing on.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member knows, of course, there is one piece of legislation that’s before the House, so I won’t talk about that. The reality is there is no suggestion, at the moment, that there is any other legislation. Of course, if there was, I probably would not be in a position to share that, in any event, until it is actually tabled — and when that might happen.

I want to reinforce one of the things that the ongoing work of the ministry…. I appreciate your comments — all the staff and the hard work that they do. We are always working with local governments to identify areas where there may be a need to consider things in the future, and, of course, we will do that.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister’s response around current legislation.

It has come to my attention that a piece of legislation that I proposed in a private member’s bill, the animals in distress act — which, initially, I understand, the Minister
[ Page 11651 ]
of Agriculture was looking at — has now been sent over to this ministry. I’ve talked with the BCSPCA.

This is a piece of legislation that I proposed based on a resolution that came out of the city of Kamloops, and that was endorsed at the UBCM, that had to do with giving local governments the authority to provide their bylaw officers with the powers, should a council wish to do that, to rescue animals that might be in distress in overheated vehicles. I’m just following up to see if the ministry will be acting on that suggestion.

[1340]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do appreciate the notice that was put on the floor by the member and the issue. We have been in discussions with the BCSPCA, the UBCM, the veterinarian college, and so on.

At the moment, there is nothing more contemplated. We have looked at some of the issues that have been brought forward. I’m sure that if we do move forward on anything in the future, the member will be well aware of that.

S. Robinson: I appreciate knowing that there’s someone else who’s taking a look at this. What’s disappointing, I suppose, is that another summer will have gone by and another summer of risk for these animals. Not that anyone ever intends to harm their animal — I don’t believe that’s the case. There’s no ill will, but people sort of forget about the change in the weather. I’m certainly disappointed if it doesn’t happen this session. It means another summer will have gone by, and that’s a bit disappointing.

But I’ll move on. Continuing with the service plan. The third bullet says: “Support communities in assessing their local and regional governance.” I do know that the minister has already talked about the role that his ministry plays in helping to do that.

It’s within that context that I’d like to understand: what are some of the ways in which his ministry is helping, specifically about local and regional governance?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve been joined by Nicola Marotz, who’s the executive director of governance and structure as well.

There are a number of activities that the ministry does with local governments. The word “governance” suggests we’re going to change governance, which is not always the case. It may be in helping to build relationships between neighbouring communities and also to help them with a variety of different studies.

Just to give you a bit of a list. We provided a grant of $50,000 to Okanagan Falls, which was doing a governance review to examine the current and alternate arrangements within the rural framework.

Thornhill Terrace, a governance services planning information inventory, utilizing up to $60,000 in provincial funding and looking at the Thornhill community and surrounding neighbours to support land use planning initiatives and future consideration of a governance change if, indeed, they wish to take that to their electorate.

[1345]

Interlakes, a governance and service assessment and facilitated public dialogue on community issues and provided them with a $10,000 grant to identify options for the community and the regional district.

Central Coast did a governance services and financing inventory, utilizing up to $60,000 in provincial funding to examine current and alternative arrangements within the rural framework.

Then, the final one, Columbia-Shuswap, a governance review, again with a grant up to $50,000 for communities in the Sorrento–Blind Bay area to examine current and alternative arrangements within the rural framework.

All of these, of course, come forward at the request of the local governments, and our team does then sit down with them. We have an application process for support funding, and when we feel that there is an opportunity to provide that support, we do.

S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate the list. It’s always helpful to get a sense of what’s going on out there and what different local governments and governance bodies are struggling with, so I appreciate the list.

There was one thing that wasn’t on the list that I would like to ask the minister about. I’ll provide the context. In the last local election, eight of the 13 capital regional district municipalities had a question on their ballot about amalgamation.

Yes, they were different questions, but in general, there was certainly support from every municipality, except Oak Bay, in favour of some sort of study to look at amalgamation or some other form of greater cooperation and service-sharing.

The former minister did tell a news outlet in November 2014 that the province would do a study. I’d like to know what the status is right now with this current minister around the amalgamation study.

Hon. P. Fassbender: If I can, I want to go back to my previous answer as well. We also have provided support for an incorporation study for Saltspring Island. We have been working with them, and that is also underway. I didn’t mention that one in my last answer.

As far as this one goes, there’s been a lot of discussion in the capital regional district. I had the opportunity to look at the questions that were on the ballot, and they were not consistent. So I think the answers that came back reflected, perhaps, no consistency in the question, but the outcomes were that people said: “Is there a better way to utilize services in this region?”

There’s been lots of talk about amalgamation and other things. I felt it was not appropriate for the province to take a leadership role in moving in any particular direc-
[ Page 11652 ]
tion, so I asked all 13 mayors to come together with me and our staff. We sat down. We talked the issue through from their perspectives as the elected leaders.

[1350]

We then put an offer on the table to help facilitate a next step, and that was to develop terms of reference of what the issues were that need to be looked at based on the input that the different communities had had over time.

What we did is we had a very productive meeting. They all came together. They all left, agreeing for us to develop a set of parameters, terms of reference for the next step, which they have all signed off on. We are moving ahead. We’re waiting for a bit more feedback.

One of the first steps was that the ministry did offer to provide a facilitator that we would contract, on all of their behalf, to get together with them and sit down and chart a course for the future, the terms of reference for that facilitation process. We are now in the process of looking to procure a contract with someone to be the facilitator, and we’ll take the next step.

I have said consistently, both publicly and to the mayors, that the government has no fixed position on this. We want to see if they can come together and talk through the issues. It may be an issue of looking for a higher degree of integration, some of which is already going on among some of the communities — but really wanted to move ahead in a positive way and not to necessarily suggest that there is a predetermined outcome.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the detail of the answer. It’s very thorough and very helpful. I’m wondering if the minister can provide some sort of timeline around how this might progress, recognizing there’s no predetermined outcome, but perhaps he might have a timeline in mind.

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, I don’t. I think forcing a timeline may not be appropriate, because the first step is to get the facilitator, have the parties come together with the facilitator. Then I think it will start to evolve from there, and a timeline, perhaps, might become more obvious. At the moment, there isn’t one.

S. Robinson: I appreciate hearing that as well.

I’d like to move along to objective 1.2. I have some questions there as well. In objective 1.2, it talks about: “facilitate existing infrastructure funding to enable local governments to provide services to residents and create the conditions needed for economic growth.”

I’m focusing on the word “facilitate,” which is the action word here. I was wondering if the minister could provide some examples of what facilitate might look like from his perspective.

[1355]

Hon. P. Fassbender: A lot of discussion and a lot of attention was paid, of course, in the Peace River agreement, which is a 20-year, $1.1 billion funding arrangement between the province and local governments in the Peace River region. As the member is probably aware, that agreement commenced in May of 2015, and it replaced a previous funding agreement that was signed back in 2005.

Under the agreement, the province is providing a stable source of funding to local governments in the major oil-producing and gas-producing region, where most of the industry assets are not subject to local taxation. The agreement was a challenge to bring together, but finally it did come together, with all of the communities participating. From 2005 to 2015, the funding under the previous MOU was approximately $387 million.

The benefits for the region really started to deal with some of the historical deficits in local infrastructure — which the communities and we, as the government, felt were quite important. The scheduled annual payment in 2016-17 under the new agreement is $50 million. We are committed as a province, as part of our economic strategy, to achieving continued growth in the oil and gas sector in that region. It really recognizes the importance of the Peace River regional district communities, to help to realize that goal and provide employment and opportunities for people.

In May of 2014, the ministry also contributed $1.2 million to initiatives in the northwest of B.C., delivered in partnership with the Northern Development Initiative Trust, including community land use planning grants, asset management capacity-building grants, planning interns, industry liaison supports — a number of things that would help that particular region of the province move its economic platform forward.

Then we also provided support, again in the natural gas industry, particularly in the Northern Rockies regional municipality, for housing, infrastructure and community services. That 20-year contribution is up to $200 million, and the term of the agreement runs to March 31 of 2036. There is potential built in, in the agreement, for an extension. The first $10 million payment was made in July of 2015.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response again. I appreciate the detail. It’s very, very helpful.

Given the changing nature of the oil and gas industry that we’re seeing, certainly in the northeast and the Peace River agreement, how does that play out, if things don’t play out the way that the anxiety was suggesting it would? Certainly, I’d heard from the mayors and councillors in that community about making sure that they had the resources they needed to address the boom that was predicted to come. It looks like it’s shifting and changing, as these things often do. What implications does that have for this agreement?

[1400]

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the beauties of these agreements is that they actually do stabilize their revenue in circumstances where commodity prices, oil and gas prices, do fluctuate. Because of the length — a 20-year agreement, in the one case of the northwest — it clearly shows that we anticipate there may be some variances, but this gives them stability that they might not otherwise have.

Also, I think that the support that we’re giving, in terms of some of the planning and so on, is helping them to look at other opportunities to build their economy so that they’re not totally focused on only one industry. While it may be the primary industry, it’s also giving them opportunities to work together to look at other opportunities where they can build their economy. We are working very hard with them.

There are review clauses in all of the agreements, so as the world changes, as it always does, we will be in a position to work with them to do what can be done to mitigate against those. I also would say — and I think it’s important — that the long-term view is that while the commodity prices and oil and gas prices may be down today, they will come back. The cycle has been repeating itself for many generations, and I suspect it may in the future. This helps to give that stability that the communities want.

S. Robinson: Thank you to the minister for the response. I’m pleased to hear that there are these review clauses. I guess it would be of some great concern to sign a 20-year agreement, which is good. I think the long term is the way we ought to be thinking. Any government ought to be thinking long term. Having stability in this way is very, very good. I think it does provide some assurance.

However, if this is all predicated on an industry coming to town and the industry doesn’t materialize, then we have to have an opportunity to reflect and make sure that the community can either shift gears, or perhaps it’s not going to grow. The growth that was anticipated isn’t going to happen, so we want to make sure that we have some protections in there. The minister certainly spoke to that.

Two bullets down, objective 1.2 talks about: “Support local governments to make effective, integrated and collaborative service provision choices.” It speaks specifically on the “delivery of local and regional services such as water, recreation and economic development.” I’m wondering if the minister can provide some examples about how he is planning to support local governments in this way around these three areas.

[1405]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wanted to mention again for the member opposite that Sean Grant, our director of local government finance, who’s the man that makes sure we spend this all wisely, has joined us as well.

I wanted to correct the record, if I could, Mr. Chair. I said the northwest, and I meant the northeast. I correct that misspeak. Thank you for nodding at me that you heard it too.

Let me say this, in answer to the question. The ministry team, when it receives an inquiry from any local government, regional district, local communities, and so on, where they have issues that they feel they need to get into — whether that is relationships with neighbouring communities or whether it is issues on doing planning for their sewer, their water, all of those things…. We provide the grants through the programs that we have in the ministry that will give them the additional funding they need to do that planning work.

As the member knows, if you have a good plan and you work the plan, then you can achieve things. If you don’t have any plan, it’s a little bit more complicated. They vary from as simple as a planning grant to do some infrastructure planning work, to sewer programs, water programs, to what I had mentioned earlier in the day, where we will work with local governments and provide, either through ministry staff or perhaps even in a more formalized way, facilitation to drill into some of the issues on the integration of services, and so on.

We never go into these with a predetermined notion from the government what they should do. We want to hear from them. We want to give them the tools. Then what will become clear through some of those processes is what is in the best interests of those communities and the taxpayers.

S. Robinson: I do agree with the minister that we need to have some good plans. But at the end of the day, you can have a great plan but if you don’t have any funding to put your sewers in the ground or to put your pipes in the ground or to clean your wastewater, to treat it, then it doesn’t really matter what your plans call for. You need to have funding to actually do it. I’m sure the minister knows full well that — particularly, some of the smaller communities really struggle with that — that’s really quite a challenge.

When the service plan talks about providing support, am I to understand that support means helping with planning and not really helping with funding and getting these things into the ground?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The planning grants are the first step in the process. Once communities have been able to do the planning work, hire the support that they may need to do that work, then they are in a position to make application through a number of different grants that are available, both provincial and federal grants, whether that is through the gas tax fund or the small community grants, and so on.

[1410]

What a lot of smaller communities, particularly, don’t have is the expertise in terms of putting that process
[ Page 11654 ]
together so that they would be eligible and would receive favourable consideration. I know that at UBCM this year, when I met with a number of communities who had received grants in the past, they said: “Thank you, because we now have been awarded a grant.” We work with UBCM, as the member knows, on some of those applications as well.

For those communities that wanted to avail themselves, they’re now in a position. I think a lot of the applications for the next tranche in whatever the federal government determines they want to do…. Those communities are going to be in a much better position to be able to get the support to actually do the projects that they want to do, and of course, we participate in that.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response, mostly because it just triggered, for me, a question that I had meant to ask, actually, in the last estimates, and I completely forgot. It just sort of struck me, and I thought, “Oh, here I am at estimates a year later.” So I’m going to take the opportunity.

I did speak, as well, at UBCM, to a number of small communities. One of the challenges they’ve raised with me — so I’m sharing this with the minister and will ask — is the number of forms that have to get filled out. The reporting mechanism for how grant moneys were used get sometimes very onerous when you are a staff of two or four. Has the minister or his staff given any consideration to looking at different reporting requirements when you have a very limited staff so that it’s not as onerous as it currently is?

Hon. P. Fassbender: There is a complete recognition on the part of our staff that many of the small communities…. I’ve got a list here, and I’m not going to read them all out. But I want to say that when you look at a community like Kaslo, which received a $10,000 grant to help with the planning…. In all of those cases, there are a number of options, and one of them, of course, is that our staff are willing to work with them, as well, to help them.

There is a need, as the member knows, for accountability for public dollars, both provincially and federally. We continue to work with our federal counterparts to look at ways where we can streamline, whether that is on-line application processes, and so on.

We’re going to continue to look at that, and what we want to do is to make sure that through support from our staff, through consultants that they may hire to help them to put their project definitions together, at the end, they have the greatest chance of success. I think there are about 20 communities, a lot of them very small, where we’ve done exactly what the member has talked about.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the answer, and I’m glad to hear that the minister and his staff are working on that.

I’m going to take my seat to allow one of my colleagues, who has a couple of questions and is in a bit of a time crunch….

M. Mungall: Thank you very much to my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville, because things are shifting throughout the day, bills are coming up soon, and I’m going to be responsible for some of those.

My questions to the minister are about Jumbo Glacier Resort and the Jumbo municipality. He might take note that today we heard the news that the Supreme Court of Canada is going to be hearing the case that the Ktunaxa have put forward about Jumbo actually being historically known to them as Qat’muk, the home of the grizzly bear spirit.

[1415]

But the state of matters right now…. There is a municipality on this site, and the resort that was supposed to make this municipality populated with people is currently not going forward. Since Jumbo Glacier Resort is no longer permitted to develop their resort under their lapsed environmental assessment certificate, why hasn’t the government rescinded the municipality that continues to govern no one these last four years?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Thank you to the member. I appreciate the question. This has been talked about a lot, both in the House and in the media, and so on. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to give leave to hear the appeal does not change anything. It is a process that has to run its course. As the member is well aware, I think it was canvased in the House as well by the previous minister.

The payments to the municipality have been deferred for this year. There will be no payment made at the request of the council, and the government is not prepared to walk away until such time as all of the other steps that are necessary take place. So the municipality will remain in place, but our financial support, as I said, has been deferred for this year.

M. Mungall: I can tell you that the people of the Kootenays will be happy to hear that their taxpayer dollars will not be going into this town of no one. However, I have one more question. The municipality of Jumbo, as part of their ongoing busywork, was to conduct a public hearing as part of their OCP process, their official community plan. Now, a requirement of any official community plan is public consultation. Since there is no one living in this municipality, who would they consult?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reality is that there are a number of people and agencies that the municipality would have a responsibility to consult with. It includes the regional district, the First Nations communities — of which there are two, as you are well aware — FLNRO and the Environment Ministry. There are a number of steps that have to take place, and there is the statutory requirement to engage in consultation with all of those various organizations and communities.

[1420]

M. Mungall: Just to be clear, though, there were no residents or citizens that they consulted?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the question is kind of academic. The member does know that there are no residents in the municipality, but that does not mean there aren’t people who will be — eventually, if it does move ahead — affected, and I’ve given that list.

S. Robinson: I want to move on now to performance measures. Again, I’m still back to the service plan. I appreciate the minister and his staff accommodating my colleague.

The performance measures, the very first one that talks about the number of municipalities collecting at least 90 percent of their current year taxes…. The forecast for 2015-16 is 152 and 2016-17 is 155.

My question is about where the minister is recognizing that, yes, it’s a good thing to collect your taxes, and if you can collect 90 percent of them, that’s pretty good. But I’d like to understand a little bit more about the minister’s perspective on the Strong Fiscal Futures document that the UBCM endorsed and how that fits in with this view of local governments collecting 90 percent of their taxes.

The minister, I’m sure, is well aware that that’s where local governments get their funds to operate and do all the things that they provide for their citizens. That creates a lot of tension, because that is the only source of revenue they have. Yes, there’s some money from fees that they can get, and they can get some grants, but the majority of their funds come from taxes.

The UBCM has proposed the Strong Fiscal Futures document, and I would like to hear from the minister how he sees that dovetailing with a goal to acquire all these tax dollars.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member, coming from a local government background as I do, is perhaps not as top-of-mind aware, but in point of fact, actually 50 percent of all revenue the local government has comes from taxes.

[1425]

The remainder, the other 50 percent, comes from fees, from small community grants. I mean, there’s a fairly long list of other revenue potential.

I think what’s at the heart of all of this — and the member, I know, has heard me say this even when I was a local government official — is that there is only one taxpayer, and all of us, at every level of government, have a responsibility to ensure that we are running our operations as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

We have been in discussion with UBCM. I happen to have sat on the committee that started the process on developing some recommendations that have come forward. We are currently encouraging UBCM to work with the ministry team on areas, for example, of compensation, which, again, I think is one of the major cost factors. In doing so, we want to work with local governments to find out if there are ways where that particular part of their budgets can be dealt with perhaps in a different fashion than it might be today. I’m not presuming the outcome.

As I’ve said to the UBCM executive, if we can sit down together, government at the provincial level has some experience in different changes we’ve made over the years, and we want to work with local governments to see if there are some of those things that might be applicable. I put the parenthesis around the “might be applicable.” That’s part of what we want to do in moving forward.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to hear the minister talk about, certainly, conversations. He raised the interesting reality of the one taxpayer. Along those lines of there only being one taxpayer, I’d like to hear the minister respond to the local government issue related to the DNA off-loaded costs that happened when the federal government decided that they were no longer going to be covering those off. The Minister of Justice basically said to local government: “You’re going to have to go talk to the federal government.” We’re one of only two provinces that have said: “We’re not going to help there either, local governments. You’re on your own.”

There’s certainly been an outcry from a number of local governments. Given that there really is only one taxpayer and given that there’s certainly been, from the Premier and others, some very strong concerns about how local governments keep…. They have to run a balanced budget. There has certainly been some outcry from his government from the Ernst and Young report that says that local governments have runaway costs. Yet here we have yet another cost that they’re burdened with.

I’d like to hear how the minister is advocating for local governments on that one.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: This is probably one area where I am more than comfortable and perhaps would be almost tempted to step into my colleague the Solicitor General’s arena, but I’m not going to go all the way there. It is something that he is working on.

I will say this. The member is well aware that when I was a local mayor, I was asked by UBCM to represent the province at the tables on the RCMP negotiations, which were not just about the negotiations for the RCMP. They actually touched on a whole host of things, including issues like the building of the new E division headquarters, which was and still is a significant issue.

[1430]

I do recall clearly — and the president of UBCM at one point challenged me on it — the comment that I made where I said that this should not have come as any surprise because I talked about it about three years ago when
[ Page 11656 ]
we were in the middle of the negotiations. The federal government was sending signals. We asked local governments at that time to communicate to the federal government that the downloading of things like DNA was a very critical element in the fight of crime.

As we know, crime is not isolated to any one community. It has no borders. That said, the same one-taxpayer principle does flow. If the federal government pays for it, they take it from the same taxpayers that they collect federal taxes from. If we were to pay it, then it would come out of the same taxpayers that municipal governments have. I know that the Solicitor General is looking at a number of those elements.

The bottom line here is that this was a decision made by the federal government to remove their support of those costs. Their argument at that time was that that is an issue of benefit to the local policing agencies, whether they be municipal departments or RCMP. Most of the larger municipal ones have their own DNA process, and they send it to the federal labs and so on. I think the bottom line here is that the Solicitor General has communicated with UBCM and with local governments that they need to let their feelings be known to the federal government.

At the end of the day, the taxpayer is going to pay it one way or the other. The challenge, of course, is that if we take it out of the provincial budget, then we’re taking that money from something else. It becomes a bit of that circle. If you take it from here and put it there, that means something else suffers. That’s always that dynamic of people who are elected to make policy decisions.

At this point, I think the Solicitor General has been clear on his position, and I’m sure he’s going to continue to monitor the effect, the relationship and the negotiations with the federal government.

S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate the minister seemingly taking a position, I think, and correcting that it’s the Solicitor General that has the file now. He can also well appreciate, under this one taxpayer, that when it comes to flexibility and adaptability…. We have a Chair who was also part of local government. Local governments have a more difficult time around flexibility and resiliency when it comes to sudden costs. Whether there was a warning or not, these are costs that sometimes, seemingly, come out of nowhere.

They’re also required to balance their budgets and will often bear the brunt of these things when another level of government says: “We’re not going to touch this one because it’s from the federal government.” It’s always very disappointing when we don’t take care of those. Like the minister said, it’s all one taxpayer, and it’s just about whether or not there’s any flexibility. I think the minister will likely agree that there’s certainly less flexibility for local governments when these costs are passed on to them.

I’ll move on to the next performance measure. This one just sort of caught my attention, only because I’m a bit curious. It’s about maintaining a triple-A credit rating for the Municipal Finance Authority credit rating. I haven’t been around local government as long as the minister, but I don’t remember if there was a time when it didn’t have a triple-A credit rating. If the minister can identify why this would be a performance measure…. It’s one that has always been sustained. I don’t see it being threatened. If he has some information — maybe it’s being threatened — maybe he could share that with us.

[1435]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t know whether you know this or not, Member. There are only three governments in the country that have a triple-A credit rating — the province of British Columbia, the MFA and, I think, the city of Markham for whatever reason, probably because they have a huge industrial tax base and they’re doing okay as a community.

One of the things that we have worked very hard at in the province is maintaining our fiscal plan, staying diligent to those measures that the rating agencies use and working with local governments, through the MFA, to make sure that they maintain that triple-A credit rating. As the member well knows, if we were to lose that, the cost to just operating budgets, because of interest costs, would have a significant effect in not having dollars available to do a lot of the things that we know need to be done.

We are remaining diligent. We’re working very hard with local governments and the MFA to make sure that that is maintained. Because of the situation around the globe…. There are things that have happened in the last few years that have had a huge effect on governments. We have been able to avoid that. We are unique in the world, I would even suggest, because of our fiscal environment. Both local governments through MFA and the provincial government stand out as great examples of how to run your fiscal ship.

S. Robinson: I’ve done a little bit of research, and it has almost always had a triple-A credit rating, which just leads me to wonder…. I’m going to put this out there. I’m not going to expect an answer. If you’re going to put together a plan…. I see this as a workplan. I don’t know why you would put on your workplan something that has always, pretty much, been a triple-A.

I would imagine a stretch performance measure, something that you can actually work toward. This is something that we’ve achieved year after year after year. Just putting it in a document as a performance measure doesn’t really speak to actually measuring what this government and what this ministry are doing around helping with some of the fiscal challenges that some local governments might have.

I’ll move on. I’m aware of the time, and I have some more colleagues coming in, in a couple of hours. I want
[ Page 11657 ]
to make sure I can get through the bulk of my questions before they do.

In objective 1.3, there are some strategies. I’m going to blend the first two bullets. The minister is to “work with partners to ensure property tax on industrial and business properties promotes competitiveness and investment while maintaining local government capacity” as well as “encourage local governments to engage with the business sector and other stakeholders to create policies, processes and actions to enable economic growth.”

I’m wondering if the minister can just describe how he will be working with partners and encouraging local governments and what the performance measures on these two strategies are. How will we know that the minister has been successful?

[1440]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m delighted to answer that question, actually.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m always delighted to answer questions.

The reality is that the greatest performance measure that we have is our economy. One of the things the province is responsible for, as the member knows, is to create an environment where business feels welcome in the province of British Columbia, and businesses locate in communities.

For communities, what we do is work with them every time. I know I do. My colleagues go out. We speak to chambers of commerce, talk to boards of trade, talk about local governance, zoning issues and other incentives that local governments have under their purview to encourage business to come in.

I know in my own community, when I was a local mayor, we, as council, put in a tax incentive to upgrade buildings of businesses to make them more attractive. All of us have a role in terms of ensuring that business knows that they’re welcome, that we will do what we can, but also to balance that against the need for revenue.

That’s always the dynamic. You don’t want to tax businesses out of business, but you also want to be able to have the community benefit from their presence in the community by contributing through the tax base.

The reality is, many communities…. They’re all different. Some have a higher industrial tax base, some lower. Our role, as the ministry and as government, is to, again, encourage that cooperation and collaboration at the local level and to do what we can through provincial policy and incentives to ensure that we create that overall environment.

I will just simply say to the member: the proof of the pudding is the triple-A-plus credit rating, the strongest economy in the country forecasted for the next couple of years, employment growth. Those are all the performance measures that we are delivering on what it is we are responsible to do.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that that’s how the minister is going to be tracking the performance measure, although wage growth, certainly, isn’t keeping up. People are certainly talking about affordability challenges. While there are certainly some measure of success around the economy, not everyone is feeling the same success.

The minister…. I’m going to ask the question again because he didn’t really answer the part of the question that I was really keen to hear about. When the minister talks about encouraging local governments, what does that look like? Is it cheerleading, saying: “Yay, you did a great job”? Or is there some action that the minister takes that would encourage them?

Is it showing them different tax incentives that they can use if they’re a particularly small local government and haven’t really thought of some tax incentives they can use?

I’m just looking for some action that the minister will be taking that would demonstrate that he’s encouraging.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m going to go back to my previous comments about the hundreds of millions of dollars we’ve invested in the northwest, the northeast, the planning grants that we give. All of these things contribute to the health and the forward movement of communities to be able to succeed.

All of these pieces come together. There’s no one thing that we do. Yes, sometimes we cheer: “Good work.” One of the things that I know is happening through the Auditor General for Local Government is helping to identify best practices and provide that information to local governments so that they can benefit from the successes of others or look for more efficiencies that will help them in their local communities. All of these things come together. There is no one element of this that determines success. It’s a combination of all of them.

[1445]

S. Robinson: I’m going to move on to objective 2.2, that communities have effective water and waste management. Under this strategy, it talks about providing “targeted funding to local governments.”

I’m interested in hearing about what kind of funding, and in particular, I’d like to hear about what the government’s funding perspective is on Metro Vancouver’s Lions Gate treatment facility.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, there’s two parts to the question. The first is: how do we do that? I think it’s an important figure that I would like to put in the record.

Since 2001 the province has provided more than $3 billion to B.C. local governments, over and above the
[ Page 11658 ]
previously existing funding streams. There are things…. It’s not all just our money. I recognize the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program. We contributed $269 million. The Building Canada fund top-up was $201 million. The infrastructure stimulus fund, $100 million. And the list goes on. If the member would like the entire list, I know staff can provide it.

In terms of the Lions Gate wastewater project, when Minister Stone and I travelled to Ottawa to meet with Minister Sohi, the Minister of Infrastructure for the government of Canada, we went through a list of provincial priorities. I know Minister Stone — in the House, the Minister of Transportation — has spoken to that on a number of occasions.

Anyways, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and I, when we met with the minister, talked about a number of provincial and regional priorities — transit being one of the main ones, as the member’s well aware.

[1450]

We also talked about Lions Gate. Prior to going to Ottawa, I had met with a committee from Metro Vancouver who brought in the current status of their project and asked whether the provincial government supported their request for funding with the federal government. I said absolutely, that the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for the province and I would be bringing that up with Minister Sohi, which we did, and we said that we see it as a priority for the province. Quite honestly, that project is, in large measure, being identified because of the change in federal regulation that’s driving it.

So what we are doing is we are waiting, as I think everyone is, for the federal budget, to see the priorities that are there. The province will work with Metro moving forward. Once we know where we stand in that regard, then I think we’ll be in a position to look at what the province’s contribution to that project will be.

S. Robinson: I appreciate getting an update on where things are at with that project. I’m pleased to hear that both our Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development are working together to ensure that that receives the funding that it needs, given that it was the federal government that required that mandate.

The second bullet — this is just a clarification — says: “Provide tools and resources to local governments to assist them in conserving and protecting water resources.” I just want to get clarification on resources. Does that mean funding resources? Does that mean human resources? I just want clarification on what “resources” means in this context.

Hon. P. Fassbender: All of the above.

S. Robinson: I appreciate getting “all of the above.” It’s always a pleasure to hear that. Perhaps the minister can tell me a little bit about what funding has been allocated to local governments to assist them in conserving and protecting water resources.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member, I don’t think you’re asking me to run through the whole list. If the member would like the list, we’d be prepared to provide both the planning grants, which I’ve spoken about previously, and capital grants through the various programs. Ultimately, the objective here is to work with communities to identify what those needs are and to help them put the project definitions together for applications for grants from the various pots that local governments can access.

S. Robinson: So it’s about helping them access the existing grants. That’s sort of what I was guessing was the case, but I appreciate the minister clarifying that for me. That’s very helpful.

Moving along, again, this is a clarification question. I didn’t know how to read this. Objective 2.3, the first bullet: “Update ministry infrastructure funding programs.” I was trying to figure out what that meant in terms of: does that mean redesign new programs, review what the funding pot looked like or changing criteria? Not quite sure what “update the ministry infrastructure funding programs” means. If the minister could explain that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member, one of the realities that I know she knows is that the world does change. New technology comes in. There are opportunities that cover a broad spectrum of changes. The ministry team are very capable and are very engaged in looking at trends and opportunities.

[1455]

I know just recently I was in a meeting where there were some proponents who are developing some new technology that may help to provide sewage treatment in a much more efficient way. Well, part of our job is to drill into those, look at them, and if a change in policy or procedures is warranted because of that, then we will update our procedures and our work with local governments.

The biggest thing is staying on top of it and making sure we are as flexible as we can be to meet the needs that local governments have and to provide them with the expertise, which they may not be able to help themselves to, to make sure that they’re looking at every opportunity.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the clarification. That was all I had, and I just really didn’t understand what that meant. I appreciate getting a better sense of that.

I’d like to move on to the next bullet, which is about the British Columbia climate action charter. Most local governments have signed on, which I think is fabulous. In this objective, one of the strategies is to “provide guid-
[ Page 11659 ]
ance, advice and tools to help local governments meet their commitments under the B.C. climate action charter.”

Now, there’s nothing under there that lists resources. It’s just advice and tools. I’m curious about what the minister’s expectation is of how local governments will achieve carbon neutrality and even reduce carbon emissions without additional resources.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wanted to recognize that Karen Rothe, director of planning programs, has joined us as well. It’s such a great team. I just love them all. I recognize good people when they are here, and they all are great.

The climate action charter. I was in local government when our municipality signed onto it. We have four communities that have chosen not to sign on. Unfortunately, they have lost access to the climate action revenue incentive program. One, in particular, I know has missed out in excess of $1 million in revenue back to their community.

The real issue here for local governments, as I know the member knows, is that through that, if they are signatories, they will get the equivalent of 100 percent of the carbon taxes that they pay back. That is a significant incentive for local governments, on one hand.

Now, I’m not naive enough to suggest that it doesn’t cost for them to get involved in some of those things, but again, there are grant programs that help them to do what then will be deemed as environmentally appropriate and GHG reduction programs.

What we do again is work with those local governments to identify those opportunities. We help them with their incentives that they may have and they may look at.

[1500]

It’ll get down to simple things, like when they replace their fleet or the fleet becomes obsolete, they use more efficient and effective technology. That’s an ever-changing thing as well.

I mentioned earlier that technology is moving so quickly. We’re working with the local governments. We are currently…. I think the member may be aware of this. We’ve had a series of webinars in the last couple of weeks with local governments, talking about the refresh of the climate action charter, moving ahead. We’ve asked questions — what in your opinion has worked well for you? What perhaps hasn’t worked as well? — as we look at a refresh and a movement ahead after Paris and the first ministers’ discussions on climate action. What can we do to improve that for local governments as well?

S. Robinson: I, too, was in local government when this came up to our council, and we had a very robust debate. We had to set our own targets and wanted to make sure that they were achievable targets, because there’s nothing, I think, more embarrassing to a government than to fall short of your targets. So there was certainly lots of heated discussion about what targets should look like.

Certainly, one of the challenges — and the minister just alluded to that — is that it does cost money to make the changes that were being made. In light of some of the conversation we’ve had here today, again, that’s another example of communities wanting to do the right thing. They signed onto this. This was something that the province said: “Come and join us in this effort.” Everyone knows that it’s at local government where you can actually make significant change to our carbon footprint.

Local governments signed on. They signed on with gusto, and then they turned around and were told that they’re spending too much money in terms of their compensation for staff — or the other example is that they’re growing too fast. Yet they had to hire people in order to achieve these targets and to make these changes.

It’s one of these real schizophrenogenic experiences where, on the one hand, we have the minister and his government saying: “These are really good things. Sign on.” Local governments do, and then they’re told, on the other hand, that their spending is out of control, but they have to spend money in order to achieve these goals. It’s, again, one of those challenges that I’ve heard a fair bit about from local governments, and I’m raising them here with the minister.

It was actually quite refreshing to go back and reread the charter. It’s been a while since I’ve debated it when we were around council. There are a number of things in here that I wanted to hear from the minister around when it talks about, for example…. I know that he supports the charter. He signed on, so that’s great. But it certainly talks about reducing car dependency and building compact communities, having transit, all of that.

I know that there will be an opportunity to talk about TransLink in particular when we get back from the break, but I would like to hear from the minister about how he reconciles supporting local governments to achieve their goals, yet we’ve had a referendum that failed. Transit isn’t coming any time soon, in terms of the growth that’s happening, and we’re a little bit behind — in fact, I think we’re a lot behind — in terms of how growth is happening.

How does he reconcile that? How does he continue to support local governments when they’re saying: “Don’t build a ten-lane bridge. We need more transit”? How does he continue to support local governments in achieving their goals according to this charter?

Hon. P. Fassbender: There are a number of elements to the member’s comments, not necessarily the question. I will say this. It is always a challenging dynamic for anyone in an elected position to balance the needs, the ability to raise the resources, how to allocate those in terms of priorities.

[1505]

But I do know this. One of the things that I remember in the debate about the climate action charter was that there were a lot more questions than there were answers.
[ Page 11660 ]

Philosophically, the majority of the local governments in the province said: “We agree with the goal of reducing our GHGs.” The journey to seeing that happen and to seeing targets achieved is something that is an ongoing challenge, not just for us, but every other jurisdiction in the world. We clearly know, as a province, that we have led the way, not only in the country, but in the world, and are recognized as being a jurisdiction that took it seriously, put measures in place, including carbon tax and a number of other things that we’ve done.

Moving forward, one of the reasons we’re consulting so closely with local governments right now on the refresh of the climate action charter — and looking at an opportunity to, again, partner with local governments — is to identify, as I said a few minutes ago: what worked, what didn’t work, what we could have done better. We can’t go back and change anything, but we can sure look at our policies and programs moving forward.

What we are doing is looking at how we can achieve those goals. That will include with our federal partners, who have clearly stated that the reduction of GHGs and the environmental platform is something that is one of the four pillars they have moving forward. We will work with them on infrastructure renewal.

That includes things like…. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure had a discussion that I was a party to, as well, with the federal minister. Previously ferries on the British Columbia coast were not supported by the federal government. They are in the east. Particularly, if we’re looking to bring in more fuel-efficient or even liquefied natural gas ferries in the future as we replace fleet….

There are a number of things we, as the province, are going to do. We’re going to talk with the municipalities. We will look at areas of efficiencies in procurement.

If we’re looking at buses, for example, in the transit system, we will look in B.C. Transit’s envelope and TransLink’s to say, in the future, as we replace fleet or upgrade the fleet, looking at things like liquefied natural gas: will there be subsidies to replace those with something more fuel-efficient? That’s part of the negotiations we’re going to have with the federal government as well. I know we, as the provincial government, will work with TransLink and B.C. Transit. That’s only one example of a number of opportunities.

S. Robinson: Does the minister believe that providing a ten-lane bridge in the heart of the Lower Mainland will actually help communities achieve these goals?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, let me say this. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. The government’s position has been clearly articulated by him — that it isn’t just about moving people. It’s about goods and service movement as well. It is about reducing congestion, which already exists. I think anyone who believes that congestion and getting people out of vehicles is going to happen tomorrow probably is kidding themselves, because it’s not that simple.

But built into that structure is the potential for future rapid transit. The fact that that facility will replace something that is going to become obsolete, simply from a seismic point of view…. It’s eventually not going to meet the standards. All of the things that are being done is taking into consideration all of those elements, not just one aspect of it.

Do I believe it’s important? Yes, I do.

S. Robinson: Actually, my question wasn’t that did I think it was important, but did I think it would help local governments achieve their goals. So it’s a slightly different question.

I also note in this section around local governments implementing strategies to improve community sustainability that there is a strategy in here about land use planning and management decisions, keeping in mind local…. Sorry, I jumped one.

[1510]

“Encourage local governments to facilitate the development of more affordable market housing options near transit.” I completely agree with this strategy. I think it’s a good strategy. The challenge is that it is happening…. As the market would have it, that has become the most expensive land in communities like the one I represent in Coquitlam. The challenge to provide affordable housing, when the land is the most expensive land now in the city, becomes a real challenge.

I’d like to hear what the minister and his ministry have in terms of ideas about how to encourage local governments — because that’s part of the strategy — to address that very real challenge.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’d also like to introduce Kevin Volk, who is the executive lead of community and corporate services. He is the carrier of all the knowledge when it comes to this because of his previous roles in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

To the question, it is a difficult dynamic. Much of it is market-driven. Each government has a role to play as we move forward. We’ve had many discussions. I know I have, when I was on the Mayors Council, with the real estate industry to determine….

I know there are discussions with the Mayors Council going on right now, and the real estate industry, to talk about property lift and what happens along corridors. The corridors where major transportation is going to happen are obvious.

So what happens in that context? There’s speculation. It’s a free market. We can’t restrict the pricing. That’s not government’s job. What we can do is ask local governments to sit down with the real estate industry and ourselves and talk about: are there new formulas that can be
[ Page 11661 ]
used where the valued lift on property can be shared in a different way than it might be right now?

Now, there is a yin and yang to that. On the one hand, if you share the pie, that means everybody gets a little different slice of the pie. But I think that as we encourage densification along transit corridors, as we build out bike paths…. We look at intermodal opportunities for people to move around, so if they live in one location but have to go to another, they have access to all kinds of different transportation options. That includes things like bike-sharing, and we’re starting to see communities move into that area.

[1515]

I think it’s a wholesome look at all of the contributing factors to what is going to help communities achieve their goals, ensure that their off-site charges are looked after in terms of upgrading their systems to help with development. I know there are community amenity charges on a lot of developments.

The one thing densification does do is it helps to keep the cost of housing lower. If you looked at a piece of property around a transit station, if it was single-family homes, you wouldn’t be getting the revenue that you can if it happens to be a larger facility.

I know that on the Evergreen line…. I’ve been out there. I’ve travelled the entire length of it. I’m seeing some really good work between the communities and TransLink. It’s even to the point where developers contribute — and, I hope, will continue to, as we build this out — even to the building of facilities, like stations and some of those other things that will help to contribute to the health of the community.

S. Robinson: I certainly do agree with the minister that we need to do something around those transit corridors. But I guess this particular strategy talks about encouraging local governments to facilitate the development of more affordable market housing options near transit. Really, it’s about talking to local governments about how they can do it.

If I’m to understand correctly, there’s just nothing coming from the provincial government that would help them get there. It’s about helping them maybe take, as I’ll just call it, a hit around what they would recoup, in terms of their ability to provide services if, as they densify, population grows. They still need to generate more revenue to provide recreation facilities, to build those bike paths. It’s all the stuff that local governments provide. I know that the minister is fully aware of that, but you still need to generate the revenue to do that.

I’m just trying to get some clarity about what “encourage” looks like. Is it just to facilitate the dialogue? Or is it actually, I guess, encourage — making some very clear suggestions about how they can act?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, there’s no one answer to that, because every one of them is unique. But I will say this. I know, for example, in my own community, this was through some meetings I had with the province in terms of our taxation process. We worked with Community Living in my community.

There was a new condo development. We met with the strata council, and we said: “If we want to provide affordable housing for some of your clients, would you be comfortable with that?” We talked about the interrelationship between the clients of Community Living and the other people living in the facility, and then giving a tax deferment — actually, tax relief, by paying no property tax on those particular units.

Community Living was buying a group of them and then providing them to their clients. That came as a result of some discussions about our flexibility to do those kinds of things within our taxing capabilities.

The other part of it, I do believe, is things that we are doing and will continue to do. The Minister for Housing, I think, in his estimates, can give a lot more detail. The amount of money we’re investing in providing affordable housing or subsidized housing, in conjunction with market housing, has been a discussion that I know he’s had with the industry.

We’re seeing developers changing the way they approach things, where part of their relationship…. We’re encouraging local governments to provide some incentives, perhaps. They could take a number of different forms, like if a developer is prepared to put in a component of subsidized or lower-cost housing as part of an overall development for people who wouldn’t normally be able to afford that but would be integrated into the broader community. There are a number of those things that we as government encourage.

You know the announcement that the minister made, with the Premier, of $350 million for community agencies. Community agencies can apply for that money to provide housing for people in the community through their organizations by either purchasing facilities or upgrading facilities they may already have.

[1520]

We’re doing a lot more than just talking and encouraging. We’re actually putting some significant resources into place for that as well.

S. Robinson: I’m sure we’ll be asking the Minister for Housing more questions about that.

Just one more follow-up. This has been sort of a conversation around encouraging local governments to come to the table with something. The minister has talked about the role of encouraging that, and I do believe that is part of the role. But there’s another factor, another piece of that puzzle — because I do believe you need to have everybody at the table — and that’s the development community.

This might not be the minister’s purview, but given that he’s already talking about encouraging local governments to bring something to the table, I’m wondering if part of
[ Page 11662 ]
that is also making sure that the development community is at the table along with them.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I didn’t have a written copy of my speech — but I could probably get the recording — that I made at UDI where that is exactly the message I took to the development community. While I’m not the Minister for Housing, being the Minister of Community, I said: “We need to find ways to think outside of the traditional box where I build it, I sell it, and I make my profit.”

I believe most of the development community that I’ve come to know have a social conscience, want to find ways, but they also have an objective to stay in business and provide jobs. But we as government are working with the development community. Many of my colleagues in cabinet and in the caucus talk to developers all the time about those very issues and will continue to do that.

Noting the time, I’m wondering if we might take a 15-minute break?

S. Robinson: I’ve got questions to ask.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know you do. Can we perhaps take a ten-minute recess?

The Chair: Minister, to staff, your staff, yourself and all the members and the Legislative staff: have a good Easter. I won’t be here. So enjoy Easter, and we’ll see you shortly.

The committee recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:32 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

S. Robinson: I’m going to switch gears a little bit now and ask about gaming grants. I don’t know if you need to…. I should have said that before we broke.

I’ll ask my question. I’d like to get a better understanding of what the total for gaming grants allocation is for this 2016-2017 budget. How does it compare to last year’s grant allocations?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is the same as the previous fiscal, $135 million.

S. Robinson: Back in 2005-2006 — I did a little bit of research on this — it was $137.1 million, and then it went up for a number of years. Then in 2010-2011 it went to $135 million and has stayed stagnant ever since.

Perhaps the minister can explain, especially given that the province is growing, our communities are growing and that costs are rising. That $137 million was in 2005-2006, and $135 million, which is $2 million less, certainly isn’t going to buy us the same as it did ten years ago. If the minister can perhaps share with us about his plans for the future on this, on gaming grants.

[1535]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think that all of us, in every ministry, always would like to have more. The reality is that the $135 million is stable.

We and all of the organizations that we deal with recognize we have to live within our means. That is our intent. As part of the budget process, the Minister of Finance and all of the ministries work together to determine what is appropriate funding.

There were circumstances in the economy a number of years ago that resulted in a reduction because of the world economic situation and our desire to keep British Columbia whole. That will continue to be our goal.

At such time as we feel that there is an opportunity for an increase — and that will be part of the work that we do with the Minister of Finance and planning the economic platform for the province — of course, we will look at that at that time.

S. Robinson: How many applications were received each year over the past, let’s say, two or maybe three years?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We receive an average of about 6,000 applications for funding.

S. Robinson: How many applications are successful?

Hon. P. Fassbender: About 82 percent receive all or a part of their request.

S. Robinson: How many were rejected or not considered because they were missing some information or didn’t quite get the application or didn’t understand some of the application requests?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t have those figures in front of me. I’m not sure that staff has that amount of detail. What we do know is that there is also an appeal process. If an applicant is not approved initially, they have the option to appeal, and if there was missing information, our staff and the Ministry of Finance staff work with them to provide that information to them.

S. Robinson: One of the reasons for the question…. I have heard from some of the very small communities that sometimes the grant application can be rather onerous when they’re a very, very small organization. They feel like they don’t have the…. It’s a capacity issue — that they are often left out or can’t provide as robust an application.

I’m wanting to get a sense of what the minister and his office are doing to address some of those challenges for these smaller organizations.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member may be aware that there was a report that was commissioned back in 2011 that looked into the gaming grants program. As a result
[ Page 11663 ]
of that, some of the improvements in the program that we have implemented…. We’ve introduced a short form for applications to make the process simpler so that it wasn’t as onerous as it used to be. That seems to be working very well, and that’s especially true for returning applicants, because once they’ve applied, the next time around it’s easier for them because of the short form.

We are doing on-line — so, paperless — applications, which, again, makes it, in this day and age, much more efficient and quicker for them. We continue to refresh the website with more information as we find that there may be issues that tend to have a commonality to them.

[1540]

The phone help line that we have. The figure that I have…. We managed well over 4,800 calls for assistance. Ministry staff are available to provide assistance when they’ve got questions or something is unclear. We also provide email support for the applications.

We’ve just started to gather the data on that in 2016, so I don’t have a number. Again, I assume that we’ll have the same kind of thing, because quite often in organizations, as the member knows, different people take over responsibilities. We do everything we can to provide them with the historical information. I’ve often been surprised at how little information some organizations keep themselves — like their previous application. That is a function of the reality of volunteers, and so on. We do everything to help.

Then we are constantly going out into communities doing presentations, through the ministry, on how you apply, how you can make it easier, who you call. We’re doing everything we can to provide that assistance.

S. Robinson: Is it still an application time that’s only available once a year? Is that still how this is operating?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We do have different intake periods, because we want to manage the volume as well. As an example, arts and culture and sport are between February 1 and May 31. Parent advisory councils are April 1 to June 30, while the kids are still in school. Environment and public safety is July 1 to August 31, because again, those seem to have worked well for those particular sectors. Human and social services are from August 1 to November 30.

S. Robinson: It’s really funny. I was actually asking the question from the side of the applicant rather than from the government. So there is a window in which your sector can access…. There’s one quarter of the year that your sector can make the application. Thank you for that.

I’d like to move on to the gas tax fund. I have some questions there. Thank you to the staff for all of their help.

Can the minister just tell me a little bit about how the federal money is disbursed to individual municipalities and how that system works?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member, I think, is well aware that UBCM is responsible for administering the gas tax fund within B.C. in accordance with the agreement that we signed with the federal government and with UBCM.

There are a number of direct allocations to individual local governments. There are pooled applications that happen, as well, for some funding programs. The gas tax funding, specifically, is delivered through three programs: the community works fund, the greater Vancouver regional fund and the strategic priorities fund.

[1545]

What the ministry does is provide technical assistance to UBCM as they go through those applications and review the criteria as they come in.

S. Robinson: Can the minister tell me how many communities benefit from the gas tax fund?

Hon. P. Fassbender: In reality every community in the province receives something. Those are broken down, as you know. In Metro Vancouver, as an example, they get the gas tax fund to be put towards transit through Metro Vancouver.

There are pooled funds that are available. That’s where the application process takes place. Again, the ministry staff not only work with the communities to make sure that they have the appropriate applications, but then we work and provide the technical assistance in the review of those for UBCM.

S. Robinson: I don’t know if…. I didn’t get a number. I was talking about, really, the pooled funds. I should have been more specific. Do we have a number of how many communities get the pooled funds? I apologize for my lack of specificity.

Hon. P. Fassbender: This year there were 57 communities that received support through the pooled funds.

S. Robinson: And how many applied?

Hon. P. Fassbender: My understanding is that there were 300 applications this year. If you do the numbers, you recognize that there were a number of communities that did multiple applications. UBCM, with the support of our staff, do the vetting of those.

I don’t have the breakdown beyond that, other than, as I said, 57 communities received grants. I believe that there were even some multiple grants that were received by communities in that 57.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that staff may not have the breakdown, but I would really love to get it in writing — the number that applied and the multiples — just so I can get a clear understanding of how many are not getting
[ Page 11664 ]
access to these funds. That would be very helpful. I’d appreciate that from the minister’s staff.

The federal government has said in their election platform: “Near the end of the fiscal year, we will automatically transfer any uncommitted federal infrastructure funds to municipalities through a temporary top-up on the gas tax fund. This will ensure that no committed infrastructure money is allowed to lapse but is instead always invested in our communities.”

Can the minister share with me how he plans to make sure that our local governments get their fair share and get access to the top-up funds?

[1550]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do apologize. I wanted to introduce Catriona Weidman, who’s the senior infrastructure engineer who works on this, and, as well, Renee Audy, who’s the senior program analyst.

What we do, clearly, is work with the federal government and with UBCM to make sure that every penny that is available, and that is appropriately streamed, gets used. We want to see those funds flow as much as the communities do. That’s the work that these lovely ladies do — making sure that they work with our federal and UBCM partners to make sure that happens.

S. Robinson: I’m glad to hear that the minister is, not only at the staff level, working towards getting those resources, but the minister, as well, is working at the political level to make sure that those moneys flow into our communities.

Since we’re on the topic of infrastructure, does the minister have any sense of what the current infrastructure funding gap is for B.C. communities?

Hon. P. Fassbender: That is a really big question. The reality is that there are a number of factors that come into play. One is what communities want, then what communities need, the criteria on which infrastructure funding is available and where it is.

But the bottom line is what I’ve said consistently. I am so impressed with the team in the ministry who work day in and day out with local governments to listen to what their needs are and to help them turn over every opportunity that exists for funding, whether it’s provincial or federal. In a lot of cases, the federal funding is through the gas tax and those kinds of things, where we’d look to help them to partner with neighbouring communities to meet some of those infrastructure gaps that may exist and are needs for the community.

One example that I can think of was an issue around putting a waterline on a new structure up in Trail and working with the regional district as to how they were going to effect that. I know that I personally worked with the mayor and their city manager to see what we could do to facilitate that agreement, and it happened. Sometimes some of that is done within communities, with other communities. Federally, we will work with them, and our team does a great job.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that the minister is hands-on with communities. I think that’s helpful. But I do know that there’s certainly some talk and some concern about the fact that there actually is quite a significant infrastructure gap. Communities are going to…. Especially as we age, it’s our aging pipes and all of our underground stuff that we really, as local governments, haven’t been very diligent in putting away for, for many, many years. As a result, we’re certainly going to be stretched — all of us, all levels of government — to make sure that our pipes and all of that infrastructure that we’ve come to depend on, most of the stuff of which we don’t even see…. We’re all going to be challenged with it.

[1555]

I do think it would be responsible of us to start paying attention to what that gap is. There’s only a certain amount of money. Our wants are absolutely greater than what we have capacity for, but are our needs greater? I would venture to say that they probably are, and I think we just need to be prepared for that.

Along the same lines, as we talk about infrastructure, I’m wondering if the minister could talk a little bit about the new Building Canada fund and just share with me how many projects were funded. How many weren’t funded? How many applied, how many were funded, and what kinds of projects got funded?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I was going to say to the member opposite that personally, having my pipes aging is creating some concern for me, too. But I’ll keep working on them, trying to live a healthy lifestyle.

However, I did want to say that we had….

Interjection.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Hey, take it easy now.

There were about, I think, roughly 152 applications received, and 55 on the first intake were approved. That represented about $64 million. The second intake is now open. So the process is underway currently for the second intake. Of course, that will run its course, and then we’ll have the stats for that later.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the specificity. So that means that almost 100 did not get approved.

If the minister can share with me a little bit about the decision-making process, given that there are 152 applications. I don’t know. I haven’t seen them. But I would imagine that when local governments get together and make a decision to apply for a grant, they’re pretty clear that it’s a need that they have in their community, that this is significant for them. It would make a difference in
[ Page 11665 ]
the lifestyle of their constituents. So they put staff time into this. They put together an application. I appreciate that it’s the pot. That’s all you’ve got. Yet 100 of them were denied. That’s a lot of staff time to go into something to get nothing.

I’m curious about the requirements and how the decision was made for these 55 and if there’s something we can do to not waste the time and energy of the other 100.

[1600]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is absolutely correct. The pot is only so big, and like everything that anyone has to do, you have to have a set of criteria. Staff is trying to find the exact criteria. We can provide that to you afterwards. Our staff will work with communities. We look at a number of things like: do they have asset management programs in place? There are a number of qualifications.

I will say this. One, we support them in putting together the applications, especially the smaller communities who need it more. Two, we provide funding to make sure that they’ve got the right pieces in place. We talked about that earlier. Three, we provide them with feedback after the fact. Just because someone is not approved in this intake that we’ve just had…. They can apply again the next time based on the feedback that we’ve provided as to why perhaps they didn’t make the cut this time.

It’s an ongoing process. There’s always back-and-forth between our staff and the local communities who are applying.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that — that there needs to be some sort of process for making these decisions. But I guess what I find very frustrating…. And it’s not just in this program. It’s the granting process anywhere that we have this, particularly for smaller communities. They have very little staff opportunity. When you think about gaming grants, it’s run on volunteers or bare-bones staff. They’ve put a lot of time and energy into a grant, and then they get nothing for it. That’s a lot, whether it’s donor dollars or tax dollars, that goes into getting nothing. That’s not a good use of time.

I would urge the minister and his staff to refine as much as you can. People and councils and local governments and community groups can say: “We’re not going to put our energy into this one because we’re not likely to get it, and it’s not the best use of our tax dollars or of our donor dollars.” The process itself is not the best use of time for those, especially when you’re only going to be giving 50 grants and 150 apply. That’s just not good use of people’s time and energy and money.

I want to ask a couple of questions. I’m just going to load them into one. As I was doing my research, I came across some grants that no longer exist. I’m just interested to hear…. I know that the minister is new in this role, but there might be some corporate memory that might be able to help me understand.

The Towns for Tomorrow, the community recreation program and the LocalMotion program. These were all grant opportunities that used to exist. I’ve certainly heard about them from local governments who really liked them. They really found them very useful. They made a difference in their communities. A decision were made at some point in the past that these were no longer going to be continued. They were short term. I would just like to hear if there’s an opportunity to either revive them or what the rationale was for ceasing those grant opportunities.

[1605]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question.

I did want to make a comment on one aspect of what was said. Whenever someone is asking for financial support, there are criteria. There is a process. Some of it is driven by the federal government’s requirements. We have to work with the local governments to be able to make sure they meet those criteria. They’re always being evaluated. We’re providing feedback to the federal government.

I would say this to any community: it is not a waste of time or organization to apply. The learning curve that they go through, albeit a lot of them are volunteers, is a worthwhile process. It also, I think, helps them to hone in on other sources of revenue within the private sector when they go out and ask for support. For example, organizations who are not experienced in applying for grants even will learn a lot about what to go out and to say to the business community if they’re going for support from them.

I think that process is a good learning experience for them. We provide them with advice, even to the point where we give them suggestions. I had a meeting with a group that’s putting on a fairly large tournament. They were concerned because they didn’t see the corporate world appreciating what they did, so I gave them some advice, from my experience, as to what they might do in their requests. So I think it’s a worthwhile process.

The dollars are finite. The programs that you mentioned, though, the list, were clearly finite programs that had a beginning and an end. There is no doubt in my mind that when you have a program and you give some money, everybody would like to see it continue.

Those programs particularly — it was clear they had a limited time frame. They’ve been replaced by other things that are called different things or may have a different stream. I think part of that is to ensure that we keep staying on top of the needs and also the changing environment and the funding that may be available.

S. Robinson: I just have another couple of questions and then my colleague here from Point Grey has a number of questions.

The infrastructure grant, the New Building Canada–Small Communities. My understanding is that’s for populations under 100,000. If you take a look at our
[ Page 11666 ]
population in British Columbia, 50 percent of the population lives in communities over 100,000.

[1610]

We are experiencing very high growth, most of which will happen in those large urban areas, most of which will happen in the Lower Mainland. We’re expecting an additional 1.4 million people to join us by 2041, 90 percent of whom will settle in the Lower Mainland, the southeast coast of Vancouver Island and the Okanagan Valley.

Those communities that are experiencing this high growth are certainly experiencing some challenges around making sure that they have the infrastructure needed. What are the opportunities, then, for those communities larger than 100,000, for accessing grants to help with their infrastructure challenges?

Hon. P. Fassbender: For the member, she is absolutely right that small communities have received funding of $109 million. In the ten-year infrastructure funding plan, large communities receive $981 million.

If you think of communities like Vancouver, like Surrey, there is significant investment going into those growing communities. In Coquitlam — and you look at the Evergreen line that services that community — there’s lots of investment to help with the growth of the community, and more to come. Again, that’s part of our budgeting process: to keep our economy moving so that we have more money to invest in those things that are going to be critical in the future.

D. Eby: I’m here to ask the minister about the University Endowment Lands. He is the notional mayor of that community in my constituency.

Interjection.

D. Eby: I hear the minister say he’s the real mayor, but I question that. [Laughter.]

We’re going to start off with the water issues in area C. The water is full of rust. It’s staining people’s clothes. It’s staining their fixtures. The pipe system needs to be replaced. The people who are nearby the area are affected by this discoloured water. They’re concerned about the safety, of course, but they’re also waiting their turn, in terms of experiencing the same kinds of issues.

They want to know about frequency of testing, where the testing is being done to ensure that the water is safe, why it’s taking so long to fix this issue, and why it is that they live in British Columbia and they can’t get clean water. Can the minister explain to my constituents what’s going on?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m well aware of the issue, of course, both from the media reports and from comments that were made to me. I do want to say very clearly to ensure that while I appreciate there may have been some issues in terms of laundry, the water is safe. It comes from some iron leaching from a cast iron water main in the area. Vancouver Coastal Health was doing ongoing testing, so the water, from a health point of view, was not an issue.

[1615]

The UEL has, however, recently issued a contract to replace the water main. That is in the order of well over $699,000, and it is anticipated that that project will be finished sometime in April.

D. Eby: Will the minister release those water test results to the community?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The responsibility…. The owner of the reports, of course, is the health authority. They provide information to the UEL. We will have staff check and ask if those reports are able to be released.

D. Eby: I thank you for that. The minister knows — I know he knows — that governance is a huge issue for the University Endowment Lands. When I say “governance,” it’s as a technical term, but what it means is they want somebody local that is accountable to the community. They don’t want an administrator, and they don’t want their mayor living in another town and visiting on occasion.

The block F development is coming in. We’re talking about a couple thousand more residents. The desire is very strong to have something in place before all those new residents are there. It will be incredibly more complex after they’ve arrived.

Yet I know that this request was dropped on the previous minister’s desk in November 2013. I raised it with her in March 2014. She said she was fact-finding. I raised it with her in May 2015. She said she had people on the ground. They were working on it. Here we are, in March 2016, and the University Endowment Lands Community Advisory Committee still hasn’t been consulted. The Musqueam have been consulted. Metro Vancouver has been consulted. The city of Vancouver has been consulted. The community advisory committee has not been consulted.

Can the minister advise, first of all, why this is taking years to get done and, secondly, why the community itself isn’t being consulted about its own governance reform?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is not true. I actually met with them when I first was appointed. I have another meeting with the advisory committee coming up on April 1, so I will have met with them twice by April.

I did say to them at the time that, you know, everybody has their perspective on how long things should take. But any governance change…. There are a number of options. The committee has one that they would like. I am not prepared to have a predetermined outcome in my discussions with them, but I am listening to them. I
[ Page 11667 ]
have heard them. I will meet with them again. It’s going to still take some time, and if you ask me how long, I can’t answer that.

I’m not prepared to answer that, but I am prepared to say that we are not ignoring it. We know what their desires are. We’re looking at some of the other options that might be possible, and until we’ve done that fulsome review, we’re going to continue to work on it.

D. Eby: The minister knows I wasn’t talking about a meeting with the minister. I know that the minister met with the community advisory committee.

The minister has consultants which are preparing a governance report for the minister. His consultants have not met with the community advisory committee to talk about governance, to present the different models that apparently the minister has that are different than the model being put forward by the committee. How does this get done if there’s not a conversation about these different models? I don’t understand how that happens.

[1620]

I can tell you that unfortunately — or fortunately, I guess, from my perspective — this is probably the last time in estimates I’ll be raising this with the minister. He’ll be raising it with me, perhaps, because I’ll be sitting on the government side the next time we do estimates.

In November 2013, this was on the first minister’s desk — November 2013. Here we are, in March of 2016, and still nothing presented to the community about a proposed model for governance. I understand the minister doesn’t want to be tied down to a timeline. But for crying out loud, what is it going to take for this ministry to be able to present something to the community, in terms of a draft, to start these discussions?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think I answered it in my previous answer.

D. Eby: With respect, the minister has not addressed the core issue of: when is the community going to be consulted about their own governance plan, not just the minister sitting down with them and listening to them but actually being consulted about what the ministry has in mind in terms of governance reform?

I would appreciate the opportunity to give the minister one more chance to clarify when that’s going to happen — if not the final draft, any draft, anything. It’s been three years.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Same answer.

D. Eby: Here’s a question that might be easier for the minister. Parking on Blanca. There’s a constituent of mine who is beside herself that she does not have somebody that she can call at the University Endowment Lands office who will act on long-term parking that’s taking place on Blanca. People are parking motorhomes for storage along Blanca. I’ve talked to the administrator. I’ve offered my assistance — if this is related to housing, if these people are homeless. He advised me that this is not related to housing, that people are simply storing motorhomes along Blanca for long periods of time.

The question my constituent has is: why can’t the local government at the UEL address this long-term parking issue when every other area of the city of Vancouver has restrictions around long-term parking?

[1625]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Having come from a local government background and having been the mayor who got a phone call from people who didn’t like motorhomes parked in their neighbourhood, I was well aware of the balance that local governments have — to have good neighbours, to respect each other. The first concern always will be public safety, and if the parking of a vehicle on a street creates an issue of public safety, that becomes the first priority.

Within the UEL and within the structure of the ticketing authority and so on…. I know that even our staff have talked to the individual involved. The UEL has put notices on the vehicles. Some that were there are now gone. There may be others that have come back. That is an ongoing thing, and I think what the manager and the UEL try and do is balance that issue in looking at, as I said, the first priorities. But any ticketing authority falls under the RCMP and not the UEL.

D. Eby: What major infrastructure projects does the minister have planned for the UEL in the coming 12 months?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I did mention the water line replacement which is currently underway. There is another sewer line installation in area B that is currently underway, as well, and will be rolling out. While I don’t have a copy here, we can provide the member with the capital plan that the manager has shared with the advisory committee. It’s a ten-year rolling plan, so as things fall off, it moves out to the next level. That plan is in place, and a copy of it can be made available.

D. Eby: When will there be an official community plan or development levy charge system at the University Endowment Lands? This is something that people have been asking for, for a long time in the community: an official community plan or some way to leverage the development that’s happening there for community benefits — either community centres or trails or other amenities.

[1630]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]
[ Page 11668 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I can assure the member that the UEL administration closely follows the issues that are raised by the Community Advisory Committee and takes them into account when establishing the priorities. As I said, there is a capital plan that has been shared with the advisory committee.

The OCP for the UEL was established three years before block F plans were transferred to the Musqueam Nation. It has been amended a number of times since. So that exists, and that has been shared with the Community Advisory Committee.

The rezoning application process that’s currently underway provided lots of opportunity for the community input. The process was the same as you would have in another municipality when an OCP was developed. If the block F proposal proceeds, it will require amendments, as the member probably is aware, to the OCP and the UEL bylaws. That work is being contemplated now as soon as the details are worked out.

There will be a public meeting with the Musqueam and the proponent for the block F lands as well. That will be held some time before the summer.

D. Eby: The issue of development cost levies?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the UEL is not a traditional municipality, there are different mechanisms to collect resources to ensure that the services and the infrastructure are being upgraded as development occurs. Working with the developers, I know in the case of the Musqueam, is part of the work that’s been going on. So developers are contributing under a different structure, but still to the benefit of the community.

S. Chandra Herbert: For the benefit of the minister’s staff and those who are waiting in the gallery, I will be moving on to arts and culture now. I’ve got a number of questions here. I thank the minister and the staff for their responses.

I will try to keep my questions as questions, not speeches. I’d appreciate it if the minister did the same, since we have a limited amount of time and many important questions about how we engage culture and arts in our province and how we support a strong creative economy.

I’ll start. Shortly before the budget, there was an announcement that the minister had created a creative economy strategy for this province. I looked at that very closely because it’s something I’ve been calling for, for years. Pretty much since before I became a member of this House, over seven years ago, I’ve been working on that issue.

[1635]

The creative economy announcement spoke of $1.5 million over three years towards shared creative spaces — so about $500,000 a year — and invest a further $150,000 a year in artsVest B.C. for two years. I’m just curious where that money is coming from — what budget line item.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wanted to introduce Gillian Wood, who is joining us, who is the executive director of arts and culture development within the ministry.

The announcement was not new money. After working with the arts and culture community, they identified two important areas. One was funding that could be targeted towards creative spaces, which…. We keep hearing all the time that there just aren’t enough of them. We felt that refocusing that money and targeting to that particular area would be very important.

The other one, the $150,000 for artsVest, was to help them in how they can raise additional money. We’re providing the support that they need to be able to find other sources of revenue that will help them to continue to grow and expand their programs.

S. Chandra Herbert: It seems there’s a big distance between us, because that wasn’t the question I asked. I’m well aware of what the programs are. I’ve read all about them, and I support them. My question was: where is the money from?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s from the existing budget within the ministry and within that vote.

S. Chandra Herbert: I asked the specific line item. I’m curious: what had that money been funding before this decision?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The one line item that the money is coming from is government transfers to that particular area in the arts and culture, and the other area is from the program funding, where it was used for a variety of other programs. The list is probably longer than the member wants to hear.

The bottom line is — again, the comment that I made at the beginning — taking those funds, and rather than dispersing them all over, it was felt by the community in our consultations that focusing those on those two key areas was going to be of the most benefit to them, and we responded accordingly.

[1640]

S. Chandra Herbert: Just so I understand, because I’m looking at the books and trying to figure out exactly where this is coming from. Is the other part…? I’m assuming that the minister is referring to artsVest. It wasn’t clear to me which program the minister was saying was funded from which pot of money. Is he referring to the B.C. arts and culture endowment special account to fund the program, the artsVest and the Creative Spaces, or where is that money from?
[ Page 11669 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the document that the member may be looking at may not be as clear. I want to provide the offer that staff would be happy to sit down and get into more detail to show you exactly. But under the arts and culture program funding, there is a total of $2.334 million that is allocated. The funding for both of those programs comes from that. As I said, they were used for a variety of other things before. Now it is targeted into the priorities we’ve heard from the arts and culture community — that they wanted it to be.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, that would be helpful, to have a further breakdown. I appreciate it.

If I can ask, under the B.C. arts and culture endowment special account, the minister is allowed to designate expenses “government grants to organizations and artists to support the creation, development or presentation of works of art at events or venues that the minister considers will provide significant exposure to those works of art.” Is that the money that’s being pulled from? If not, what is the minister planning to spend that money on?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The money within that account is going to be used to help with artists who are touring and providing opportunities for them to expose their talent to a number of different markets. That comes as a result of working with them to see where they are going to get the best results for their efforts. That is what is going to be used.

We will continue to work with a community and receive their input and then provide the appropriate funding. But I can’t give you a list, because that’s what I would call ongoing work that the ministry does with the community.

S. Chandra Herbert: It has been a few years since I’ve been on this file, so forgive me, but I thought the estimates were supposed to be used for a detailed breakdown of exactly where the money is spent. I appreciate the offer of a briefing so that I can ask a whole bunch of questions. But for the benefit of everybody who is not able to have a private briefing with the ministry, it’s really important to me that, line item by line item, it be explained where the money goes.

Now, I know there’s about $24 million or so that goes to the B.C. Arts Council. That’s well accounted for. I know how they spend that. The question really is about the other discretionary money that the minister has — having a very clear picture of how it’s spent. You know, as the official opposition, my job is to make sure it’s spent well.

Broad statements that “this is going to help artists in a whole lot of ways” doesn’t really give me enough to go on. I’ve had previous ministers — I hope this minister’s not like that; I’m sure he won’t be — make statements about where they’re going to spend the money, and it goes into partisan or political funding, not good-value-for-money funding.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: My interpretation, yes, but one that was widely held in the artistic community.

[1645]

I’d appreciate it if the minister could be a little bit more forthcoming and explain. Aside from the money that goes to the B.C. Arts Council, can he give me a list, dollar amount by dollar amount, going to which program and from what budget?

The Chair: I just want to remind the member to ask the questions through the Chair.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m going to do a couple of things here. I’m going to give a little bit of a higher level, and then I will give the member the benefit of where the money went last year, because the money has not been allocated this year nor have all of the decisions been made for the coming year.

The arts and culture unit of the arts, culture and B.C. Arts Council branch administers discretionary funding and has, in the budget for 2016-17, $2.334 million. The source of the funding is twofold: $1.984 million from the voted appropriation and $350,000 from the arts legacy fund.

We support a number of programs such as the after-school sports and arts initiative, which benefits vulnerable youth, and so on. To give more detail, if you were to look at ’14-15 discretionary funding, the after-school program, for example, received $1,428,966. The Capital for Kids received $165,000.

The Western Arts Alliance received $25,000. The alliance round tables received $10,400. The list goes on. That detailed list, of course, is published with the public accounts, and every item is identified. I would suggest that none of them are partisan; they are helping kids.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I wasn’t referring to last year but when I was the critic a few years ago.

If it’s possible for the minister to share that list with me here today, that would be appreciated. I see him nod his head and say he will provide it. That would be great.

How is the consultation done, in terms of deciding where the money goes in this year ahead? I know that not all the decisions have been made. Sometimes something comes up. The minister said he consults. Some will go for touring; some will go for other things. Who does he consult with? Is it an official process? Is there an official application process? Or is it whoever happens to come by with a good idea?

[1650]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Suffice it to say, the minister — namely, myself, in this case — does not approve every single grant. I rely on our professional staff, who have
[ Page 11670 ]
great relationships with the community. They consult with them as we are developing programs or shifts, as I mentioned already. This June, for example, on the collaborative spaces and on the other program, the touring program, they will be working with the community. There will be an application process that staff vets, and then they make the awards within the funding envelope that has been approved in the budget.

I very rarely am aware of anything other than if I’m invited to go and provide some comments to a group or to give them a cheque, if there is an opportunity to do that. I do not get involved in those decisions or the process leading up to the decisions.

S. Chandra Herbert: One of the requirements, of course, that the Premier set on the minister was developing a creative economy strategy. I looked on line, and maybe I missed it, but I didn’t really see a fleshed-out strategy. I saw two pages with some nice graphics. Is there a fuller strategy that I missed?

Hon. P. Fassbender: This strategy is a high-level strategy at this stage. One of the reasons we did that is that we’re not mandating what they should do. We are saying: “Here are our goals within the province of British Columbia and within our economy and how we believe this will benefit the province.”

Over the next two years, because it is a two-year window, we will be working on a detailed implementation plan with the sector. We wanted to, at the beginning, leave it flexible because we want to be sure we meet the needs that they have as opposed to us defining them up front.

We know the goal. They all know the goal. Quite honestly, the feedback I’ve received from the community, when we announced it and subsequently, is that they’re very happy that we have the flexibility to test some things and perhaps modify it as a result. That’s why we have designed it that way.

S. Chandra Herbert: One of the service plan goals talks about growing the creative economy, growing the arts and culture sector in B.C. I think it says, “….grow the creative economy…drive innovation, productivity, entrepreneurship,” etc.

What’s the measure? In order to grow, we kind of need to know where we’re coming from to where we’re going to go. Is there an actual timeline, size that we’re at now where we want to be at? For a strategy to be successful, I would assume you would need that kind of information.

[1655]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Performance measure 4 in our service plan talks about the career opportunities provided to help grow the creative economy. The number of career development opportunities are indicated there. In 2015-16, the forecast is 80; 2016-17 has the target of 200. Those are programs, not individuals. The target for 2017-18 is 210. And then 2018-19, because we think we’ll reach a level of maturity, is an additional 100.

But what’s really important in that is, for the purpose of the measure, the opportunities that are defined as the B.C. Arts Council; B.C. early career development programs that help young people see a career path that is available through the creative economy; training for aboriginal artists, because we see there is a need to help them in terms of establishing what career and business opportunities they may have; the artsVest sponsorship training program, which, again, will help them to broaden their resources; and then the arts legacy fund, showcasing the projects that are developed as a part of that.

Again, because we are working with the sector, we’re wanting to make sure that we meet their needs and that, for them, the realistic goal is that they can see success in terms of the measures that they have. They will measure success in terms of the amount of business they might do in exploring their creative opportunities as artists and performers.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate that one part of growing a creative economy is ensuring that the workforce has the skills they need — absolutely.

I think what I’m missing here, and what I’m trying to get at, is what is the government’s measure? We could say: “We’ve grown the creative economy,” if we’re just using this measure, “by providing a whole lot of programs for people to get training in.” But if they’re not actually working — maybe their organizations have gone bankrupt or whatever — that’s not a growing creative economy.

This measure, to me, does not prove that we’re growing the creative economy. What I’m trying to get at is: what’s the baseline number of jobs that the minister would say we’re at now so that we can show we’ve grown the economy by more jobs in the field? What’s the baseline of the GDP, if we’re going to use that measure, to show that next year we’re actually successful in growing the creative economy? Anecdotes aren’t really that useful if we’re going to know if we’re successful or not.

It would be helpful for me if I could have those baselines, because otherwise the strategy is words and not actionable.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member, I think, because of his exposure to the sector, is well aware that nowhere in the country is there a good database in this sector. That’s not the fault of anybody other than it’s never really had the need to develop it.

[1700]

That is why we, in British Columbia, are actually leading the country in working with the federal government on the culture satellite account, where we are going to start to develop some databases to track exactly where we are. We’ll have a baseline, and we’ll start to build on that over the coming years.
[ Page 11671 ]

I did have a meeting with the federal Minister of Canadian Heritage, Minister Joly. I spoke with her about this very thing, about how the federal government also…. She very clearly said to me: “We have to have a way to quantify what that sector is, what we’re contributing and what the results are of the activities that we’re doing.” They’re very much supportive of that. We continue to work with them.

I think our model here in British Columbia will set the standard in the rest of the country for developing some of that data that we need in the future.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’d love to learn more. Certainly, as it develops, I’ll be very interested.

I am confused, though. In the fact sheet the government put out for the launch of the creative economy strategy, they do quantify the number of jobs and the GDP in the sector. I think the numbers do exist, unless we’re not talking about jobs or GDP and there’s some alternative measure I’m not sure of. If there is, I’d be interested in what the minister is referring to when we’re talking about growth of the creative economy.

In his fact sheet, he talks about B.C.’s cultural GDP being $5.7 billion in 2010, representing 3 percent of B.C.’s economy, and that B.C. had 87,996 culture jobs in 2010, or 3.8 percent of total jobs in B.C.

Those are the figures that I know other ministries will often use to show that a sector is growing, whether it be technology, forestry, whatever. Why wouldn’t the minister use similar measures, if talking about a creative economy, when he did in his own creative economy strategy document?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The fact sheet that the member is talking about…. This ministry is only responsible for the arts and culture side. Contained in those numbers is the film industry.

We’ve received, through the creative satellite account, some data from the industry. We’re going to continue to collect that. We’re going to, as I say, work with people in the sector. We will be developing a much more robust breakdown of what portion arts and culture is within that. Even that will be a bit of a challenge, because there’s a number of….

For example, I’ve talked to performance artists who say: “Well, I work on the weekends in a club, and during the week, I’m a studio musician, so therefore I’m getting paid on a number of different fronts.” We’re going to try and sort that out so that we can see the transition opportunities and the career opportunities, so when we put programs together for young people, they will see what paths may be available.

It may not be just one job. As I know, having owned a recording studio, I had musicians that came in who played in the symphony and also were doing studio and commercial music to supplement their income. It’s not as clearly delineated as a tree faller might be in the forest industry.

S. Chandra Herbert: Who is the lead ministry on this? If it’s not this ministry, who is the lead on the creative economy strategy within government driving the document?

The document I saw seemed to focus pretty much on this ministry. It was two pages long, more of a skeleton than an actual strategy, at least in my view. For me to see a strategy, I would have thought we would have seen: “We’re here now. This is where we want to get to, in terms of jobs, in terms of stability in the sector, growth, in terms of exports, and so on.”

[1705]

Now, I understand the minister says that it’s a beginning, and there’s more to come. But I’m curious: which ministry is the lead, and how many staff are dedicated to actually developing a creative economy strategy for B.C.? I don’t think this is one.

Hon. P. Fassbender: B.C.’s economy is driven by a number of things, so there are a number of ministries involved — Jobs, Tourism, MIT. We’ve got our tech industry. When you look at all of the people who contribute…. One of the things that we’re doing, through our ADM committee, on all of those is looking at how all of these pieces fit together.

We are the lead on arts and culture, which is a contributor. As I said, we could have someone who has a career opportunity in the arts and culture sector but may also be working in the tech sector. Someone who is a creative artist may also be working in the industry to develop games.

Again, it’s not as clearly delineated, particularly on the arts and culture side. Those expressions…. I know, for example, one young person that I talked to who is part of what you might call the creative economy because of their creative talent, but they happen to work in the medical research field, and what they’ve learned in terms of creative thinking is applied there. It’s not as clearly delineated, so there is not one ministry, in government.

It is a government initiative to create a robust economy. The greatest measures we have are the jobs we’ve created and the success our economy has.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess I should go to the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism to discuss the film part and Tech for the other.

It just puzzled me, because for a creative economy strategy put out by this ministry, you would assume that this ministry would have developed a strategy which included those other ministries if it’s going to be called a strategy, not just an arts and culture economy strategy, if it’s only going to focus on that one sector — well, many sectors within a sector, of course. It’s a bit confusing to
[ Page 11672 ]
me. I guess I’ll leave that there, because I don’t have a lot of time to continue on this line. I may come back to it.

I would encourage the minister to think bigger and the government to think bigger. I think the creative economy can be and is, certainly, one of the bright lights in our economy right now and can be so much more. But I think it will require more rigour than what I see in the two-page document — with actual timelines, with actual deliverables and plans on how we’re going to get there. We may not reach there completely, but if we don’t have a goal of how many jobs, of the exports, etc., then we won’t. There is no plan for that as far as I can see right now from the government.

I want to turn to the Hill Strategies report, which was referenced in the creative economy strategy. It says a few things that were, well, not surprising to me. Unfortunately, it has been this way for a long time in B.C.

Some of the conclusions were that a majority of British Columbia arts organizations receive less funding from provincial and federal government sources than similar organizations in other provinces. In terms of provincial funding, 62 percent of the time B.C. arts organizations receive less than other like-sized organizations in other provinces; 54 percent of the time we receive less from the federal government.

Now, in my work in the arts…. Sometimes if you receive less from the province, the federal government will give you less as well. They go: “Well, if the province isn’t going to pony up the investment, we’re going to put it into other provinces that do provide bigger investment.” Sometimes it’s matching, sometimes not.

Does the minister have any concerns about the low provincial government investments in the arts, according to last Statistics Canada study? Very little has changed since then. B.C. is the lowest investor in the arts in all of Canada by a wide, wide, gap.

[1710]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Actually, as the minister responsible for this ministry and for this initiative, I am very proud of the funding that we provide to the sector and have provided. Since 2001, we’ve invested more than half a billion dollars. That’s more than any other government in B.C.’s history. We continue to invest. At a time where the economy around the country and around the world was challenged, we continued those investments.

We have the largest percentage of the labour force in the art occupations, and again, that report came from Hill Strategies. I think the other thing that we’re proud of is that the work we’ve done with the sector has meant that the B.C. arts organizations raise a higher percentage of their revenue from private sector sources than comparable organizations. Again, that comes out of the Hill Strategies report.

Our work is, quite honestly…. If we can, it would be wonderful if everyone was self-sustaining and we had the resources to put into health care and other social services and so on. That’s not realistic, and I know that. But I think the investments we’ve made, both in actual dollars and in the support we provide to the sector, has helped them to be more successful than a lot of their counterparts.

I’m always a little cautious with Stats Canada reports, because they don’t look at everything. They look at direct grants. They don’t look at tax credits. They don’t calculate that and what effect that has. As you know, the tax credits that we have provided to the film industry have been a significant boon to them — and all of the related activities around that.

I think we, as a government, clearly recognize the value and the importance of the sector, and we’re funding it appropriately.

S. Chandra Herbert: What I take from that is: the minister has no problem with B.C. being the lowest funder of arts in all of Canada. Now, the minister should know that many artists in B.C. and arts professionals have some of the lowest incomes in all of Canada, with some of the highest living costs, and that is a problem.

[1715]

While the minister might want to see the day when we don’t have arts funding — as he has recognized — that’s not realistic if we’re going to continue to have a vibrant arts scene in B.C. There’s always been government or patron funding of artists of one form or another going back through history.

I guess what I’m trying to understand is why there’s no problem with the fact that the federal government gives us less money per capita than most other provinces. Does the minister have a problem with that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reason I met with the federal minister was to talk about federal government policy with a new government in Ottawa — what the expectations are. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, where that responsibility lies, says that they are looking to ensure accountability for the dollars that they give and that there is a clearer focus on trying to link that directly to their priorities. Those are inclusion, aboriginal communities, indigenous peoples, looking at the environment and a number of those things.

What we did talk about is working closely to say: how can we help to create more jobs, more opportunities? That will be their focus, and we will continue to work with them and advocate for the industry in B.C. in the case of this, the arts and culture community, as we will on all of the other sectors of our economy.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the minister didn’t raise the issue that B.C. artists, 54 percent of the time, receive less money from the federal government than every other province. To me, that’s striking. I think it is a problem.

We send tax money to Ottawa. I think it should be
[ Page 11673 ]
invested in our artists, but according to this statistic through Hill Strategies, we’re not getting the money that should be coming to B.C. in terms of how we invest in arts. Did the minister raise that issue at all?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I did. I think I said that clearly, but I’ll try again. We had a very wide-ranging discussion about the importance of the creative economy to not only British Columbia but the country — how we as governments who provide support need to work together to make sure it’s well-targeted and that we have a clear strategy moving forward.

That’s one of the reasons we talked about mining the data that we’re going to collect — to know exactly where the cost benefit is and where the results are contributing to both the British Columbia and Canadian economy.

That conversation is going to be ongoing. Did I say to the federal government: “You’re not giving enough”? No, I didn’t use those exact words. But I said we need to work together to ensure that we provide whatever we can, within our respective budgeting envelopes, to those people who then are going to be able to contribute through their successes in whatever sector of the economy that is involved.

S. Chandra Herbert: The two statements are quite different — absolutely. One is being very upfront and saying: “Well, according to the number of artists we have and the size of the organizations, etc., we should be getting more than we do.” The other is saying: “Let’s work together.” I think you can actually say both.

According to the study:

“If the 19 British Columbia arts organizations were funded by the B.C. government at the same level as their peers in other provinces, excluding Quebec, this would require an additional $1.6 million in funding…. This would be a 34 percent increase from the 2013-14 level of provincial government funding” for these arts organizations.

“Now, for federal government funding, “to bring the 19 B.C. arts organizations up to par with peer organizations in other provinces, excluding Quebec, this would require an additional $730,000, or 18 percent, of the 2013-14 federal funding.”

To me, the fact that B.C. missed out in that year — at least just for these 19 B.C. arts organizations — close to a million bucks, $730,000…. That doesn’t sit well with me. I think we need to do more advocacy at the federal level. Working together is great, but sometimes when working together you have to point out when somebody is letting the other side down. In this case, that’s what it looks like to me.

[1720]

It’s a new federal government. Hopefully, things change — absolutely. I’m an optimistic person. But I think we actually need to say that and explain the issue. If the minister won’t do that, I certainly will be sending a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage just pointing out the issue. I would expect, as somebody representing all of Canada…. It would be something she’d want to get rectified or look into. I’d certainly hope so.

Question. The cultural policy framework…. For about two years, with the previous minister, there was an ongoing dialogue back and forth with the Alliance for Arts and Culture about the need for a cultural policy framework for B.C. — a statement, a strategy — so that B.C. could say: “This is why we’re investing in culture. This is what we’re doing to show that culture, through policy, is involved in every ministry, is something we all understand.”

I’m curious. What is the minister’s opinion, or his thoughts, on that framework? Is he going to implement it? Are there key recommendations from that framework that he’s started to implement? I never saw much of a government response once the framework was unveiled.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member is aware that the province funded the arts alliance in developing that overall strategy. What we have decided, in working with them, is that our focus in the ministry is on the creative economy side of it. We have not implemented the entire document that they have developed.

A lot of it is going to fall within their work and what they’re doing outside of what we’re doing. But we have clearly agreed with them that focusing on the creative economy and developing that economic platform — and that’s why we’re collecting data and doing all of that — is where our focus is now and will be, in all likelihood, over the next couple of years.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m curious. One thing I’ve advocated for, for years, is for the B.C. Arts Council to have a capital infrastructure fund. A fund where you would apply, you would know…. You’d have intake periods. People could apply for money to go toward repairing a theatre, dealing with a gallery, maybe a pottery studio — something that they could go to on a consistent basis.

We’ve missed out on millions of dollars federally because B.C. doesn’t have such a program. That goes back for years. I know there was Creative Spaces for a while, which was useful. I just wondered. Is the minister going to consider, or actively seek, capital funding allocations for the B.C. Arts Council, or a dedicated capital funding stream that people can actually apply to in order to get capital funding for their projects?

[1725]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member did refer to, and I spoke to, the funding that we’ve identified under our strategy of the $1.5 million over three years with an annual budget of $500,000 for creative spaces. Perhaps in the member’s view, that’s not enough, but we are not planning on setting up a capital infrastructure fund. There are a number of other sources, and there are a number of other ways to achieve those goals.

I know in my own community, when we built a new recreation centre that just recently opened — I wasn’t able to be a part of the opening, but I was sure a part
[ Page 11674 ]
of designing it and looking at it — we put a number of spaces in there that are available to creative groups in the community. The funding for that came through the other sources that the member is, I’m sure, aware of — gas taxes and other infrastructure funding and support from local organizations. It is a facility that is multipurpose, multi-use, and it definitely is providing some of that infrastructure that organizations don’t have to build on their own.

If I can add a personal point of view, single-use spaces in this day and age, with the issues that we’re looking for, for density and reducing operating costs, are not always the right solution. The collaborative approach with local governments in spaces that they develop, and working with the arts and culture community to provide those, I think, is an important philosophy that we, as a government, support.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I would say that most arts and culture organizations I know…. If they have a space, it is not single use. It is used from early in the morning till late at night by many different user groups. I wonder: is the Creative Spaces funding going to be allocated through the B.C. Arts Council, and if not, why not?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, it will not be administered through the Arts Council. It is not the kind of program that I suspect…. In a juried process, which the Arts Council uses, with the diversity of people that sit at that table, that is an appropriate place for that funding to be allocated.

In this case, the expertise and the application process are going to reside in the ministry, because we have the people with that expertise to make sure that the appropriate criteria are well understood and that we work with the organizations who may want to apply for it.

S. Chandra Herbert: One of the ongoing requests — I’m sure the minister has heard it numerous times, and it’s one that I’ve made numerous times in this House as well — is for multi-year funding from gaming grants. We used to have it. The government pulled it away, tried to break contracts with groups that had multi-year contracts — huge turmoil. Then they moved back to single-year grants.

Now, the issue with single-year grants is they’re administratively onerous. They, of course, add more work on the government side, and they don’t allow you to plan long term, whereas the multi-year grant process allows you to plan longer term, make better decisions and allows you to have some sense of stability within the organization while saving the government money in administration.

Any plans to bring that back this year or in the years ahead? It’s a huge issue for small boards, often volunteers, trying to raise money for their communities.

[1730]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The simple answer to the question is we will not be doing multi-year funding.

There is no jurisdiction, from the perspective of provincial or federal governments, that cross budgets years. The practice, if you look at what actually has happened, is that the funding…. The new short form that we have is so organizations that were successful last year have a streamlined process to get in and to reapply this year.

Our funding is stable. It has been stable for the last couple of years. I think that the process we use is both as administratively easy for organizations as it can be. It also meets the legislative and the fiduciary responsibilities we have within our budget framework.

S. Chandra Herbert: A bit of a confusing answer to me because we did do it. We used to provide multi-year funding for arts and culture and other gaming grant clients, and then the government stopped. The government does provide multi-year funding for all sorts of things. They have contracts with all sorts of organizations, sometimes going out 30 years, sometimes going out 50 years. So it is done all over the government, just not here in arts and culture or sports or environment with charities.

I’m disappointed — I’ll be blunt — that the government won’t do it. We can. The Skip Triplett review recommended it. Other government ministers have said, in the past, they’d like to get back to doing it. They, at those times, said the economy was too fragile. They weren’t sure they could. There’s no good reason.

If the minister could point me to the legislative requirement that does not allow any organization in government to provide more multi-year funding, I’d like to see it. Frankly, other organizations within government get multi-year funding all the time. Maybe the minister could explain that a little bit clearer to me.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Under our balanced-budget legislation, I do not have the authority to, in our ministry, give multi-year funding. There are long-term agreements in other sectors of government, where there are agreements, but those have to be renewed every year through the budgeting process. There is no guarantee, even though there may be an agreement for funding, that that will continue.

Under our balanced-budget legislation, that is the purview of the Minister of Finance. I’m sure that the question in terms of our financial policies and how we’re managing our fiscal framework can be taken to the Minister of Finance in his estimates.

I will say this, though. One of the philosophies we have —and practice has not necessarily lived this out — is government funding is used as a catalyst to give an organization the ability to move forward and, hopefully, eventually become self-sustaining. That is our goal. By doing that, there may be people who are much better off today than they were when they started, which allows for new people to come in. This is a very robust field.

[1735]

As the member, I’m sure, knows, there are many people that come into the industry, leave the industry and find other career paths. Part of what we’re trying to do here is to encourage and to give that catalyst and that jump-start, to the point where they can become either wholly or partially self-sufficient, so that there is room for other people to come in and to avail themselves of government support.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I am, again, disappointed that other ministers will advocate within their sector to get multi-year funding but that won’t happen here. I think that’s necessary.

I don’t know who would run a business and say: “Well, you’re supposed to do this job for a long time. We really support you, but we’ll only pay you for a year.” And: “Contracts? No, we can’t contract out beyond a year.” It doesn’t happen in the health fields. It doesn’t happen in transportation and construction and education. If you go through government programs, there are many, many multi-year contracts.

Yes, the minister is correct. They do say: “Well, if a fiscal disaster happened, you might not get it every year. We, of course, will let you know. We’ll tell you how it’s going to happen, and we’ll be up front with you on that.” I think arts organizations, non-profits and charities understand the fiscal cycles better, in many ways, than some others because they often work so close to the line. They would understand that, I think.

A contract is a contract. If the contract is specific…. “We’re giving you multi-year funding, unless all of a sudden we go into a massive deficit, and then we’ll explain to you exactly how it works, be up front and time the grants out appropriately.” They could do that, and they could understand it. They wouldn’t like it. Who does? So that’s disappointing to me.

Gaming grants used to be $157 million. When the gaming system was set up, there was supposed to be one-third of government revenues from gambling. They never were, and they didn’t reach that level. They’re lower now than they were in 2008, in terms of money to charities. Even though gambling profits are almost at a record high, we’re providing less money now than we did seven years ago.

If I could ask the minister why.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I answered this question for the member opposite’s colleague earlier, but I will give him the benefit of the answer. Then you can check it against Hansard to make sure I said the same thing.

The bottom line is: we have stable funding of $135 million. We’re proud that we are able to have that stable funding so we can give some assurance that we’re able to provide the support that it is there to do.

At such time as government decides to increase it, for whatever those circumstances…. That’s the work that I do as a member, around the tables I sit, in advocating for my ministry and those things that we want. As the member, I’m sure, is aware, every minister in government doesn’t always get what they want for their sector. That’s the trade-off that we have to make in terms of our fiscal planning and ensuring we keep our economy stable and healthy and moving forward.

S. Chandra Herbert: Now, I understand — the minister can correct me if I’m wrong — that he has responsibility for the First Peoples Cultural Council. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, that comes under MARR.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ll have to take those questions up there. I just had hoped that as the minister responsible for cultural development, he would be also responsible for ensuring that First Nations languages aren’t going extinct — as, unfortunately, they are threatened to do. There has been a lowering amount of money going towards preservation and support for those languages.

My question is around gaming and the appeals process. I’ve had people ask me: “What is the appeals process?” Does it really just go to one person who decides, yea or nay, if an appeal is approved? Are there any changes coming towards the appeals process?

[1740]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member is aware that when the applications first come in, our ministry does review those, but then they are handled by the Ministry of Finance. If an application is denied, the appeal comes in — to one individual in the Ministry of Finance. Again, if the member has more questions, then I think they could be directed to the Minister of Finance in his estimates.

The appeal that is done and the criteria, as I understand it, are based on not new information that wasn’t in the original application but to make sure that the original application gets a sober second look.

S. Chandra Herbert: This is new to me. I didn’t know that the Finance Ministry was now in charge of that.

In terms of deciding who gets the grants, though, is that Finance? And the ministry just receives this information and then passes it to Finance?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The applications come in. The analysts in Finance go through the applications. The ADM for this branch of our ministry has the final authority, the final approval. They come in as a bulk after they’ve been analyzed, and recommendations come out of that process. There are so many applications that it would take…. If you wanted to drill into it much deeper than that, it would mean a lot more people.

The analysts in Finance do all of that against the criteria and make the recommendations. Then when the
[ Page 11676 ]
appeals come in, as I said, they go to one individual in Finance.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, then I guess I’ll have to go to Finance to talk about some of the challenges that people are having whereby sometimes they apply, and because the name on a box is not quite as they want it, their application is rejected. Then they have to appeal over silly things. One year they were accepted one way; one year, accepted a different way, based on the analyst — kind of crazy-making for some of these volunteers who do this work and work very hard at it.

I’m wondering. The minister talked about providing more arts for kids and trying to make sure kids have an access to arts. I think there were about 60 schools that might have got the DASH program, I believe it was called, last year.

Has there been an increase? I ask that because the Ministry of Education, due to what I would characterize as underinvestment — but I know the minister would have a different view of that — in education…. They’re finding that they have to close music programs and reduce the amount of money that can go into school arts.

In the case of a school in Osoyoos, they’re looking at losing their community theater because if the school is forced to be shut down, then they cannot get access to a building — which the community paid for — which is connected to the school, for community theatre involving arts and kids and stuff, and so on.

I want to get a sense of how many kids are being supported through this ministry, because on the other hand, in the Education Ministry, I think we’re seeing arts support on that side getting taken back. So it’s give with one hand; take back from the other.

I think you need to actually do both: invest through the schools and through the arts.

[1745]

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member is, I’m sure, aware…. What I would like to suggest is that there is an entire list of the communities — how many kids in each one of them. We’re happy to provide that detail after these sessions.

The annual $2 million investment in the after-school sport and arts initiative is, really, allocated towards community grants for programming — 70 percent of the funds, or $1.4 million — and to support the delivery agent, whether the Directorate for Agencies for School Health or a number of things like that.

Again, we can provide the number of kids and the schools and the communities to the member afterwards.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 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