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, May 12, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number 9

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


CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

13061

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

13061

Bill 25 — Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

L. Popham

Hon. N. Letnick

V. Huntington

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Chandra Herbert

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

Hon. P. Fassbender

L. Krog

D. Eby

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. C. Oakes

Report and Third Reading of Bills

13088

Bill 25 — Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

13088

Estimates: Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services (continued)

D. Eby

Hon. A. Virk

G. Heyman

M. Mark

D. Routley

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

Hon. M. Morris

M. Farnworth



[ Page 13061 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome some close friends here and my parents. We’re joined here by some close family friends and also a childhood friend of mine. We enjoyed a lunch in the dining room. My parents and their close family friends Mr. and Mrs. Les and Yolanda Tarnai. We want to not only welcome them here, but they also just celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary, so that’s quite an accomplishment.

The year 1956 was marked by a lot of upheavals and challenges, not only in their lives but around the world — the year of the revolution in Hungary. Les Tarnai had just graduated from university as an engineer. Les and Yolanda got married, and they left the country in 1956. They ended up in Vancouver, because Toronto was full and Montreal was full. They came all the way to the west coast here, to Vancouver. I’m very pleased to have them here.

My childhood friend Kathy Tarnai is very distinguished. She’s now an instructor of mechanical engineering, trades and technology, at Camosun College. She’s a PhD candidate at Royal Roads. She’s undertaking her PhD topic, which will revolutionize the instruction of physics — not only in British Columbia, Canada, but around the world. She’s looking at working with grade 11 physics teachers to introduce physics principles and contextualize physics classes in tackling everyday problems.

Madame Speaker, I know you’re interested in that — to encourage more women to get involved in non-traditional fields of work. This will be not only more appealing to women and to girls but really to a broader section of folks, to get involved in physics.

[1335] Jump to this time in the webcast

She’s also the B.C. champion of the 30 for 30 of Engineers Canada — by 2030, to encourage, to have 30 percent women enrolled in engineering courses in post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. She’s a great champion of that. Her daughter Rebecca is an aspiring writer. Stories are in her, and she just writes them down. She’s gifted in that area.

It’s great to have them all here. I ask everybody to please give them a warm welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to rise and ask that the House might join me in wishing a very happy 40th anniversary to Vancouver–West End’s West End Community Centre.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In this House, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 25; and in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continuation of the estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services.

I would also mention that upon completion of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services estimates, we would then move into the estimates for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(GENERAL) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On section 1 (continued).

L. Popham: Unfortunately, I was interrupted while I was giving my history lesson. But it looks like, because I’m getting up at a different point, I can continue on for another 15 minutes, maybe. We’ll see where we go.

Actually, I’d like the minister to respond a little bit to the things that I’ve said regarding the boundary reviews, the importance of the boundary review and why we initiate a boundary review to make sure that we keep the integrity of the agricultural land reserve — comments on that, and the history, which we both know, that got us to this place.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite. Yes, we were interrupted by lunch and a great announcement with the SPCA today. Please, to all the viewers out there that have pets, don’t leave them in hot cars.

On the boundary review, we continue to support the boundary reviews. That’s why, in part, in the last three years, we’ve increased the budget for the Agricultural Land Commission from the $1.9 million base budget to the last balanced budget of $4.5 million. Part of that is to empower the land commission with the tools it needs to continue the boundary review.

The boundary review, as we’ve said this morning, is a process. Involved with the boundary review are individual reviews of individual parcels of land. We have heard from the residents that were involved with the pilot in the Kootenays, in the East Kootenays — as well as two of the MLAs from the Kootenays, one on each side of the House — that there were challenges with the boundary review, in particular with individual property owners that did not
[ Page 13062 ]
want to have their properties excluded or considered for exclusion from the agricultural land reserve.

[1340] Jump to this time in the webcast

Government is sympathetic to that, not only for the East Kootenays but for all parts of the province. The ALC should make sure, before it renders a decision on a removal of parcel, that they get the consent of the parcel owner.

We continue to support the Agricultural Land Commission and the great work that they’re doing in the province and also support the rights of property owners.

L. Popham: Can the minister remind me — because, as I stated, on the website it shows that there are two boundary reviews that are underway — what point they’re at? I think he might have mentioned this before.

What percentage of the boundary review might be done in those cases at this point?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Both sections are in the same timeline in the process. No decision on any of the reviews has been made public yet.

L. Popham: I think it’s quite important information. Does the minister have any idea when that would be made public?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is only a proposed piece of legislation, so as of right now, it’s up to the independent land commission to make that determination.

L. Popham: If it’s up to the ALC to make that determination — when that information is released — could they release that today?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes. It’s up to them. They could release it today or whenever they choose to.

L. Popham: I think that information is quite pertinent to our discussion that we’re having. I’m wondering if the minister or I could request that information from the Agricultural Land Commission so that we’re able to carry on this debate on this legislation in a complete way.

Hon. N. Letnick: The intent of the legislation is to change the policy so that you have to ask for consent from the landowner before making a decision. The decisions have not been made public yet. If the legislation passes, then the Agricultural Land Commission would have to go to the property owners and ask for consent.

L. Popham: And if, by chance, the legislation doesn’t pass?

Hon. N. Letnick: Then the current state of affairs would stay in place.

L. Popham: So if the legislation doesn’t pass, the boundary review would still continue to completion, and the legislation we have currently would apply to the properties in question.

The properties in question would be the ones that would be identified as excluded from the agricultural land reserve. If that boundary review is completed, those properties will then not be part of the agricultural land reserve, and the ones that are slated for inclusion would go into the agricultural land reserve.

By this legislation not passing, we would have an agricultural land reserve in that area that only has land that has agricultural potential?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m not too sure if I understood all of the processes that the member opposite went through, so let me just say how it’s going to happen.

Currently, there is no legislation that has been passed, so it would be up to the Agricultural Land Commission to make their decision public as they saw fit.

[1345] Jump to this time in the webcast

If the legislation passes, then what would happen is the Agricultural Land Commission would be obliged to go back to those property owners and receive consent before they made their final decision public.

L. Popham: I’d like to try my version of what the minister just said. If the proposed legislation passes, land that has no agricultural viability stays in the agricultural land reserve if the owner wishes it to do so.

If the legislation doesn’t pass and the Agricultural Land Commission is able to continue on with their boundary review, which…. The intent of that is to remove land that doesn’t have agricultural value outside the agricultural land reserve and to include land that has agricultural value into the reserve. If the legislation doesn’t pass, all we’ll have left in that area within the agricultural land reserve is land with agricultural potential.

I think the minister sees where I’m going with this — I hope. We’re passing a law to allow land with no agricultural potential to stay in the agricultural land reserve by choice of the owner. Is that what we’re saying?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m glad to hear the member is going to support it, by saying we’re passing a law that would….

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: Do you have any choice?

Let me say this to the member opposite. Here’s something that one of her colleagues, the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, said in his letter to me. “The complaint from affected property owners is that no consideration is being given to the cost implications, especially for seniors, for those who may have their property excluded from the
[ Page 13063 ]
ALR against their wishes. Tax increases on excluded parcels could be significant.”

I would just ask the member opposite: if she was the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke and a senior came up to her and said, “They’re talking about taking my land out of the land reserve against my wishes, and my taxes are going to go up,” would she really say to that senior: “Tough”?

Well, the NDP member for Columbia River–Revelstoke said: “No, that’s not fair. That’s not proper process. You should be able to provide your consent before a decision is rendered on your property.” We agree with the member from the NDP party, and we are passing — hopefully, passing — this law so no one else in the future would have to go through the stress that these people have gone through to see that their land may come out of the reserve against their wishes.

L. Popham: The minister makes a very good point: so that people in the future don’t have to go through what he considers to be a bad situation. We’re setting a precedent for the rest of the province. This is not specifically around that boundary review. This is about every boundary review that will continue after this.

What the minister is saying is that we’re going to have an agricultural land reserve that is full of land, spotted around the province, that has no agricultural value. That’s what the Minister of Agriculture is telling us today. That’s okay with him.

He’s trying to make a tax argument in this chamber around an agricultural issue. If the minister is concerned about those constituents…. I get it, absolutely. There’s no reason that that tax incentive has to take place inside the agricultural land reserve. This is not an agricultural issue.

I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, if he is willing to pass legislation that will decrease the integrity of the agricultural land reserve: how can we defend an agricultural land reserve if we’re allowing pieces of property with no agricultural value to stay in it?

Hon. N. Letnick: The property has been in the reserve since ’72, so over 40 years. Leaving it in the reserve, whether or not it has agricultural value…. I’m not the one to determine that. That would be up to the Agricultural Land Commission, as the member has already pointed out. It would do no harm to agriculture. Taking it out against the will of the property owner would have definite harm to the property owner. So it’s all a matter of balance, at the end of the day.

[1350] Jump to this time in the webcast

This person and these people that have come to the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke — and Kootenay — have not come to me personally. I’ve just seen what’s been in the media. I’ve seen the letters, and I’ve received their initiative. I feel for those people. If I believed for a minute that keeping them in the ALR and having them provide consent to be removed would have a big impact on agriculture, I wouldn’t be here proposing this legislation.

I believe it’s okay to make sure that we respect the wishes of these property owners if they are going to be looked at for exclusion by the boundary review, that they have to provide consent and that it would not have a significant impact on agriculture in British Columbia.

V. Huntington: I expect that a lot of the detail that I’m concerned about would be unfolding within the regulations, but I want to have a sense of what the minister expects in the regulatory process as it unfolds.

If the Agricultural Land Commission tells the landowner, “We believe parcel 613 should be excluded from the reserve,” and that landowner says, “No, I don’t want it to be excluded from the reserve; I like the tax advantage” or “I just love land in the agricultural land reserve, and I don’t want you to touch the status quo of my life,” then there are two issues I see coming up.

One is that the commission has said that parcel of land is not good for agriculture, okay? Does the minister foresee the regulations permitting the landowner to have non-farm uses on a piece of land that the ALC wanted to exclude and yet remains within the ALR; i.e., are you setting up a situation where non-farm uses can dot the ALR simply because a landowner didn’t want to exclude and wants to maintain the tax advantage but go ahead with non-farm uses, because it’s no good for agriculture?

Hon. N. Letnick: If you wouldn’t mind giving us just a little bit of latitude. This is going to be in the next section, but I’d be happy to answer the question now, if I can, as part of the answer.

The first piece is, as I explained to the critic before, no determination has been made by the land commission on the suitability of a particular parcel if this passes. If this passes, they have to achieve consent prior to a decision being made by the land commission on a parcel. It’s still questionable whether or not a particular parcel would have been excluded, because they don’t have consent yet, right?

Number two is…. Let’s put that aside just for a second and directly answer your question. If a parcel is in the land reserve, whether or not they opted not to give consent or they are not being considered for a boundary review, they would all fall under the same rules. They would have to apply to the land commission for non-farm use, everything else. They would fall under the same rules as any other piece of land.

[1355] Jump to this time in the webcast

With the Chair’s indulgence, you specifically asked what we are looking for in the regulations. In section 2 it says: “for the purposes of section 29, respecting the requirement for each owner’s consent to an exclusion under that section, including, without limitation.” The regulations would be: “(i) establishing procedures and
[ Page 13064 ]
requirements in respect of the consent, (ii) respecting circumstances in which an owner is deemed to have consented to an exclusion, and (iii) respecting exceptions to the requirement for consent.”

V. Huntington: I just need to clarify something the minister said.

The Chair: Member, on section 1.

V. Huntington: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I just need to clarify something that the minister said.

Did the minister say that the request or the need for a landowner’s consent to exclude wouldn’t require the classification of the land first? How could you make a decision to exclude without having done the boundary review and classified that particular piece of land?

It seems to me what the critic has been saying is the boundary review requires classification of the soils. If the soils are deemed to be unusable for agricultural, then they would consider exclusion. But they won’t exclude without the permission of the landowner. So you could have…. You can’t make a decision to exclude on a boundary review unless you have the classification, or can you? Is there something else going on here I don’t understand?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll re-read what I read before.

The review is a process. Exclusion is a decision on a case-by-case basis and now will only be able to occur with consent. When the review is done, parcels, in general, will be identified — some specific ones in the area. A hearing will be held. At that point, once the hearing is held so that the commission can get all the input on the land and the parcel in particular in question, then they would have to get consent from the landowner before they make their decision.

The decision hasn’t been made yet as to whether or not…. Let’s say, for example, that this legislation wasn’t here. The decision has not been made yet until the decision is communicated. In case of the act coming true, and hopefully it does, then they would have to achieve consent before a decision is made public, which means that the commission hasn’t made any determination as to whether or not the land would have stayed in the reserve or not stayed in the reserve.

It’s my assumption — and it’s only an assumption on my part — that if this legislation passed, the commission would probably go out and ask for consent prior to spending a lot of resources on determining whether or not a particular parcel of land should be excluded from the reserve.

V. Huntington: So then really, what we’re doing is we’re not determining whether agriculture is suitable on land or not. What we’re first determining is whether a landowner wants that land in the ALR or not. It doesn’t make sense, with great respect.

It’s a huge…. I don’t know which is more a waste of time. Going around asking landowners: “Do you want your land in the ALR or not? And if so, then we won’t do a boundary review on your land.”

I mean, what is it? Is it permission from the landowner to do a boundary review? Or is it doing the boundary review, determining the classification and then asking whether you want the land excluded because the classification is so low?

This is two completely different ways of approaching what we all know is the appropriate course of action and has been historically at the ALC. I don’t understand here what the government is trying to accomplish, unless it’s something a little more upsetting than I thought it was originally.

[1400] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d just like to say, once again, that the process is something that the Agricultural Land Commission will determine, will put into writing and will make sure that all parties know how it works. They can make some changes to it, but from the way I understand it right now, their plan is that they would do a review of the parcels within the area that they’re looking at. The review could contain all kinds of agrologist reports, locations, whatever. They would do that preliminary review. They would then identify the parcels that they’re interested in, and then they would hold a public hearing.

In my experience in local government for nine years, you don’t make a final decision until after the public hearing. What’s the point of having a public hearing if you’ve already made a decision before the public hearing? So they would hold the public hearing, then make their final decision, and then they would advertise their final decision.

What we are saying, through this legislation, is that before they make their final decision public through that whole process, at some point they need to get the consent of the property owner. Now, it’s just my assumption that if this law passes, if this change passes, then they would probably go at some point early in the process and ask the property owner: “Do you really want us to remove you — if you’re found to meet all these other conditions — from the land reserve?” That way, they don’t have to deploy a lot of resources in considering a parcel if the parcel is not going to be able to be considered.

But again, that’s just my way of logically thinking how this process would work. At the end of the day, what the goal is, as I said before, is to provide some fairness to those people who are being asked if they would want their land removed from the land reserve against their wishes.

V. Huntington: Well, I’m quite satisfied with the process as it was thus and then outlined by the minister. That makes some sense. There are the other issues of whether or not, if land was to be excluded and the landowner
[ Page 13065 ]
didn’t consent to exclude…. Then what is the status of the land?

The Agricultural Land Commission will have done its assessment, will have said it’s not suitable for agriculture. So you’re in limbo in the ALR.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: You don’t think they will have said that. Then what was the point of assessing the land for the boundary review?

The Chair: Members, please. Through the Chair.

V. Huntington: Through the Chair — yes. Sorry, sir.

Okay, I will ask that question. I really don’t want to take up the critic’s time, but….

Interjection.

V. Huntington: It’s okay?

I thought I understood from the minister’s description of the process. Yes, the final decision won’t be made until they ask the landowner. But until that time, you indicated there would have been an assessment of the land. They would have taken those assessments to public hearing. They would have said: “We’re looking at excluding these types of land. What do you think, everybody?”

They would have gone to the landowner and said: “Now, based on this assessment, do you want the land excluded or not?” So the landowner says no. Okay, fine. You don’t get excluded. But here you have, then, a piece of land that we would have excluded based on its suitability for agriculture, and yet it remains in the ALR. And you’re saying no, that’s not the way it works. Well, that is the way it’s working.

[1405] Jump to this time in the webcast

Then I stop and say: “Okay. Here we have a boundary review going on in zone 2.” We know the purpose, historically, in boundary reviews is to have a hard line on the ALR — the hard boundary so that you avoid the speculation on land that may or may not be suitable for agriculture. You’ve determined it’s suitable. You have the hard line. That’s the purpose for the boundary review — always has been and, apparently, may not be anymore.

Here we are in a boundary review that is leaving us and the ALC open to exclusion applications. This should never occur after the review has been completed. We’re leaving ourselves open for exclusion applications forever as the land passes through different owners.

What is the purpose of doing a boundary review if you’re not trying to make the ALC, and the work it does, more efficient?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the members opposite for the questions. Let me go through the process again because maybe I’m not articulating it well enough.

The review would be done by the Agricultural Land Commission, looking at the lands particularly in question in an area. So far we’ve had two areas. Once the review is done, some parcels would be identified that could potentially come out of the agricultural land reserve. No decision has been made that they should or they shouldn’t. No decision has been made on their agricultural value to the ALR or to the province yet. It’s just they are parcels that have been identified.

Then they go to the public hearing. At the public hearing, the public can then provide some input as well. After all of that is done, before a final decision is made and a decision is made public by the land commission, it has to, if this passes, get the consent of the property owner.

It’s my contention that the land commission, if this passes, at some point in the process — maybe earlier than after the public hearing — would probably go and ask the property owners if they want to be considered for removal from the reserve. I just think it makes effective sense for them to do that, but I’m not going to tell them to do that. That’ll be up to them. That’s how I see the process working.

[1410] Jump to this time in the webcast

As far as the issue of the land reserve and boundary reviews and applications, in the past — the hon. critic has gone through the history of the agricultural land reserve and the boundary reviews — we’ve had boundary reviews in the province in other places. It doesn’t stop an applicant from applying to have their land included, excluded, non–farm use and all the other applications they can make to the land commission.

We hope, and I think everyone in this chamber hopes, that with another set of boundary reviews, it would tighten up, as the member says, what we have in the reserve and make it clearer for property owners as to what the Agricultural Land Commission of the day believes should be in or should be out.

But things change. Dynamics change. Communities change. Part of the funds that are going to the Agricultural Land Commission, the $4.5 million, is to help them communicate even better with local governments, with local communities, and work on their community plans earlier in the process so that they can see if there are opportunities to serve agriculture but also serve local communities.

Just because a boundary review is done, it doesn’t preclude people and communities from coming forward and saying, “You know what? You did a boundary review five years ago, but I’d still like to apply for inclusion” — or a non-farm use or an exclusion.

Again, it really comes down to the argument that some are trying to make that this will be harmful to agriculture. I am saying, as the minister, I don’t believe in that argument. I believe that it’s very possible to respect the wishes of, probably, a minority of people. Obviously, for the majority who are in the reserve, they can, potentially, see some opportunities for their land that they might not
[ Page 13066 ]
be able to see in the reserve and might be very happy with the decision of the commission to exclude.

But there are some…. I mentioned already the example brought to me by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke where a senior would see an increase in their taxes for being removed from the reserve basically against his or her will. I have sympathy for that. Since this is not going to have any significant harm to agriculture in British Columbia, I’m proposing, and the government is proposing, this change in legislation.

V. Huntington: I just want to make one thing clear. I’m not necessarily saying that this is going to be bad for agriculture or bad for the ALR or the ALC. I don’t think the critic is either. What I am saying is that a boundary review should make things simpler at the end of the day. It should create efficiencies for the ALC at the end of the day. But here we’re looking at putting ourselves in a paper bag. You can punch it out whenever you feel like it, because somebody says: “I want this tax status.”

You can worry about things like the seniors in a different way. You can treat them like the second farmhouse or the farmhouse where the original farmer’s family wants to have an additional farmhouse on the land. Or you can even have those three at some point if the original farmers want to live the rest of their lives on it. You can grandfather the tax status. There are all sorts of tools you can use to look after those exceptions.

What I can see here is abuse of the legislation. I’m just sorry that we’re opening the door of the agricultural land reserve and the ALC to that abuse when I think we could be making it so much more efficient, so much more reliable and so much more understandable.

L. Popham: Thank you to my colleague for making some excellent points.

It’s the integrity of the agricultural land reserve that we’re concerned about. The minister believes that somebody should be allowed to stay in the agricultural land reserve for tax purposes. We could have had the Finance Minister in here to come up with a different tax rate for those people that he’s worried about. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

It’s the integrity of the agricultural land reserve that has a mandate and is governed by the Agricultural Land Commission. That’s the problem. As the Minister of Agriculture, I would think that you would be standing up as hard as I am right now, and my colleague for Delta South, to improve the integrity of the agricultural land reserve and not cast doubt on whether or not the land in the reserve is valuable for agriculture or not.

That’s been our whole problem. There is always a higher and best use for agriculture within the reserve in the minds of many who want to develop it. That’s the problem.

[1415] Jump to this time in the webcast

My question is: has the minister had a conversation with the Agricultural Land Commission around this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: Without jumping to the second question, I’ll just say yes to the first question and wait and see what the second question is.

L. Popham: What was the conversation about? What did the Agricultural Land Commission think about this legislation? What were the conversations around this? Are they supportive of this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: They didn’t comment one way or the other on the legislation. They would be happy to see the details once the legislation is passed.

L. Popham: It has quite an effect on the commission. It has quite an effect on the agricultural land reserve, which they have been appointed, as an independent commission, to protect. So I would think there would be a consultation process with the Agricultural Land Commission.

Has the minister or the deputy minister not had any conversations with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, we’ve had conversations with the Agricultural Land Commission chair — all appropriate. We outlined what the policy intent was. The response was, quite clearly, it’s up to government to determine the policies, and they would live within the policies that government determines.

L. Popham: The boundary reviews that haven’t been released yet or haven’t been completed or released yet…. It’s good to know today and to get it confirmed that the Agricultural Land Commission could release that any time, including today. So I’ll make a request for that information.

It leads me to believe that, possibly, the boundary review work has been done to a point where a decision on all of the land within that boundary review has been considered for exemption or inclusion. If that’s the case and if, for some reason, it hasn’t been released yet…. Maybe the work is not done. But that information isn’t public. You can’t see it on line.

Although this would be in a different section, the transition period of this legislation is being backdated to January 1. Did the minister ask the commission to hold that report or that information back until this legislation was debated in this House?

Hon. N. Letnick: No, I didn’t ask them to do that. Of course, as I said before, we provided them with where we were going with this legal framework within which they would have to function. Whether they made a decision
[ Page 13067 ]
on their own to delay the announcements would be up to them. I never asked them to do that.

[1420] Jump to this time in the webcast

L. Popham: Did anybody from the Ministry of Agriculture ask the commission not to release those reports?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ve been advised that no one has asked them — from the deputy minister as well. They were advised, however, that the legal framework would be retroactive to January 1.

L. Popham: But if those reports were released…. If the decision had been finalized on a boundary review and it was released, say, today, before the legislation passes or comes into effect…. Say that report was released before January 1. Say it was released in December. This law wouldn’t apply to that boundary review. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Letnick: That’s correct.

L. Popham: Just for argument’s sake, if this report, the boundary review, had been dated December 31…. Say it is complete, and it’s dated December 31. This legislation wouldn’t apply. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Letnick: That’s correct.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Popham: I have an amendment I’d like to put forward on section 2. The Chair has copies of that already, I believe, and the minister has a copy of it.

[SECTION 2(b)(8) by adding the following section:

(c) The Agricultural Land Commission may make decisions on each project individually based on the merit of the project.]

On the amendment.

L. Popham: Section 2 refers to activities that would be allowed as far as agritourism goes. The Agricultural Land Commission already has a bit of a schedule of what they can decide on. They’ve got activities that they believe are non-farm activities and farm activities, and they have a guideline that they can use.

The minister, in his description of this legislation, has implied that the cabinet will create a list of what can and cannot be done as far as agritourism goes, and that would be the guideline that the Agricultural Land Commission would have to use.

Now, I took part in a lot of the tour that was done a few years ago when we were looking at the Agricultural Land Commission and the ALR. Overwhelmingly, the comments from the public were that they trusted the Agricultural Land Commission to make decisions on activities on the agricultural land reserve. They trusted that. They wanted the Agricultural Land Commission to be the ones to decide by application.

I believe that that’s where the decisions should lie. So as far as the government making a list of what should and shouldn’t happen, I really do believe that each project should be considered individually on its own merit so that the mandate of the commission can apply to each one of those activities.

That’s my amendment. I’ll let the minister comment on it if he wants.

[1425] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. N. Letnick: I believe what the amendment is trying to do is say that the Agricultural Land Commission should, in the case of agritourism, as we’re discussing here, make all the decisions on a case-by-case basis, based on applications.

The intent of the legislation is to see, in certain circumstances, that an agritourism use would not have to go to the commission. Therefore, it’s completely contrary. It’s not an amendment. It’s basically overriding what the intent of the legislation is to accomplish. Therefore, I can’t support the amendment.

L. Popham: The minister can’t support that amendment because it’s opposite to what the legislation is saying. Could the minister tell me why he believes the legislation is better than the idea of the amendment I put forward?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite. We do already have a list of events that happen in the agricultural land reserve that don’t require an application to the commission. Farm festivals would be an example, right?

The purpose of the amendment, as I see it, would force all uses to go to the Agricultural Land Commission for permission. That’s contrary to the act as it is now, contrary to the intent here, whereby in certain circumstances, we are saying that given the right regulations, a farm owner, a property owner, would not have to seek the permission of the commission to do the particular use.

V. Huntington: I have two further questions on section 2. The first is to sub (a). I find paragraph sub (a) very interesting in that a lot of time and wording and complication is given to the whole issue of consent.

Could the minister tell me what his officials and he are thinking in terms of the narrowing of the appropriate forms of consent? In section 1, consent must be given in writing, which, to me, seems simple, efficient. No red tape. This government hates red tape. No red tape. Subsection 2(a) is nothing but red tape around the issue of consent. I’d like to have a very clear under-
[ Page 13068 ]
standing what the government is attempting to do and require here.

[1430] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for Delta South for the question — a nice part of the province, by the way. I really enjoy Delta.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: And important too — yes, of course.

This is based on legal advice, first of all. I’d just like to say that. The first one, “establishing procedures and requirements in respect of the consent,” is standard phrasing in all these. The second one, “respecting circumstances in which an owner is deemed to have consented to an exclusion,” is, again, legal advice, because you might have asked someone for consent and not received any response back. We need to identify when it’s deemed that they’ve provided either consent or non-consent, right? It’s like deemed disposition in the case of taxes.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: Check mark, she says. Very good.

And for “(iii) respecting exceptions to the requirement for consent” probably the best example I can give where we might say you don’t have to give consent is Crown land.

The Chair: Hon. Members, before we go on, the question is: shall the amendment, as proposed by the member for Saanich South, pass?

Amendment negatived on division.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister for that answer. On to subparagraph (b). This is interesting, too, because it starts to move into local government bylaws on the ALR. I’m going to just jump to what I think is the kernel of my concern here.

Is this subsection (b)(8) in any way related to providing a planning framework in which non-farm uses can be made on agricultural land if they take into account the three — (i), (ii) and (iii)?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for going to the nub of the issue. She has honed in exactly on the intent here.

If you look at section (b)(8), it really talks about farm uses and non-farm uses for both. This is standard language that you can find in other places in the act. If I could just put aside the legalese for a second and explain it as to what we’re trying to achieve with this.

As the member knows, there has been a lot of discussion about agritourism — in particular, weddings on farmland. Currently, if you want to hold a wedding on your own farm, go ahead. You don’t have to apply to the commission for permission. But the commission has made it very clear that if you are going to be using farmland in the ALR for commercial weddings, continuous, you need to apply to the commission for permission.

[1435] Jump to this time in the webcast

What we’re saying with this is that under certain situations…. I’m not going to identify what all the regulations are going to look like, at this point. But in limited circumstances, we believe that you don’t need to apply to the commission for permission for holding weddings on agricultural land.

We’ll identify what those conditions are in the regulations, but this gives us that ability to then create those regulations that would then articulate that if you pass these conditions — and, by the way, we’re sure to include the ALC when we discuss what those conditions are — you won’t have to apply to the commission for permission. That would help the commission get on to the other applications that it has to deal with that it believes are priority issues.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

The Chair: Shall section 4 pass? So ordered. Shall section 5 pass? So ordered.

Interjection.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Member.

We’ll go back to section 4.

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. I think the discussion we had was to stand down sections 4 to 10 and deal with sections 11 through 19, I think it is, and then return to sections 4 to 10. The committee has the authority to stand sections down. It can’t pass them pre-emptively, but it can stand sections down — 4 through 10.

The Chair: Okay. I believe that both sides of the House agree that section 4 to section 10 inclusive stand down.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive stood down.

The Chair: Now we are on section 11.

Hon. M. de Jong: That should prompt the arrival of some folks.

The Chair: We’ll wait for two minutes.

On section 11.

S. Chandra Herbert: We’ve moved into a section of the bill focusing on the film, TV and visual effects industries — industries very important in my constituency and,
[ Page 13069 ]
of course, very important to the health of the provincial economy and our culture too.

I’m curious if the minister might speak a little bit about section 11, about what he’s trying to amend here and for what purpose.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member and members of the committee for accommodating the differing order.

We’re joined by Paul Flanagan to my right, David Karp and Mark Gunther over on my left.

[1440] Jump to this time in the webcast

This particular section of the sections that we will be discussing relates to the definitions. In the first instance, the definition of “eligible activities,” really, is more about improving the readability of the legislation. I don’t think it would be fair to say that it’s intended to effect any substantive changes to the legislation.

That is not the case with respect to the second amendment. The intention here is to ensure that with respect to a television series or episodic television, it’s clear that a “cycle” of episodes — and that is the term that, I’m told, the industry uses — is treated as a single episode for purposes of determining the tax credit that’s applicable.

Practically what that means is, insofar as this package of legislation, there is significance around the date of October 1, from a transitional point of view. If principal photography on the first episode has begun prior to that, the cycle of episodes is captured by that applicable rate. Absent this amendment, that would not be the case.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for that description. So basically, the understanding is that if you were doing a series — as we are lucky enough to have a number of series shooting in B.C. — the tax rate that they are currently under and the tax credits they currently get would continue into the future, as more episodes occur. That’s my understanding. If that’s incorrect, the minister can correct me.

My question. Some films have sequels. Some TV shows seem to be more like films. Would this potentially also apply to a film sequel, which could arguably be an episode, as I know some of the bigger films are seeming to become the melding of film and TV? That seems to be happening more and more as people are watching films on iPads or computers and not necessarily the same cable stations that they used to.

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things there. With respect to the episodic television, the member has it correct, I believe. But it relates to the cycle. It doesn’t continue in perpetuity. If there’s a third, fourth and fifth season, it covers what I’ve always thought about as the season of episodes or the cycle of episodes.

In the second case, with respect to a feature film sequel, the existing rate today would only apply in circumstances where principal photography for the sequel had commenced prior to the transition date. If the sequel is only in the planning stages and doesn’t commence photography until sometime next year, then the new rate would apply to the sequel.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section, to my understanding, reduces the tax credit for digital animation, visual effects post-production tax credit — sometimes, I believe, referred to as the DAVE tax credit — from 17.5 percent to 11 percent.

My question. I’ve heard from people in the digital and visual effects world that the 17.5 percent credit we gave was still not as competitive as what was provided in Quebec. So we’re actually moving farther away from being competitive with Quebec’s industry by reducing it to 11 percent.

Can the minister help me understand what the competitive gap is now, at the 11 percent rate, between B.C. and Quebec? What financial accounting, what analysis has been done? How big is the gap now between us and Quebec, as it relates to a DAVE-style tax credit?

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, the first part of the member’s preamble to his question was correct. And then, at the tail end, he referred to an 11 percent rate, which is not illogical given the language in the section. I do want to emphasize, though, that the rate…. It is why, at the time we announced all this and tabled it, I made clear what the intended rate is.

[1445] Jump to this time in the webcast

The section creates a range. We have tried to be forthcoming about where the effective date we will select…. I would say this. The legislation we’re dealing with is a bit difficult to read and a bit clumsy, in the sense that it is a composite of the introduction of the credits some time ago — in ’98, I think — at a certain rate, and then over the years, the rate has changed.

The construct here — not necessarily perfect…. It’s to peel back all of the subsequent amendments since that time to the original level, and then provide the government of the day with the option of increasing it up to a certain amount.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The member is correct. We are proposing, as at October 1, to increase it to 16 percent, which is actually, de facto, a decrease from the 17½ percent rate.

In the conversations that we had with the sector, they indicated to us two things. First of all, to the degree that they recognized we desired addressing the growing
[ Page 13070 ]
amounts that were being paid out, it would be fair to address both the production credits and the DAVE credits. They communicated to us that although this is a slight reduction downwards, in this particular case, they felt they were still competitive with competing jurisdictions.

I think the member mentioned Quebec, and I think he is correct that that would be the jurisdiction that would attract the most attention. I can get the member the rates for Quebec. I don’t have them here, but I also will not quarrel with the member’s assertion that we have adjusted the rate downward slightly, which will increase that gap.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, I could look up the rates on line for Quebec. It wouldn’t be difficult.

The real question is…. The minister was provided with expert advice from people in the industry, who I understand would have gone through typical productions, planned it out — as to what would happen if the rate was here; what would happen if the rate was there. I know there was a fair bit of back and forth with the ministry around this question, which I appreciate.

I think it’s a good idea that an industry be consulted, particularly one where these credits do make a big difference and one where, if you adjust a number slightly one way or another, you can create conditions that you might not expect to be creating.

Is the minister willing to provide me with an analysis of what the 16 percent rate compared to Quebec’s rate would be, in terms of what kind of financial gap exists between the two? Surely, the ministry would have that, as they want it just as much as I do, I think, to make sure that we remain competitive.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reminded, first of all, that we did take a lot of time to consult with the industry, which did conduct an analysis on a hypothetical production, and the industry alerted us to this. You’ve got to be a little bit careful about trying to do an apples-to-apples comparison.

For example, in the case of television series production, the situation here is very different than it is in Quebec, with respect to French-language television series and the markets that are available for that.

[1450] Jump to this time in the webcast

What I can say to the member…. I don’t want to pretend they’re given something that doesn’t exist. The industry undertook an analysis, particularly with respect to the DAVE credits, and advised us that they felt that they remained on a competitive footing at the 16 percent rate. We have obviously responded in the way that we did and have accepted that at face value.

S. Chandra Herbert: Some industry folks I was speaking with the other day said, metaphorically anyways, they felt that the DAVE tax credit cut would have led to people dancing in the streets of Montreal. Now, maybe they were already dancing in the streets of Montreal. They do all sorts of things there. It’s a beautiful city.

To be serious, their concern was that while we will maintain business, we will not continue to grow the business — the concern being that a new investor looking to invest would decide to go to Quebec or, they said, potentially Ontario before choosing here, due to the tax credit gap.

I think we’ve got great talent here and some of the best studios here, for now. My concern would be that I think we should be growing the business, not keeping it flat or potentially reducing it and having folks leave to other jurisdictions.

If it is possible, I’ll ask once more: what does the gap look like? I know they have different funding formulas for TV, etc., over there. I’m not asking about those programs. But specifically, if we were looking at a tax credit, if you just stripped away the other programs that exist and looked at it on a basis, how big is the gap between us and Quebec, or between us and Ontario? Is it a difference in terms of price? You save 1 percent if you do your DAVE work in post-production in Quebec? Is it a 10 percent difference in terms of the actual value to somebody?

I just want to get a sense of what the ministry thinks the gap is. Some in the sector think it’s too big.

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. The member mentioned Quebec and Ontario. Of course, as we have seen in Ontario already, rates have been adjusted downwards. Who is to say that that won’t follow in the jurisdiction in Quebec?

I’d be a little bit cautious, of course. We’re talking about one aspect of this, but the credits are calculated on a different basis in those jurisdictions. Certainly, the production credits are. They include more than…. They include overall production costs, as opposed to labour costs. So it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Maybe the best thing I can do for the member…. This will give him a measure of comfort. I certainly have no qualms. We’ll contact the authors of the analysis that we were provided with. I’m happy to provide it to him, but we’ll check with the authors to see if they have any concerns about that.

S. Chandra Herbert: That would be very helpful. I really would appreciate that.

I wondered if the minister might be able to, at this time, share who at least is willing to be publicly named whom he consulted with through this process.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll read out some names. But I also do want to highlight for the committee that from time to time other people would have been drawn in by these folks and would have been consulted, in terms of the main body: Liz Shorten, Peter Leitch, Cheryl Nex, Michelle Grady, Crawford Hawkins.

[1455] Jump to this time in the webcast


[ Page 13071 ]

All of those were involved, and then there was contact made with others with specialized expertise in the industry. If the member’s question is about a core group, there’s kind of a core group.

S. Chandra Herbert: They’re certainly very well informed people who have got their fingers in just about every part of the industry or know people who do. I’ve learned a lot from them, personally, as well.

I wonder. Why are we looking to put this into regulation as opposed to legislation, in terms of what the credit rates are?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two reasons — one really practical, but I’ll begin with the other.

Some of this derives from fairly rapidly changing circumstances around currency. I think everyone acknowledges that. So the ability of future governments, were that to occur again….

I think one of the comments that the member probably heard from someone in the industry was: “If the dollar goes back to $0.95, you can be sure we’ll be knocking on the government’s door again.” That is establishing the range. I will say this. Quite purposely, it is not limitless. It exists within a range. You can’t go below a certain amount without coming back to the full House, and it can’t go above a certain amount without coming back to the full House.

That was maybe the primary reason for the structure. The other thing was that it actually allowed us more time to talk to the industry. The member may know that we, and I, try to get legislation into the House in a timely way. This bill, candidly, was awaiting resolution of this, and this was a way to continue the discussion and finalize the bill so that the House could consider it in a timely way.

S. Chandra Herbert: I certainly appreciate the desire to consult, to move quickly. I think the challenge here is that, as the minister will well know, there have been other jurisdictions which have just disappeared their tax credits overnight, seemingly, through sometimes legislation, sometimes regulation. Legislation takes longer. You have to have the full debate, where regulation can sometimes avoid that and avoid the need to be really public, in some ways, about what you intend to do.

I appreciate that there is a range of credits here that the minister has said could be decided by regulation. I know that for people in the industry, certainly when I’ve talked to them — whether it’s here in B.C. or when I had the opportunity to meet with producers down in Hollywood — certainty is very important. Knowing that a government has a rate set in law certainly is more certain than if it’s a rate that’s set in regulation, which can be changed overnight. I would prefer, generally I think, at least when it comes to these rates, to be in legislation as opposed to regulation, but I can understand the argument the minister makes.

I do have an amendment to this section. I’ll explain before I move it. What I’m thinking here is…. I want to say that I appreciate that the industry was involved this time — that there was consultation, that there was discussion, that they were at the table. That hasn’t always been the case for a number of government decisions — for any government, really. Some governments believe it’s important to consult; others don’t.

As we saw in Saskatchewan, as we saw in Ontario, the lack of proper consultation can have pretty disastrous effects. Ontario. When they cut their tax credits, which the minister referenced earlier, they didn’t really think it through as much as they could have if they’d had experts there to guide them.

So you had trade publications…. I think it was the Hollywood Reporter, the front page, a big picture of Canada, a maple leaf, maybe a beaver thrown in for good measure — I’m not sure — with a big sign saying: “Stop.” Basically: “Don’t come to Ontario. Stay away.” That was just because of the clumsy way they handled the tax credit cuts in Ontario because of a lack of consultation.

[1500] Jump to this time in the webcast

I would like to propose an amendment to section 12. The amendment reads:

[Section 12

By adding the following amendment:

(f) by adding the following subsection:

(12) Before changing the prescribed rate under subsection (10), the Lieutenant Governor in Council must

(a) Provide the public at least 90 days’ notice of a proposed change,

(b) Consult with all the industry representatives that the government considers will be affected by the proposed change, and

(c) By considering any comments provided during the consultation process before taking the action.]

On the amendment.

S. Chandra Herbert: I move this. I know the minister can say, “Well, in this process, they did talk to people; they did consult,” so some may argue that this is redundant. But I move it because I don’t think it is redundant. In fact, I think the process that was followed is the correct process. There was consultation. People did send in their thoughts. There was some back-and-forth. It happened fairly quickly.

I think that should just be a matter of course, as opposed to a matter of whim or good intention. Intentions are good, but as the minister well knows, if it’s not in law, sometimes good intentions can be forgotten and not followed through.

I think this would be a good thing for the industry and certainly a good thing for future credit changes that may have to happen. There are lots of good ideas about how we can structure tax credits for film and TV and digital effects in B.C.

Hopefully, the minister will find this amendment to be friendly to what he’s trying to do here. It’s just good
[ Page 13072 ]
governance that we should always follow, which is to talk to people before we act in ways that may impact them.

The Chair: The minister on the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the spirit of the amendment. Clearly, the member, I think, will accept that I share his view around the value of engaging directly with those impacted and affected, which is why we followed the process we did.

A couple of things with respect to the body of the amendment itself — which is intended to become part of the law. I wonder…. Well, I don’t really have to wonder, based on the conversations we had. If suddenly, within a two- or three-week period, we arrived at a point — it’s not as if this hasn’t happened — that the dollar appreciated by 20 points, my guess is that we, or whoever the government is, would have the industry on their door saying: “We don’t want to wait three months. We’re going to make decisions now about the production season.”

I will say this in partial support of what the member has said. I think the industry views the regulatory component of this as both positive and potentially negative. In the right circumstance, used in the way that the industry favours, they see it positively. The comment I received from one is: “We view this positively because it gives the government flexibility, which is the same reason we view it negatively.” Nonetheless, I think in certain circumstances, they would want the government to consult and move more quickly than over a three-month period.

Practically, as well, we did as best we could in consulting with the industry and also trying to move in a timely way. But the member has already established that…. I would not attempt to leave the committee with the impression that we managed to speak with every single person. We found what we thought was a broadly representative group of folks and leaders within the sector.

[1505] Jump to this time in the webcast

The amendment would require consultation with all the industry representatives that the government would consider affected. I don’t want to be cute about this. It might be possible to manufacture something that qualified.

I guess what I’m saying to the member and the committee…. I’m not dismissing the spirit, but I’m hesitant to lend support to the specific amendment before us. But I think the member has effectively highlighted his view — and it is one that I share — that in exercising its authority under the provisions that the House may pass here, it should only do so after having consulted extensively with the industry.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the minister’s thoughtful response. I easily could have written the amendment to say “consult with industry representatives,” rather than “consult with all the industry representatives.” I can understand how it would be difficult to do such a thing, even though, I guess, with the Internet and so on you could put out a request for thoughts, and if people chose not to respond, that would be up to them.

But I can understand the minister’s concern that by making it law, arguably somebody could say, “I wasn’t consulted, and the law says everyone should have been consulted,” and there could be challenges that way. That certainly wasn’t the intent of the amendment, and I know the minister didn’t take it that way.

I appreciate that the minister agrees with the intent of the amendment, even though he doesn’t support it at this point. I will say thank you for that. I think — certainly on the New Democrat side here and, I understand now, on the government side — that there is an intent that should any changes by regulation come to these tax credits, there will be a consultation process, sometimes faster, perhaps, if the need be.

Although what I’ve come to understand with producers — some of our biggest customers — is that because the union environment in B.C. is so connected with the industry, they work very strongly together, they have a strong sense of consistency, they partner. It’s a secure and predictable environment for investment in the film industry. So far, anyways, governments of both stripes have been fairly supportive.

I would argue that in some cases, the present government doesn’t go far enough in terms of supporting the industry. The minister has heard my remarks, in that sense, more than a few times, particularly on the domestic side. But I can appreciate where the minister is coming from on this.

I will be voting in support, obviously. I moved the amendment because I wanted to make it clear that the intent is that we should be doing this. I can understand why the minister may not choose to support that at this time.

I certainly would urge him, in future legislation, to consider making a requirement that consultation actually occur. I think that would give people a sense of some certainty. At least they’d get a chance to be heard, whereas in other jurisdictions that hasn’t always been the case.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

S. Chandra Herbert: Could the minister discuss what he’s trying to accomplish with section 13 here?

Hon. M. de Jong: We were just discussing the DAVE credits. This is the comparable section for the production services tax credit. In similar fashion, it peels back the various increases that have occurred to the original amount from 1998 and then creates that range between
[ Page 13073 ]
that amount and 33 percent. The similar rationale applies here to what we discussed under the previous section.

[1510] Jump to this time in the webcast

S. Chandra Herbert: Of course, the concern with this is that by reducing the credit — as the minister mentioned, and certainly I have numerous times — if the dollar goes up again, we could be back into the same situation we were at in 2013, with huge job losses, people coming forward sharing their stories about how they’re concerned they can’t pay their mortgages and those kinds of things.

I understand why the minister is doing this, given that Ontario has reduced their credit, as well, a little bit, although I would argue that Ontario, at least in terms of tax credits, is still more competitive than we are in B.C. We’re more competitive, I would argue, for locations, crews, proximity and so forth. We’re certainly doing well on that side.

Again, I guess, a similar question to what I asked about the earlier section is: would the minister be willing to have his staff or some of the experts that he consulted with help me understand how big the gap is with Ontario in terms of the difference in competitiveness? I know they have an all-spend versus we have a labour tax credit, which is different. However, if you compare the cost savings to a production….

You can start to look at how big a cost saving is to a production when you look at the entire budget. You just run the numbers for those entire budgets. It would be helpful. Is it a 25 percent savings if you shoot in Ontario versus a 20 percent savings or a 15 percent savings if you shoot in B.C.? What’s the difference?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think, again, the best way and what might be most helpful for the member is…. I’ve confirmed that a similar detailed analysis was done by the working group and by the industry. Again, I’m more than happy to provide it to the member. I’ll just check to ensure that there’s no objection on the part of the authors.

I guess the other thing I’d point out is that the success that we and the member and the industry itself boast of continues. The member hasn’t asked, but I should, at some point, I guess, put on the record…. The desire to address this didn’t actually derive entirely from what was happening in another jurisdiction. It was as we watched the amount, which is indicative of success, grow.

At one time, people looked at $200 million in tax credits, taxpayer money that is being paid out to an industry, and viewed that as a tremendous sign of success, which it was. Then it went to $250 million and $300 million and $350 million and $400 million. It was headed…. It may yet hit half a billion dollars.

The conversation with the industry really started on that basis. The government, on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, wants to be a partner and support the industry, support growth in the industry. But there is a limit beyond which we think it is unfair to other sectors of the economy to go. It was on that basis, and the consultation took place.

I do, actually, take a measure of comfort and pride in the work that our team achieved. I mean, it’s a conversation the industry probably would rather not have had, but they did. And we arrived at a place where the industry itself felt comfortable saying: “We can continue to grow. We can continue to prosper. We can continue to attract production activity. We are content that our views have been heard.”

I think, in part, we learned a lot more about the industry as part of the discussion. We learned about aspects of productions and how they’re structured and how the planning process and production decisions are made. It really did influence the outcome and transition dates and definitions. All in all, positive.

I think the taxpayers…. People who are engaged in the industry I hope will feel that this is respectful of their success, and people outside of the industry I hope will view this as a sign that the government accepts that we have to be fair to them also.

[1515] Jump to this time in the webcast

S. Chandra Herbert: Many in the film and TV industries come to me and say quite strongly that they don’t agree with a characterization that they feel has been made by government — that they are a cost to government, that they are getting subsidies, that they are somehow taking away money from health care and other sorts of things.

They would argue that either the investment comes in because of tax credits or, if the tax credits are gone, the investment wouldn’t come in so you wouldn’t make any money because there wouldn’t be any of those jobs there — and that, in fact, what they bring is a net gain to the province. I agree that it’s a net gain to the province — tens of thousands of jobs, so many spinoff effects. It’s really quite a good industry, I think, for B.C.

What sort of analysis has the government done to determine that the current $500 million — I think, the minister threw out there — is the limit, that we shouldn’t be going too much higher than that?

People in the industry will say: “Well, if we get to $750 million in terms of tax credits that are going out, that just means there are way more jobs, and that just means there’s way more income tax, way more PST, way more property tax, way more money being invested in B.C. with more spinoff jobs, etc.”

They’re arguing that if the model works at $200 million that people are proud of, that’s a certain set of jobs, and if you get to $400 million, that’s effectively twice as many jobs. Why would we be upset that we are growing the amount, as that just means that the economy is growing for the film and TV industry?


[ Page 13074 ]

I’m trying to understand the difference here about when it becomes a cost, according to the government, as opposed to when it is a benefit.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me, first of all, say clearly that I accept absolutely the proposition that the success of this industry translates into multiple layers of success. There are benefits — some of them quantifiable, some of them not so easily quantifiable.

It’s also why I will candidly admit, in my view, there is a point…. I’m not sure this is a science as much as it is a sense and an exercise in expression of the government of the day’s view of where that balance is and the Finance Minister’s view. I and we are accountable for the exercise of that judgment.

It is a refundable tax credit. I say this not to impugn at all. It’s the way it was set up. It has persisted for the last 15 years under this government and the government previously. It’s a spending program in the sense that it is not related, as non-refundable tax credits are, to profit or the payment of other taxes. It doesn’t operate to reduce the tax burden of the beneficiaries. It is paid irrespective. That is a fact.

I feel obliged to point out that in other circumstances, reaction from observers, pundits and political adversaries has been very different when we are talking about tax credits in other circumstances. The oil and gas sector, the petroleum sector and the energy sector would make a very similar argument — and have. Yet the reaction to that has been very different from the quarters. How on earth could you reduce the tax burden or provide these incentives?

I accept that there are very real benefits that accrue. I accept also that the industry can be very mobile.

[1520] Jump to this time in the webcast

One of the benefits that we see now, as infrastructure is developed, is there is an added attraction as the digital effects, visual effects, industry has grown. It tends to draw work from all over the world. The talent and infrastructure is located here and is less dependent on location activities.

I think, at some point, there is a limit. Virtually every sector of the economy — whether it’s the forest sector, the agrifood sector, the energy sector — would make the argument the member is making. “If you simply give us a similar program, we will do better.” The reaction in the past from some of the member’s colleagues has been very negative, depending on which sector of the economy we are talking about.

I accept that the member has been a great proponent of the film production sector. But if we apply the logic elsewhere in the economy, he and I both know the reaction would be, from some of his colleagues and others around B.C., very, very different.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that, yes, there are decisions, values, etc., that are made in terms of how tax credits are used and where governments put their priorities. The minister said maybe it’s more of an art in terms of deciding where the tax credit goes and how much it is.

I guess the question, though, is really…. He had stated that once it was climbing to around $500 million, he became a bit more…. I don’t know if he said “nervous” or just thought it deserved a look.

I’m trying to understand, really. What if next year we get $600 million worth of business in terms of refundable tax credits? Is the implication, then, that we need to cut the credit further because we have too much business? Too many people are investing in B.C., so we should reduce the credit further so that fewer people invest in B.C.

I think the minister can see where I’m going here. It’s a question for me. I understand we want the best value for taxpayers and to be ensuring we get the most that we can — the most jobs and the most tax revenue, in this case — so we don’t have to refund as much. If we can keep the same level of jobs we have and continue to grow them, then sure, I can understand why people would support that.

I think the question, though, is…. If we continue to grow the number of jobs, because it’s a labour-based tax credit, that will continue to grow the labour tax credit amount that has to be paid out. Some may say: “Well, why would we be harming the actual industry, which is doing so well, and trying to cap it?” Some would argue what the implication is here is that the $500 million limit seems to be how big the minister, arguably, wants the industry to grow. It could be.

Now, maybe that’s not the case. Maybe the minister is okay if it gets to $600 million or $700 million if we continue to attract investment. I’m just trying to understand where the minister is coming from here with this.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not sure this is widely known or known by the member. Two things were happening, both of them relevant to the conversation we’re having and the conversations that took place leading into the budget in February.

One, quite admittedly, was a concern on my part and the government’s part with the forecasts for the significantly growing amounts. The other, and this may not be known by the member, was the industry itself. It was representatives of the industry that contacted, to their credit, the government, I think in part because of something the member mentioned earlier. They saw the pendulum swing very dramatically in other jurisdictions, not in the way that it’s been recalibrated slightly here but from credit to no credit.

To their credit, I think the industry here is a little more sophisticated than that and understood — again, to something the member said earlier — the importance of stability, predictability, our reputation for stability. All of that is important.

[1525] Jump to this time in the webcast


[ Page 13075 ]

We took that very, very seriously with respect to the transitional dates because we accept the proposition that certain planning and production decisions were made on the basis of a set of expectations. In other jurisdictions, changes were made that didn’t take that into account. We also accepted the advice that said to simply apply a cap would inherently place an element of unpredictability. Those were all features of this.

If, in spite of the changes we are considering today, production activity continues to grow exponentially, we will have a definitive answer to the question of whether or not we are still competitive. The member and I can attempt to cross that bridge of success when we get to it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, Minister. I think that’s helpful.

Certainly, many people that I know in many communities across B.C. would dance for joy if the industry continued to grow at the pace it’s been growing, as there have been many new jobs created. They are very happy to see investments in communities all across this province, including in communities that have never seen a film shoot before, because the demand is high and we have so many great locations.

I appreciate that answer, and we can move on to the next section.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the minister could just explain the intent behind section 14.

Hon. M. de Jong: Same methodology, same mechanism as we discussed previously, except in this case, it is the adjustments to the DAVE tax credit with respect to production services. So same construct, same rationale and same range.

S. Chandra Herbert: One question that people asked of me was: if we’re reducing on the foreign services side, or the production services tax credit, why don’t we slightly increase on the domestic side, on indigenous-based filmmaking, as an attempt, I would argue, to diversify our economy so we’re less reliant on the foreign services side and can have more domestic growth?

Certainly, Ontario seems to be, not monopolizing…. But they seem to have the vast majority of domestic production happening there. I want more of it here, because if the dollar goes up, that production continues. If the dollar goes down, that production continues.

This may not be the appropriate place for this question, but I couldn’t quite figure out where to put it in. I just wanted to ask the minister why we didn’t see an increase on the domestic side, since I don’t think we’re getting our share in this province.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the proof that I and we tended to accept the logic advanced by the member is revealed in the fact that we didn’t increase it, but we left it the same. We did distinguish it from foreign productions. We may not have bestowed as extensive an advantage as the member is advocating, but we did enhance its competitive advantage by separating it out and leaving it the same.

Separate and apart from this, so I won’t dwell on it, we have tried to provide some support to other areas of the music production sector. The member knows that, in the budget, we carved out several millions of dollars to partner with the music industry to try and promote our domestic music talent and productions.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I’m aware that the domestic tax credit has stayed the same while the foreign services has dropped. Unfortunately, that’s the same sort of thing that happened when the foreign service production went up in tax credits. The domestic stayed, I believe, the same.

[1530] Jump to this time in the webcast

While, arguably, it’s more competitive now compared to the foreign service, it’s no more competitive than it was before in terms of competition with Ontario. We’re not lighting anybody on fire. We’re not changing the channel in terms of what people’s understanding is of B.C.’s domestic industry and the competitiveness and the attraction to producers who seem to primarily stay in Ontario. I want more of them here, and I know, in fact, we lost some of our B.C.-based producers to Ontario back in 2013.

I’ll continue to argue for support through Creative B.C. so that we can once again start actually investing in our domestic TV industry in a bigger way than we are now. Currently we provide less investment on the grant side or on the new production side for B.C.-based film and TV producers than we did in, I believe, 2005 — than, really, maybe ten or 15 years ago. That’s not even adjusting to inflation.

Just to leave that there. I don’t imagine I’ll get a response in the sense of agreeing with me right now and right here to do that, but I’ll continue to argue that our domestic side needs a lot more attention than it is getting.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

S. Chandra Herbert: Could the minister explain what he’s attempting to do here in section 16?

Hon. M. de Jong: This particular amendment simply updates the definition of “mutual company” to refer specifically to the definition of “mutual fire insurance company.”
[ Page 13076 ]

It relates to amendments to section 2 of the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act that we are about to come to. It’s a consequential amendment to the amendment to the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act.

S. Chandra Herbert: I must admit I’m not up to speed on the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act — what the overall intent is of sections 16 through 19, I guess it would be, in this bill and why the minister feels these are important to enact.

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the scope of this, I’m told, practically relates to really one operating company that was founded in 1902 in B.C. There are, under the existing definitions of the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act, restrictions on the scope of business that they are entitled to participate in. Specifically, the company involved here is seeking to get involved in the property and casualty insurance sector. Their defining statute presently precludes them from doing that.

[1535] Jump to this time in the webcast

The analysis is, and the government is comfortable, that they are competent and equipped to engage in that business and should be permitted to engage in that business. The amendment is entitled to facilitate that work.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does the minister know what the original intent was of not allowing a company like this to participate in other forms of insurance, exclusively sticking to the fire insurance field?

Hon. M. de Jong: The restriction dates back to a time when the statutes were somewhat more specific and prescriptive, going back to the early part of the 1900s. This related to a company that was involved in the agricultural sector and agricultural fire coverage.

This change would allow them to incorporate a subsidiary to engage in the expanded insurance work. Originally the statute was designed to regulate and address a narrow section of the insurance business related to agricultural and fire protection for the agricultural farming sector.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, on the surface it seems eminently sensible to allow them to engage in more than one form of insurance relating to agriculture and fires. I think it is sensible and supportable. Thank you to the minister for explaining that.

Certainly, some old laws that are on the books are very restrictive and have not kept pace, for sure, with changes to our understanding of how laws can be used and designed. So thank you to the minister for that.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

[1540] Jump to this time in the webcast

The Chair: We have agreed to continue to stand down sections 4 and 5, so we will now start with section 6.

On section 6.

G. Heyman: My first question for the minister is: why is this amendment to the Environmental Management Act being brought in as part of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act when we, in fact, had an amendment to the Environmental Management Act bill — Bill 21, if I recall correctly — before the House?

Hon. M. Polak: The work on the other amendment, which forms the basis of our land-based spills response, was a very separate piece of work — and, of course, quite sizeable — and so was handled separately in an individual act.

G. Heyman: So they were both contemplated or framed at around the same time, and it was simply a choice to separate them?

Hon. M. Polak: It reflects the very different nature of the two. The land-based spills response regime, as I think the member knows, has been through multiple years of development going all the way back to 2010, whereas this work is really consequential to the ABMP that was developed for Elk Valley and makes it necessary to reflect those changes in the act itself.

G. Heyman: I’ll pursue this a bit further under section 7.

With respect to section 6, could the minister indicate what gave rise to this particular amendment that allows a director, after consulting with the minister, to “amend a permit or approval issued by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council”, or what specific situations the minister envisions this may be used in.

[1545] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. M. Polak: It is truly housekeeping. The power already exists with respect to permits in general. This is simply including those permits that would be issued under an area-based management plan — so just ensuring that we have the same powers to manage permitting through an area-based management plan that we already did under the currently existing permitting system.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

G. Heyman: Section 7, in particular, causes me some concern. It causes some stakeholders and interested parties some concern. I certainly would have preferred, depending on the answers the minister may give to the
[ Page 13077 ]
questions that I pose, to have seen this either in Bill 21 or a separate bill rather than buried in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It appears to be hardly a consequential amendment or of no import.

It would appear that the amendments allow the minister, in relation to areas covered by an area-based plan, to overrule the statutory authority of the director in relation to whether or not to issue a waste management permit. It looks like the minister could force the issuance of the permit, impose conditions, and those provisions are not appealable to the Environmental Appeal Board. Does the minister think this interpretation is incorrect or correct?

Hon. M. Polak: That’s not correct. The minister would be able to direct that permits be granted in accordance with the area-based management plan, but the minister would not have the authority to simply direct that permits be granted in any old way. They’d have to follow the plan.

In addition, it’s important to note that those permits under the area-based management plan would be subject to the same requirements around public consultation, First Nations consultation, etc.

G. Heyman: Could the minister assist me and others who have read this section differently to see exactly where that requirement would be? I’m trying not to ask the minister to do everyone’s work for us, but sometimes it can be difficult to correlate amendments with the act.

There has been a lot of concern raised about the Elk Valley management plan and the role of cabinet with respect to that plan. The concern is that the actions of cabinet with respect to the Elk Valley management plan could now effectively be repeated through actions of the minister.

In order to support this amendment, I think we need assurances and very explicit demonstration of how the requirements of the ministry, if they issue a permit in the normal manner, to address all of the environmental concerns that exist and act in the best interests of environmental protection are not being lost by this transfer of power to the minister.

[1550] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. M. Polak: This does not transfer power. Right now a director would not be able to issue a permit under the ABMP, because we don’t have that authorization in the legislation. That’s what this will do. The wording is “order a director to issue a permit under that section authorizing the introduction….” and then it goes on to all the different sections, requirements, etc.

The minister doesn’t have the authority to set out what would be in the permit, what requirements there would be. This simply provides the authority to allow for those permits to be considered under the area-based management plan.

G. Heyman: The minister and I have had recently, with respect to Bill 21, quite a lengthy exchange around legal drafting, but the words say: “…the minister may, in writing, order a director to issue a permit under that section authorizing the introduction of waste (a) within a specified time, (b) in accordance with any requirements or conditions, under section 14 (1) (a) to (f), specified in the order.”

Presumably that would be those specified in the minister’s order, not any other order. So I’m having a hard time seeing the reflection, in the language of the amendment, that corresponds with the minister’s claim that she has no power to order something different than a director would be required to under the act.

I would ask the minister to clarify this because it is not clear to me, it is not clear to environmental lawyers who have reviewed this, and there’s a lot of concern.

Hon. M. Polak: This is consistent with, and in fact it’s modelled on, section 23 of the Environmental Assessment Act as it exists, which provides the authority to require concurrent approvals. It does not in any way step on the authority of the decision-maker.

I should also respond to the member’s question. Previously I forgot to. I was asked to point out where it was that the consultations for First Nations and the broader community would be required. That is under section 1(2) of the Public Notification Regulation, and it would apply here as well.

G. Heyman: If the minister’s power under this amendment is not a power which allows the minister to override or substitute her opinion for that of the director, what is the purpose of the amendment?

[1555] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. M. Polak: It’s important to note that enforcement is given life through permits. The permits set out the rules by which someone must operate their permitted activity. Without this amendment, there isn’t authority for the director to grant a permit under an ABMP. That’s what this is fixing.

In a context where we now have an ABMP, we need authority to grant permits that are reflective of that ABMP, not the regular permitting process. So this provides the authority for that, as well as what flows from that, which is the ability to enforce the permits that are granted through the ABMP.

G. Heyman: Why would the amendment…? If the purpose is to give the director the ability to enforce certain measures, why is it worded in such a way as to say that the minister may, in writing, order a director to issue a permit instead of simply giving those powers to the director? It’s impossible to look at this, at least for people who are concerned about protection of the environ-
[ Page 13078 ]
ment, whether it’s in an area-based management plan or any other way, and not make reference to the recent report of the Auditor General with respect to An Audit of Compliance and Enforcement of the Mining Sector.

If we look at the summary on page 9, the report says that the Ministry of Environment “tracked this worsening trend,” which is dramatic increases of selenium in the watershed’s tributaries, “but took no substantive action to change it. Only recently has the ministry attempted to control this pollution through permits granted under the Environmental Management Act.”

It then goes on to say that they examined the Line Creek expansion permit, the area-based management plan and the area-based management permit “to understand how they support MOE’s responsibility to minimize risks to the environment” and found that the documents do not address several risks, including that “MOE staff, with input from external experts, concluded that the selenium levels in the proposed Line Creek expansion permit were not likely protective of the environment. The statutory decision-maker could not approve the permit. Subsequently the permit was granted by cabinet.”

In this case, the statutory decision-maker could not approve the permit, so subsequently cabinet, under section 137, I believe, issued the permit. “This was the first time that cabinet had ever used this approval process. The rationale for the decision was not publicly disclosed.”

The belief, at least with environmental lawyers with whom I’ve not had as much time as I would like to consult, is that this is a perpetuation giving the minister the power to do the same thing. So that’s a matter of grave concern. I’m hearing the minister say, “No, that’s not what we’re doing,” and that will carry some legal weight in interpretation of the act, but not as strong legal weight as clear wording.

Again to the minister. Given that sub (b) says in accordance with “any requirements or conditions,” not “all requirements and conditions,” where does the language guarantee that permits may not be ordered by the minister to be granted that don’t meet the requirement of the ministry to protect the environment with respect to the issuance of permits?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m very glad the member raised the question in this way, because it makes the point that I’m about to make now. In that case, the decision-maker did not reject the permit and then have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council override it.

[1600] Jump to this time in the webcast

You will note that the language says that the decision-maker did not issue the permit. Here’s why. There was no mechanism in place for the decision-maker, in spite of all the work that had gone into developing the area-based management plan. I know the member is familiar with just the massive volume of work that that was and the very complex nature of it. Because of the existing language in the Environmental Management Act, the decision-maker would not have been able, under that legislation, to issue the permit, in spite of the fact that the permit was absolutely consistent with the area-based management plan.

In an area like the Elk Valley, where…. We’re dealing with a very large geographic area. We’re dealing with long-term and very complex challenges with respect to water. For example, we know that selenium in the area is a legacy issue. This is from waste rock that the selenium leaches out of. We know that there needs to be an incredible amount of water treatment — nine treatment plants planned at a cost of about $600 million, paid for, by the way, by the company. The company also, of course, is taking over what essentially is a problem that developed over the 100-plus years of mining that was taking place there.

In order to address the selenium issue, a tremendous amount of work was done developing the area-based management plan, together with local environmental organizations, the Ktunaxa, Environment Canada, the state of Montana, the U.S. EPA — a cast of thousands. Finally, an ABMP is there.

Without this amendment, the decision-makers are still left in the position that they cannot issue permits that are under the ABMP. They can only issue permits as per the existing Environmental Management Act, which does not take into account the ABMP and the specific context of the Elk Valley, where this work is being undertaken.

G. Heyman: If I go back to the report of the Auditor General, part 2, page 100 says that the Environmental Management Act states that the statutory decision–makers “may authorize a permit only if it includes requirements for the protection of the environment.” It states:

“Statutory decision–makers must be impartial and independent. They are required to make decisions fairly and in accordance with the applicable legislation. They cannot be fettered in the exercise of their statutory powers. They must make decisions independently, free from undue influence of any party within or external to the ministry.”

That is actually a quote from the report, which, in turn, is quoting the Ministry of Environment’s Statutory Decision–Making Handbook. It then goes on to say:

“Subsequently, a decision was made by government to approve the permit under section 137 of the Environmental Management Act. This clause, which allows cabinet to approve a permit where it is in the public interest to do so, had never been used before. There is no definition in the Environmental Management Act as to what defines ‘public interest,’ but the act states that cabinet may consider factors outside the scope or mandate of the act. Cabinet did not provide the public or Legislature with the rationale for why the permit was in the public interest. This creates a risk that the public or Legislature will not be informed about what factors — economic, environmental, social — were considered in decision-making.”

The report goes on to say:

“We also found that the Line Creek expansion permit has a site performance objective for selenium that allows five times the amount set in B.C.’s water quality guidelines for aquatic fish. We concluded that government, in granting the permit, did not
[ Page 13079 ]
publicly disclose the implications these permit levels will have in this area, where the expansion will extend the life of the mine for an additional 18 years and produce an additional 3.5 million tonnes of coal annually.

“As well, we expected MOE’s permits to reflect the polluter-pay principle. We found, however, that under the Line Creek expansion permit, the mine company is charged only about $5,000 a year for emitting selenium pollution. This is not reflective of the known environmental impact of selenium.”

[1605] Jump to this time in the webcast

It then goes on to say:

“MOE has stated that this increase in permitted level is necessary because of greater leaching of selenium from old waste rock.”

I think that’s the reference the minister just made.

“However, this permitted level was modelled based on data not only for historic sites but also for the planned expansion, which will see a doubling, by the year 2034, of the waste rock in the Elk Valley from 2012 levels.

“It is not clear how these high selenium levels will meet government’s objective to protect the health of aquatics ecosystems, groundwater and humans in the Elk Valley.

“The area-based management permit sets out the amount of selenium that the mine company is permitted to discharge in the Elk Valley. Rivers in the valley drain into Lake Koocanusa, which spans the Canada-U.S. border. The area-based management permit creates a risk that if MOE is unable to enforce the permit and the mine company exceeds its permit limit for selenium at Lake Koocanusa, the outcome could be a violation of the 1909 treaty relating to boundary waters and questions arising along the boundary between Canada and the United States — the treaty — that forbids the pollution of water bodies on either side of the border.”

That is the concern that has been expressed. The concern, in some ways, is light terminology in terms of the general tenure of the report from the Auditor General, which was, in many ways, scathing. But it questioned the appropriateness of the cabinet imposition of a decision to grant a permit and the inadequacies of that permit within the context of the usual role of the Ministry of Environment to take actions to protect the environment and water.

Again, it is not clear to me how this amendment clears up that particular concern or moves us further toward a regime of permitting that protects the environment, protects water or protects the other concerns with relation to selenium or Elk Valley — or how, in fact, this simply doesn’t extend section 137 in a way that allows the minister to impose a similar decision.

I’ve heard what the minister says, and I’m asking the question in a number of ways because I think it is important to get her explanations of what this amendment really means on the record, in the event that cases end up in court. I am yet to be convinced that this is an amendment that I can support in good faith. The minister may be absolutely correct in what she’s saying, but for us to support this amendment, we have to be convinced that it actually enhances protection, not diminishes it.

Hon. M. Polak: I hope, then, what I’m about to outline will have the member feeling very positive about this amendment. I have heard the member — through reading the Office of the Auditor General’s report but also his own comments — express discomfort with the actions of government in terms of using section 137 in order to pass that permit.

Having these new sections in place would mean that in a similar circumstance, that would not be necessary. Instead, the decision-maker would be able to consider a permit under the rules put in place through the area-based management plan. That consideration would involve public consultation. It would involve First Nations consultation.

I will take issue with one of the pieces of the Auditor General’s report. That is, while I’m sure it was simply an oversight, the Auditor General seemed unaware that the guidelines for this purpose had actually been developed over an 18-month process that was quite exhaustive, involving all the interested parties I mentioned before.

We certainly are concerned about anything that would damage our relationship with the state of Montana, with the U.S. government, and therefore they were involved with us in the development of the area-based management plan, both the state of Montana and the U.S. EPA.

The Auditor General is certainly correct that it would have been outside the scope of the Environmental Management Act. What the Auditor General did not consider is that it was well within the scope of the area-based management plan.

Now, I will get to the rationale for the decision, which I think is important, because very often when we’re discussing these, we’re trying to imagine what may happen in the future, what would be the basis for a decision.

[1610] Jump to this time in the webcast

In this case, what was the public interest? We have rising selenium levels, and those are dramatic, as the member outlined. The choice was this. One could see the company continue to operate under the guidelines associated with the area-based management plan and, therefore, build the nine treatment plants, at a cost of $600 million — which, under the area-based management plan, will see selenium levels rise briefly, while we await commissioning of a number of treatment plants, then stabilize and then begin to go down over time. That is what the area-based management plan brings us to.

In the interim, though, if one is not able to allow that company to continue to operate, I would say the likelihood of a $600 million investment in nine treatment plants is not very great. In all likelihood, we would see no treatment. Of course, this selenium contamination is the result of waste rock. Therefore even if one shut down all the mining in the area, the selenium levels would continue to rise over time and that dramatically.

In a case like this that is very complex, that takes into account a large geographic area, it’s important to have an overarching plan that takes into account the cumulative effects, takes into account all manner of different factors that the environmental organizations, the First
[ Page 13080 ]
Nations and our other partner agencies felt were important. That’s as opposed to the limited scope of EMA, which only looks at the amounts coming out of the pipe and does not look at the broader plan that has been put in place in the valley.

This addition of these sections would allow the area-based management plan to then come to life in a proper permitting system, rather than the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council having to issue those permits because they were outside of the narrow scope of the Environmental Management Act.

G. Heyman: For further clarity, let me ask the minister to confirm or not confirm for the record, because I think this will be very important in future interpretation of the amended act, if the bill passes…. Section 90.1(1)(c) says: “subject to other requirements or conditions, under section 14 (1) (a) to (f), the director considers advisable for the protection of the environment.”

Would it be correct to interpret this subsection to mean that no matter what the minister orders or does not order under subs (a) and (b), the director will be bound, by the requirements of the act, to put protection of the environment foremost, to add any other conditions that the director believes are necessary to achieve that purpose — and that the minister cannot override that?

Hon. M. Polak: I can absolutely confirm that. The difference here is with respect to what the director is allowed to take into account in considering what the protection is of the environment. You will note at the beginning, it says: “Despite section 14…if the introduction of waste into the environment is provided for under an area based management plan….”

The director is drawn back to consider the guidance that is provided within the area-based management plan and, therefore, is allowed to consider that in that examination of what is the protection of the environment.

G. Heyman: I will thank the minister for offering some clarity about the intent of this amendment and how it will work. It causes me some discomfort, but it’s beginning to make some sense.

There is one other concern that’s been raised and is quite serious. Sub (2) says: “Subject to subsection (3) and section 16 (2) [amendment of permits and approvals], the issuance of a permit under this section is final and binding and may not be appealed under Division 2 [Appeals from Decisions under this Act] of Part 8.”

[1615] Jump to this time in the webcast

Obviously, the concern there is that there is no appeal allowed as a result of this amendment. That is very concerning to people with whom I’ve consulted and to me. Can the minister confirm that I am not missing anything in the reading of this section?

Hon. M. Polak: This is because, in this case, it would be the subject of an order from a minister. An order cannot be appealed through division 2. Instead, if one wishes to appeal — for lack of a better word — a minister’s order, then the remedy there is judicial review.

G. Heyman: The minister has made a case for why this is necessary. I understand what the minister is attempting to achieve. We disagree with the mechanism. Others disagree with the mechanism. I think there would have been other ways to achieve the same end while still allowing an appeal through the Environmental Appeal Board. For that reason, we cannot support section 7.

Sections 7 and 8 approved on division.

On section 9.

G. Heyman: Concerns have been expressed to me about section 9 that say that the violation of a permit issued by the minister does not invoke the usual penalties for permit violations that are set out in section 120(10).

No alternate penalty seems to have been provided in this bill, although, in the other cases where there are exceptions for violations of permit penalties, there are clear penalties listed. The Offence Act doesn’t apply, so can the minister explain why no penalty is listed, specifically, to accompany this exemption?

[1620] Jump to this time in the webcast

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: I may have to ask the member to restate his question, because I don’t think I understood his question.

The section is amended. The only difference here is that previously, the only order covered was under subsection 9(3). All we’re doing is adding that the same applies to permits under subsection 90.1(1).

There’s no change in offence provisions or anything like that. It’s simply to make sure that the same system applies under the area-based management plan.

G. Heyman: If the minister’s answer to my question…. My question was that in initial reading of the amendment, it appeared to some that a violation of a permit issued by the minister does not invoke the usual penalties for permit violations that are set out in 120(10), and where there are other exemptions or exclusions, that separate penalties are listed.

If I understand the minister correctly, the minister is saying that that is not the case and that the penalties continue to apply. It’s just expanded to ensure that it covers issues raised by orders under an area-based management plan consequential to the other amendments. So the issue of penalties is, in fact, covered.
[ Page 13081 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Maybe I’ll deal with it this way. I think I understand the member’s question now. First, it’s important to recognize that this same section already, currently, exists in EMA. This is simply adding that it will also now apply to orders issued under sub 90.1(1).

Now, where the difference comes in with respect to an order…. Again, it’s not new with this amendment. This already existed. An order is something, in this case, that the minister has given. So if there’s a contravention, it’s an order that has been given to the civil service. Those contraventions are handled in a different fashion than an order given to a company, for example, or a proponent.

G. Heyman: I was following right up to the last bit. Can the minister just clarify what the effect of a contravention of the order is in that event?

She said it is different, because it’s an order to the civil service. My question had to do with respect to penalties applying in the same way they would apply if a permit was issued under any other mechanism than an area-based management plan.

Did I hear the minister correctly that that is the case, or that that is not the case?

Hon. M. Polak: Remember that subsection 9(3) is about hazardous waste storage and disposal, right? That is the section that we are amending, and it talks about the current provisions in the case that there was an order or a requirement placed on one of these members of the public service. If they were to contravene that, they are not governed under the Offence Act.

[1625] Jump to this time in the webcast

In a case where we are outlining penalties for contravening a minister’s order, then one must put in place what those are. It’s not under the standard…. They’re not covered by the offence provisions.

The only change here is to include those orders that would be issued under an area-based management plan, 90.1. Those orders are now included in this section. That’s the only change. The types of penalties don’t change. This is simply making sure that the now area-based management plan, again, is included in the scheme within the act.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

G. Heyman: My question to the Minister of Environment with respect to section 4 is the same. In this case, we had a parks amendment act, Bill 15. This is an amendment to the description of Finn Creek Park. Why was this not addressed in Bill 15?

Hon. M. Polak: In my judgment, this particular boundary amendment will garner, I expect, far more attention than maybe any other that we have done in some time. It seemed to me appropriate that it not be lost in the mix, so to speak, with all the other amendments — I’m sure the member recalls — that were made and additions that were made, and instead, to see it looked at individually. Albeit, it certainly isn’t substantive enough to stand on its own as one piece of legislation, so it’s here in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Of course, those who do have an interest in this have been watching as this has gone through the extensive process in terms of getting even to this stage in the Legislature. I would also note that there’s been significant work with the First Nations and that we have received a letter of support from the Simpcw First Nation, whose traditional territory this boundary adjustment would be affecting.

G. Heyman: Could the minister give this House and people in British Columbia the rationale for this amendment, what the impact and purpose of the amendment will be?

Hon. M. Polak: The parks act does not allow for industrial activities in parks, so when a decision was made to route the Trans Mountain pipeline through Finn Creek Park, that means that they require to actually remove that land from the park. In this case, that will be 2.43 hectares. That will enable the construction and also the maintenance and operation of the Trans Mountain expansion project, if it is approved.

I should also add that, according to the First Nation in the area, the Simpcw, they have also now reached an agreement with Kinder Morgan that once construction has taken place, the land affected would be returned back to the state in which it had been found.

[1630] Jump to this time in the webcast

It’s also important to note that unless and until the pipeline were to receive all its approvals, this act, this boundary amendment will not come into effect. That, I think, outlines the extent of the change here.

Again, very important to note the process that got us to this point and, of course, the engagement and support of the First Nation.

G. Heyman: There has been significant opposition both to the pipeline and to the proposal by Kinder Morgan that it do testing within the current boundaries of the park. What other consultation, in addition to consultation with First Nations, did the minister undertake?

Hon. M. Polak: There was consultation, I already mentioned, with the Simpcw First Nation as well as Adams Lake and Neskonlith.

In addition to that, of course, a draft was put up on the web last year, as we always do for these consultations. It’s also important to note that as a result of the consultations the company has had with First Nations and with others, they reduced the number of boundary amend-
[ Page 13082 ]
ments that they were requesting, from four to two. This is one of those two.

There has been significant effort made to accommodate the concerns that they have heard from First Nations and from the broader community. Again, in this case, they did achieve the agreement of the Simpcw to have this boundary amendment moved forward.

G. Heyman: Notwithstanding the consultations the minister references, there is some significant First Nations objection to both the activities of Kinder Morgan and the proposed pipeline in its current form, much concern about the whole nature of the National Energy Board hearings with respect to the pipeline — a number of which were expressed by the government itself and the minister. The Tsleil-Waututh have apparently no interest in enabling this pipeline in any way.

So my question to the minister is: given that the government has put forward five conditions for approval and has stated that nothing they’ve seen from Kinder Morgan gives them the comfort that these will be met, why is the minister now proposing a park boundary amendment that enables testing of Kinder Morgan to carry this proposal forward?

[1635] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. M. Polak: First, let me reiterate that this will not come into force unless and until the Trans Mountain expansion project is approved, not just by the NEB but also that it meets our five conditions. We’ve stated that quite plainly.

But the role of B.C. Parks here is different. We have an obligation to adjudicate applications that are brought forward with respect to boundary amendments, and we must do so in an administratively fair manner. In this case, we have judged that this boundary amendment meets the criteria to be brought to this House and brought forward as legislation. A significant part of that is the approval of the First Nation on whose traditional territory this portion of the pipeline will be placed.

G. Heyman: I can’t think of a more controversial proposal with respect to the interests of First Nations on the coast or the residents of Metro Vancouver, the municipal governments of Metro Vancouver. We’ve expressed concern in this chamber before about amendments to park boundaries that allow industrial activity. This seems to be quadrupling down on that. It is a concern. It will be a concern. It will be seen as a foot in the door.

I believe that it calls into question the government’s sincerity about maintaining strict conditions around pipeline development and a massive increase in tanker traffic in the waters that are traditional territories and traditional food-gathering places of First Nations and that are integral to the economy of Metro Vancouver.

Notwithstanding the minister’s explanations that this is a matter of administrative fairness and has the approval of the First Nation on whose territory this resides, this is a bigger issue. It’s a substantive issue, and it’s particularly substantive in light of the fact that the Premier has mused about the possibility of exchanging sale of B.C. power to Alberta for approval of pipelines. This has people genuinely and legitimately concerned.

When we see this amendment, notwithstanding the fact that the minister said the reason it was not included in Bill 15 was because it was a matter that she expected would engender significant debate and, therefore, didn’t want to mix it in with the other mostly good news in Bill 15….

I think another way to look at it is that the minister did not want to take the good news in Bill 15 and have it completely buried by the bad news of this amendment.

The minister is correct. There will be significant debate on this, not just in this chamber but in the public generally and certainly among people who are concerned about the potential impact of not just the pipeline but the work that has been undertaken by Kinder Morgan to facilitate and expedite their proposal for this pipeline, their willingness to run roughshod over local governments, their failure to respect the government of British Columbia with respect to questions that the government put forward — a request for information which they had to meet statutorily in other jurisdictions and refused to meet in British Columbia.

It simply is inexplicable to me why the government, in the face of all of this…. If it was sincere in its statement that Kinder Morgan had to meet conditions before the government could ever agree to the pipeline proposal and the increase in tanker traffic, this begs the question of what really is the intention of this government going forward.

With that, I believe the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has some questions related to this amendment.

[1640-1645] Jump to this time in the webcast

Section 10 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Sturdy

Bing

Hogg

Yamamoto

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Morris

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Polak

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Letnick

Bernier

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Tegart

Throness

Martin

Larson

Dalton

Gibson


[ Page 13083 ]

NAYS — 25

Hammell

Simpson

Farnworth

James

Dix

Corrigan

Fleming

Popham

Conroy

Austin

Fraser

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Mark

Bains

Elmore

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

D. Routley

Weaver

Chouhan

 

Holman

 

[1650] Jump to this time in the webcast

On section 4.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wanted to introduce staff that are with me today to move forward on sections 4 and 5 of Bill 25. I’d like to introduce Kevin Volk, who is the executive lead, community services and legislation division, on my right. On my left is Brian Currie, manager of property assessment services, and behind Brian is Miriam Starkl-Moser, the assistant director of legislation. With that said, I’m ready to answer any questions.

L. Krog: Delighted to have an opportunity to participate in debate this afternoon. I know that the public servants who’ve assembled here, at the minister’s request, are anxious to provide some of their wisdom to the members of this House. I would simply ask the minister, in a very general way, with respect to section 4: what, exactly, is the purpose of this section, and what will be its legislative effect?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The proposed amendment to the Assessment Act, section 20, will provide the authority to prescribe, assess values by regulation for designated restricted-use properties, such as B.C. Ferry Services and Nav Canada facilities. The regulated values will effectively eliminate the application of current and future nominal evaluations and significantly reduce appeals.

L. Krog: I take it…. Is this going to, in all likelihood, have the impact of reducing the amount of taxation paid to local government, increasing it, remaining the same, to make it simpler? Or is it, as the minister says, just about the appeal process? In other words, will this actually change the process of determining value and the resultant taxation that will flow from it?

[1655] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. P. Fassbender: The rationale for this is that it supports a fair and consistent assessment system. It’ll be predictable and stable property tax revenues for local government. As well, all property owners will be paying their fair share of property taxes.

L. Krog: Just so I’m clear, then, who would this apply to? Give me examples. Is it strictly Crown agencies, Crown corporations, or does it have an extended use to private land owners?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As is indicated, the property eligible for designation by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as restricted-use property under this legislation would be required to meet the following criteria: located on Crown land, municipal land or land otherwise exempt from taxation and used by a taxable third party or occupier; owned by a non-profit corporation and held or occupied under lease, licence or other agreement subject to a restricted-use agreement under which the property is restricted to the provision of a service of benefit to the public; and occupier of property must be at least in part publicly funded.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the examples are B.C. Ferries properties and Nav Canada properties. There would be no private property that would be included in this.

L. Krog: I want to raise a concern from the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association that the changes to the Assessment Act could be used, in theory, to reduce the property taxes paid by social housing units which are funded by the provincial government.

Therefore, is this amendment meant to implement just the B.C. Ferries–B.C. Assessment agreement? Or could it be used to reduce the amount of taxation that would save the province, potentially, money — directly or indirectly — and also, at the same time, could provide a benefit to government-funded social housing units that non-government-funded ones wouldn’t in fact enjoy?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As I said, the purpose of this is to ensure that there is a fair and equitable taxation policy. Under current situations, social housing is already exempt.

L. Krog: For practical purposes, the passage of this section will not have any impact under that existing exemption and would have no impact on the non-profit versus government-owned housing projects.

Hon. P. Fassbender: That is correct.

D. Eby: Just for clarification, could a co-op, for example, apply for relief under this section for re-evaluation of the property? Or a property which is held by a non-profit organization for a restricted purpose — for example, affordable housing — could they apply for relief from property tax from the province under this section?

[1700] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is important for the member that this is not intended to provide tax relief but is in-
[ Page 13084 ]
tended to provide the fairness that I mentioned already as it relates to specially defined uses such as B.C. Ferries and Nav Canada.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

The Chair: Hon. Members, we are moving to section 20.

On section 20.

[1705] Jump to this time in the webcast

D. Eby: Can the minister explain the intent behind this addition to the existing act?

Hon. R. Coleman: We’re amending the act to ensure that B.C. Housing has the authority to provide support service for its housing clients. When the act was introduced nearly 36 years ago, housing was defined as just land and buildings. Our approach has evolved to include support services and ensure that vulnerable people can find and maintain housing.

The amendments also clarify that B.C. Housing can oversee multipurpose developments, which include both housing and non-housing components. It’s to expand the scope of the ministry purpose, as set out in the act, to include the mixed-use, multipurpose developments, including a non-housing component.

D. Eby: I’m curious about section 20, which seems to give B.C. Housing the ability to do something that it’s been doing for a long time, which is to develop land or improvements for the purpose of providing housing. Was this not in the pre-existing act?

Hon. R. Coleman: The “housing” definition is defined narrowly in the act to mean the physical housing only. Now, B.C. Housing, for at least three governments now, have been doing more than just housing when they do developments. Sometimes it’ll have a community centre in there. Sometimes it’ll have an amenity building that would also run as a daycare and those sorts of things.

This, basically, was caught, I guess, at some point when people were looking at legislation. We started to look at some of the things we wanted to do in the future, and they said: “You need to clean this up, from the standpoint of the definition.”

[1710] Jump to this time in the webcast

It was a really defined definition back 36 years ago. The evolution of what B.C. Housing does and has been doing for about 25, 30 years…. It was doing this, but they felt that this definition was too tight and needed to be cleaned up.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

D. Eby: I’m curious about this amendment. Why would B.C. Housing take on the responsibility “to provide social and other services to a person for the purposes of assisting the person to (A) access housing, (B) achieve stability in housing,” or maintain housing, when there’s already a Ministry of Social Development and there’s already a Ministry of Health? It has these authorities, and they’re separate from housing.

One of the challenges that people raise with respect to housing is when you have the housing service provider also providing the health care service or also providing the social assistance service. If the person doesn’t cooperate, for whatever reason, with the health service or the social assistance service, then they put their housing at risk. There’s a suggestion that these things should be very clearly separated.

I’m curious about the philosophy behind why B.C. Housing would be taking on these responsibilities, rather than leaving it with the Ministry of Health and the health authorities or the Ministry of Social Development and so on, to make sure that those lines between “you’ve got your house” and “you get to keep your house, even if you don’t want this particular health care service or this particular social service….”

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, there’s no overlap that allows us to integrate the services funded when projects for B.C. Housing complement those of other ministries. Government has directed ministries to integrate government services and improve clients’ ability to access those services, resulting in better outcomes for British Columbians.

What happens is, oftentimes you’ll have a non-profit that is actually the housing service provider, but they also provide other services through B.C. Housing. We’ll coordinate that and then do the liaison with the health authority or whoever it is to bring those services into a building depending on the clientele. We usually have a pretty good understanding with a non-profit as to what they need.

Also, we’re increasingly seeing the evolution of being responsible for overseeing multipurpose developments, which include both housing and non-housing components. A couple of the projects at Riverview, for instance, have some mental health components.

One has a youth custody component but also has services for the youth themselves. Within the building, it won’t be just the residences for the young people coming out of the Maples but also the services that we would also construct at the same time, like a gymnasium and rooms like that. We’d work with the ministry and other health providers with regards to counselling and services and stuff like that.

It requires a bit different thing. The challenge was that this whole definition of this section really doesn’t define
[ Page 13085 ]
that type of an involvement in housing from 36 years ago. So we’re leading the process. For instance, with our new Riverview lands, we have to engage with stakeholders and identify potential future uses of the site.

We’ve been chosen to lead that process, but it’s going to include a number of groups, like First Nations. It’s going to include health professionals. It’s going to include other ministries that we’ll integrate with and design a building that will be multipurpose for the use of specific clients. The Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions — we’ll be going there. We’ll be involved in that project and the one for youth, as well. There will be another social housing component put on there so they’ll be able to be transitioned to permanence in housing, as well — the people that would be on that site.

D. Eby: The minister mentioned the Riverview site. Are there other large, complex, integrated sites like that with services and housing that the minister can think of that this section would apply to after it’s passed?

Hon. R. Coleman: There’s a number of them. But I can give you an example of one today that’s gone out — I think it’s today or tomorrow. It’s the New Fountain project in the Downtown Eastside. The shelter itself will be moved.

The property will be redeveloped for future use. It’ll include about 80 units of social housing as well as quite a substantial number higher up on another building on the same site that will also be rental marketplace for affordable rentals and market rentals combined into an integrated site.

[1715] Jump to this time in the webcast

There will be a new shelter built and provided as well. That integration takes quite a bit of work. B.C. Housing does a lead on that, but as we come through it, there will be components that will touch other ministries.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

D. Eby: As I read this section, I get the sense that B.C. Housing — and the minister has been pretty clear, actually — has been doing all of the things in the previous sections already but perhaps without the legislative jurisdiction to do it. So as I read this section, it seems to be a section that wants to fix that and go back and say: “Well, all those things that were done are legislatively appropriate.” Can the minister clarify if that’s what the intent of this section is?

Hon. R. Coleman: We’ve been told to do this through legal services branch, the Attorney General, with regards to it. So basically this section retroactively validates multipurpose developments and the provision of such support services with housing that have been delivered in the past without clear authority because the definition was too tight.

So it really takes care of…. There was a lot of housing built in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. Some of them did have other services in them. Some of them were integrated projects and were done. It wasn’t until we started to look at this, and we started to just make sure we were clarifying something, that they said, “While you’re doing this, you need to retroactively validate the work that’s been done in the past.”

D. Eby: Is there a litigation risk that comes with this retroactive application, or is this to get rid of the litigation risk?

Hon. R. Coleman: We haven’t had any identified litigation risk or any litigation with regards to this. I’ve had this happen a couple of other times when I’ve been here over the years where, when you look at an act to do a minor amendment, you’ll find that legal services branch will say, “Well, while you’re at it, do this,” and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Section 22 approved.

The Chair: We’ll take a few minutes. A short recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:17 p.m. to 5:22 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

On section 23.

L. Krog: Just for the sake of completeness, I’m going to take it this is entirely consequential and, therefore, inconsequential.

Hon. C. Oakes: If I first may introduce staff here today, we have Doug Scott, who’s the ADM for liquor control and licensing branch; and Elaine Vale, who is a director of policy, planning and communications for liquor control and licensing.

Yes, it is consequential.

[1725] Jump to this time in the webcast

D. Eby: My apologies for the delay.

With respect to this entire section of the act, the amendments that are put forward, I understand the intention is to give people who have liquor licences — whether they’re in retail or whether they’re selling in a restaurant — a chance to appeal a decision that’s made against them, a penalty that’s levied — for example, serving someone who’s under-age, over-serving somebody, these kinds of things.

The first question that I heard from industry when they heard about this was: why is this still happening within
[ Page 13086 ]
the same agency that’s making the decision about the penalty? Why wasn’t it moved to an outside agency to make the decision? The government has the civil resolution tribunal coming. There are other superintendents of motor vehicles — for example, an independent decision-maker who could make the decision.

Why was this kept in-house, essentially, as I understand it, within the ministry?

Hon. C. Oakes: We went out and consulted with the industry, and what we heard clearly from stakeholders is they wanted a fast, inexpensive, simple model to move through the process. The proposed reconsideration model will help ensure that enforcement decisions are made timely, as we know that time is essence for small businesses.

We also heard that these businesses have an interest in speedy resolution of enforcement actions, given the potential impact penalties can have on businesses and operations. It’s important that licensees have the opportunity to request that any errors in decisions that directly affect them, should there be any, be corrected quickly.

D. Eby: I understand that that’s what industry asked for. But they also asked for it to be independent of the original decision-maker, for an obvious reason.

If you’re going back to the person who made the initial decision and saying, “Will you reconsider?” they’re going to be more reluctant than if you take it to somebody independent who can look more critically at the decision.

Why was the call made to have the person have to go back, the applicant go back, to the original decision-maker rather than to an independent decision-maker, in terms of any appeals?

[1730] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, when we went and consulted with stakeholders — some of those stakeholder groups included ABLE, the B.C. Private Liquor Store Association, the B.C. restaurant association — they supported the approach that we are taking. And just to clarify that the general manager will be…. That is the potential of where this can go to, so it will be different than the original decision-maker. It will be two different people that are reviewing the file.

D. Eby: As I read this part, it seems to only apply to monetary penalties. I assume this is, for example, for serving underage, overserving, these kinds of things.

First of all, does it only apply to those…? Am I in the right category in terms of the penalties that you could appeal? And the second part of the question is: could it also apply to a mistake made by the branch in terms of determining a licence application, whether it’s an extension or a change to the licence?

I’ve had many business owners come to me and say: “We had the application. It was going really well. We’ve put a ton of work into it. We’re at the final stage. There was a technical error, and because of it, we had to start back at the beginning again. There was no appeal process.”

So the first part of the question: what kind of penalties does this apply to? The second part of the question: could this apply to incomplete or inaccurate applications?

Hon. C. Oakes: There are two. We’re talking about enforcement branch and then the licensing, which are two separate. This particular miscellaneous statutes section is around enforcement. On the question of if there was a mistake around licensing extensions, land changes, there are remedies that already exist that licensees can reapply for changes.

D. Eby: Can the minister clarify which penalties would be affected? Not an exhaustive list, just a list of examples of the types of penalties that could be appealed under this section.

Hon. C. Oakes: Some of the penalties that could be appealed are serving a minor, overserving with intoxication, overcrowding or any contravention.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

On section 25.

[1735] Jump to this time in the webcast

D. Eby: As I read this section, it seems to suggest that the general manager has to set out reasons for a decision. I would appreciate the minister’s clarification about exactly what the intent of this section is under the proposed bill here.

Hon. C. Oakes: It improves clarity of the administrative decision-making process, and it provides the general manager flexibility to respond to a licensee’s financial circumstances. For example, currently the monetary penalty imposed must be paid within 30 days. However, this does provide the general manager the ability, if there are financial circumstances that the general manager…. It just provides a little bit of flexibility if something…. It gives them flexibility to support extending the 30 days.

D. Eby: That’s my reading of section 25(c). So the minister is saying that gives some discretion on the part of the general manager about when the fine has to be paid. What about sections (a) and (b) here?

Section (a) talks about adding the reasons for taking action as part of the compliance history of the licensee, and part (b) talks about requiring the general manager to do something new. Can the minister clarify what those…? I think it’s to make an order, but wouldn’t the general manager already have to make an order in this kind of situation? Why is it being amended?
[ Page 13087 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: Previously an order wasn’t required. So when they were drafting that…. Again, around the clarity of this, it provides the ability for…. It’s just to clarify that the general manager is issuing an order.

D. Eby: Subsection 25(a) talks about adding the reasons for taking action as “part of the compliance history of the licensee.” What is the “compliance history of the licensee”? And was it not previously the case that there was a file — I guess a “this will go down in your permanent record” kind of situation? Is this a new thing that there would be a compliance history and it would be added?

[1740] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. C. Oakes: The compliance history actually existed before. This is just, again, cleaning up the language in that section.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

D. Eby: I’m curious. I would have assumed that there is a standard ticket that’s given out when someone’s serving a minor or when they’re overserving somebody — that there’s not a lot of discretion on the part of the general manager. But this section seems to talk a lot about the order of the general manager.

Is there a standardized list of fines and orders when somebody’s overserving or serving a minor, these kinds of things? Or is it something where an inspector or somebody kind of decides, based on the situation on the ground, what kind of a penalty or order they make? I didn’t realize there was so much discretion, so I’m curious about that.

Hon. C. Oakes: There are mandatory minimums that are within the regulation, and it depends on the violation. For example, serving a minor — there is a mandatory minimum on that. But, for example, when you talk about contraventions, the discretion comes in. Perhaps it was a notice that’s posted on a door. So it is laid out in regulation, but there are different levels of what kind of contravention exists.

D. Eby: Is there any limit on the ability of a licensee to apply for reconsideration? I can’t think of any reason why anybody wouldn’t ask for reconsideration if they get an order — ask for a lower fine, ask for a reduced suspension, ask for a delay in paying. What are the restrictions on appealing decisions, if any, especially in a situation of multiple violations?

Hon. C. Oakes: The criteria that would be necessary to meet for the reconsideration process will be set out in the regulation.

D. Eby: Is there a regulation-making power in this part somewhere that would allow the creation of a regulation that would restrict the ability of somebody to make multiple appeals?

[1745] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. C. Oakes: The regulation power or authority is laid out in section 85(1)(c).

D. Eby: So that’s of the existing act. That’s not here in this bill that’s in front of us today. Is that right?

Hon. C. Oakes: It is laid out in section 33 of the miscellaneous stats bill, and it refers to section 85.

D. Eby: I thank the minister for that.

So section 26 of this bill sets out…. It appears to be the full system of what happens when somebody gets a ticket, and they then apply for an appeal. Can the minister walk me through…? The person makes an application for an appeal. What is the process that the bill envisions? What are the requirements, in particular, on the general manager? What do they have to give back to the person?

I wonder about…. This is the Minister of Red Tape Reduction. What paperwork is going to be generated from this? What are the additional costs that are going to come to the general manager of having to, maybe, hire somebody to handle all of these appeals and send letters back and forth? Can the minister walk me through what the process would be here?

Hon. C. Oakes: If the member opposite would permit me, I would maybe just go through the five steps of what a reconsideration process will look like.

Under step 1, the application for reconsideration is submitted, and if a licensee disagrees with an enforcement decision they may apply to have the decision reconsidered. An application must be submitted within 30 days of receiving a notice of an enforcement action from the general manager.

The following application requirements must be met, which include: an application form completed in a form established by the general manager; written submission outlining the reasons for the application; and meeting one of the prescribed grounds — for example, procedural error, error of law or new evidence to be reconsidered. The general manager may accept a late submission if special circumstances prevented the application being submitted on time.

Step 2, the application will be reviewed by the liquor control and licensing branch. Applications for reconsideration are reviewed for completeness, and if the information on the application form is incomplete it may be sent back to the applicant before it is reviewed by the general manager.

[1750] Jump to this time in the webcast


[ Page 13088 ]

Step 3, if the application is approved or denied, a determination will be made by the reconsideration hearing delegate to either approve or deny the application for reconsideration. The branch must notify the applicant if the application is approved or denied. If approved, a reconsideration hearing will be scheduled, and the penalty is stayed until the reconsideration decision is made. If it is denied, the enforcement decision of the general manager is confirmed and the penalty to be imposed would be due within 30 days.

Step 4 would be the reconsideration hearing. This provides an opportunity for a licensee to present their case in writing to the reconsideration hearing delegate. New evidence may only be considered if it’s substantial and material to the reconsideration and did not exist when the determination was made, or it did exist but was not and could not reasonably have been discovered.

And finally, step 5 is the decision of the general manager. The general manager via the reconsideration hearing delegate must make a final enforcement decision. The general manager may uphold, vary or rescind the initial enforcement action.

I think it’s also important to know that this was the lowest-cost option for reconsideration, and it was the one that stakeholders, when we went out and consulted, agreed to.

Sections 26 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(GENERAL) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.



PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION
AND CITIZENS’ SERVICES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:38 p.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $491,997,000 (continued).

D. Eby: The minister will probably know what I’m going to ask about, because for the last three years, I’ve asked him and I’ve asked his predecessor about the Jericho lands sale. I asked them: were they planning on selling the land? The answer was always no. Then suddenly the land was sold, end of this year’s fiscal.

My question was always: would the government consult with the community before selling this very important property? It’s in the middle of my constituency, 40 acres — in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. The government sold it anyway, and they’re relying on the city of Vancouver to do the consultations.

The questions that I have…. I’m going to ask a multipart question related to the sale, and I’m going to go slowly so that the minister can get them all. I know the minister is pressed for time; I know we’re all pressed for time. I’d be glad to accept these answers in writing, because they’re complicated.

[1340] Jump to this time in the webcast

The first question is: why did the First Nations have to buy back their own land? It was obviously land that was in open and notorious use from time immemorial by the Musqueam First Nations. There were overlapping claims, certainly by the Tsleil-Waututh and the Squamish. Why did they have to buy the land from the province?

The second is: once they bought the land from the province, why did they have to pay the community amenity charge that’s going to go into affordable housing? First Nations are desperate for affordable housing. Why is the province asking the First Nations to pay for the affordable housing requirements of the city of Vancouver on their own site? It’s going to be hundreds of millions of dollars.
[ Page 13089 ]

The third question is: why have the proceeds of the sale not immediately been dedicated by this government into affordable housing initiatives? This is a $400 million windfall. First Nations people are disproportionately represented in the homeless populations of every city in British Columbia. What a great way to recognize the contribution of these First Nations, by giving this money to the province, putting the money back into affordable housing initiatives across the province. Why hasn’t that happened?

The last question is…. This is a technical question. When First Nations are giving up land to which they have a title right, there are very clear legal steps that need to be followed. One of those is a fully informed vote by the members of the First Nations, both on and off reserve. Now, I don’t know this for a fact, but I have been advised by members of the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish community that they don’t recall any vote in their community on the sale of these properties.

With respect to the Musqueam community, I’m advised by some members that there was a vote but there was no notice of the vote, that the vote was held at what was billed as an information meeting that was then converted into a meeting, during the meeting, to be a vote on the sale of the land.

My question to the minister in terms of the last question is: were all of the technical requirements satisfied for First Nations to forgo their title claim? Was there a free, clear and informed vote by the membership of all three First Nations here?

Those are my questions, Mr. Chair. You can see why it might take a little bit of time and preparation outside of this session for the minister to be able to answer those.

[1345] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: The member had some editorial comment as well, and a number of questions. First of all, I think we’ve established that there is, indeed, a supply shortage across the Lower Mainland, and we do have to work together, collectively, all levels of government, to address the supply.

[1350] Jump to this time in the webcast

This sale addresses that. You have many acres of land — combined with the Canada land, almost 90 acres of development available for supply. I’m certain the member will work with the city to look at how we maximize the potential of increasing supply out of 90 acres of prime property. I’m sure he’s going to be very supportive of those decisions that the First Nations are going to have to increase their economic viability in developing that land in conjunction with the appropriate city ordinance that applies.

In response to his questions, the First Nations purchase was not something that evolved overnight, as the First Nations expressed interest in this land over a decade. The contract was between the government of British Columbia and the First Nations for the property, and both were satisfied with that contract.

The second question, in terms of the development amenity charge. It’s a charge that the city of Vancouver levies. I’m certain that the member will appear in front of city council and vehemently cry his support for why they should not charge a development charge. That’s the venue for him to have that discussion in terms of a development charge that the city of Vancouver levies on land development.

The other question relates to the proceeds of this sale. This is an area of the Minister of Finance, and I know there will be opportunities, perhaps in the next week, to canvass that question in estimates. The proceeds go to general revenue, and the Minister of Finance is responsible for those budgetary decisions.

In terms of the manner of the contract, as I said, both parties were satisfied with the contract. Legal opinions were achieved, and three First Nations, through their authority, were able to sign on. If, again, the member has an issue with the manner in which the three First Nations agreed, he can certainly appear in front of their band and council and show and express his questions and/or his opinion on the manner in which they agreed to purchase the land.

G. Heyman: I have some questions around the #BCTECH strategy as well as the tech innovation fund. There are a few points about the tech strategy I’d like to just read in to start. Although I’m sure the minister knows them well, I think it will set the context for anyone who’s watching or reading Hansard.

The tech strategy claims that its new initiatives, in addition to the venture capital fund, will see investments and tax incentives and low tax rates, curriculum initiatives, especially coding in K-to-12 classrooms, streamlined immigration and applied learning programs. The strategy states that many of the initiatives are a renewal of ongoing initiatives, such as tax credits, rather than truly new material. Several of the initiatives — for example, immigration — also rely on federal moneys, programs and cooperation.

Can the minister outline what discussions, if any, have taken place with the federal government with respect to items, like immigration, that require cooperation and what the current status of those discussions is?

[1355] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: This is a great opportunity for me to, indeed, talk about the tech sector. I haven’t heard a whisper. You could hear a pin drop. We haven’t heard a cricket about technology or the tech space in this 40th session of parliament for three years now.

I’m quite happy that that question is asked. It gives me an opportunity to talk about the vibrant tech sector and respond to the specific questions. It’s an incredibly vibrant tech sector that grows strong and has grown strong in British Columbia as a result of the incredible
[ Page 13090 ]
talent that’s here and — I won’t take full credit for it — the time zone that’s here and our proximity to some of our markets. It’s also about the taxes, generally corporate taxes, business taxes, personal taxes and, as the member suggested, the incentives that are already in place for companies that are working in various verticals and horizontals in the tech space.

Specific to the questions the member asked surrounding the tech strategy…. Of course, he’s well versed on the $100 million announcement on venture capital, which, when coupled with private equity, is going to put a tremendous boost to have those companies that are…. That series A funding side shortage is going to be able to grow big and stay in British Columbia. It’s going to allow companies to come to British Columbia, to make this home and to grow big and stay in British Columbia. So incredible opportunities for the tech space.

Surrounding the availability of talent, we have to think short term, medium term and long term. If you look at the long term — I’ll go in reverse order — strategies such as coding, as available in the K-to-12 curriculum, one of three jurisdictions that I know about…. I may be wrong. There might be a fourth or a fifth somewhere, but we’re one of three that I know of — British Columbia, New York and the U.K. — where you’re going to have coding available for students between K and 12. We can think long term. Those skills that are necessary are going to be available.

In the medium term, a re-engineering of education, where you’re looking at what skills we need, when you need them, where you need them and the skills you need to ensure the universities are training the right kinds of individuals….

There are times that, in the short term, we don’t have the talent available. You might have to bring that engineer…. She may be somewhere else, and that’s where programs such as the provincial nominee program come into place.

Our Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, who also has the responsibility for Labour, has had those discussions in the past several months, with her counterparts, around the provincial nominee program and expanding and exploring increases and changes to the provincial nominee program so that our tech companies, if they need to draw on talent outside of British Columbia in an expeditious manner…. Those discussions are ongoing between the province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada.

G. Heyman: I was wondering, after the long introduction, if the minister was actually going to remember what my question was, but he eventually got around to it.

I’d like to point out that…. I can’t let the minister’s statement that, in this 40th parliament, he could have heard a pin drop as far as the lack of discussion of the tech sector goes. That is completely inaccurate. It’s so inaccurate as to be ludicrous, and it’s misleading.

Members on the minister’s own side have made statements. They’ve made motions. Members on our side have made statements, have made motions. There’s been plenty of discussion inside and outside the House about the success of the tech sector, how it’s doing, as well as the particular government initiatives that the tech sector itself has called on this government to make in order to help the growth rate of the tech sector become an even steeper upward curve — to the extent of the potential of over 30,000 additional jobs in a four-year period if this government had acted more quickly and if there was any substance to the actions they’ve promised.

Let’s return to the question of coding. I was at the conference where the Premier promised mandatory coding in K to 12. That was a promise that lasted for…. I’m not sure if it was two or three hours before the Ministry of Education corrected her and said it wouldn’t be mandatory.

[1400] Jump to this time in the webcast

My question to the minister, specifically around coding, is: can the minister confirm whether or not the Premier’s statement that it will be mandatory — or the ministry’s statement that it won’t be mandatory but it will be available — is true? That’s my first question.

My second question is: how does the minister feel about the statement made by the Minister of Education who, when confirming no additional resources would actually be given to K-to-12 educators or institutions to support the learning of coding, made the statement that you don’t need a computer to learn how to code? Does the minister share that view?

[1405] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: It’s somewhat refreshing, almost, today to see the member opposite support at least one industry that’s creating jobs and say yes once. I applaud the fact that there’s support now to join us with all the things that we’re doing in supporting the tech industry and that they’re supporting that.

In response to the kinds of questions that the member has asked in relevance to coding, the Ministry of Education is finalizing details surrounding that. It’s part of a broader curriculum change, and coding is certainly part of that broader curriculum change. It’s certainly best to put that question forward to the Minister of Education, of how they are going to allocate funds towards the broader curriculum changes that are being put forth.

In terms of the coding itself, there are many elements of coding. It’s a language. It’s about logic. It’s about logical structure of programming.

[1410] Jump to this time in the webcast

We’re counting on the Ministry of Education. We have a vision. We’re going to work on creating more of a knowledge-based economy, and procuring talent, in the long-term, is certainly part of that. That’s the task, and we’re counting on the Ministry of Education to find the best way to teach coding.
[ Page 13091 ]

G. Heyman: It’s refreshing in some way for me to see the minister and the government side join the opposition in saying yes to the tech sector. But I was a bit at a loss as to how long it took to create an answer to a two-part question, one of which was either-or and the other of which was yes or no.

I can only assume that in response to the question about whether the Premier or the ministry was correct about coding being mandatory or not, the minister has chosen not to answer that question or doesn’t know. And in answer to the question about whether there will be additional funds to support coding education in the K-12 sector, I will assume the answer is no, as nothing was outlined about how that will be done.

The post-secondary part of the tech strategy talks about “targeting post-secondary funding for occupations in demand and aligning student financial aid funding to expand eligibility for the B.C. completion grant for graduates to include students completing programs related to the technology sector.”

My question on these two points is very simple. Will there be additional money granted by the provincial government or the Ministry of Advanced Education to support either of these initiatives? Yes or no?

The other part of the post-secondary section of the tech strategy on which I have a question is that the post-secondary sector will continue to hold coding academies at post-secondary institutions. My question is: will there be any additional money for hardware or resources to support this initiative?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, I’m not going to respond to the suggestion that we’ve joined the opposition in supporting the tech sector. I don’t recall their hurrah for the $100 million tech fund. I don’t recall their hurrah in terms of coding. I don’t recall their hurrah on the different pillars that were put out whatsoever. In fact, as I said, I heard hardly a squeak in terms of support. I would expect if their support would have been so vehement, as he suggested, they’d be standing on top of the mountain saying: “Wow, we support the tech sector. We support the tech strategy.” I didn’t, frankly — and none of my colleagues did — hear that anywhere. We heard ne’er a whisper.

In any event, the questions that the member proposes, specific questions that the member…. As I recall, this is the estimates for the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. The member poses some questions surrounding what the specific budget items are in the Ministry of Advanced Education, as it surrounds the kind of work they’re doing.

[1415] Jump to this time in the webcast

The member certainly knows that this being the estimates for my ministry, those questions posed about specific budgetary items in the Ministry of Advanced Education are best — and the member knows that already — posed to the Ministry of Advanced Education.

G. Heyman: The minister may have missed the part where I asked if there was any funding from his ministry or the Ministry of Advanced Education, and given that he didn’t answer anything with respect to money from the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for the post-secondary initiatives, again, I will assume that the default answer is: no, there is not.

I might remind the minister that I stood in the House on numerous occasions over the course of this parliament urging the government to provide funding for a fund of funds. We will get to discussion of the fund of funds shortly.

Obviously, I support the fact that the government finally did so. I’m sure they won’t admit that they did it in any way in response to requests or suggestions from the opposition. We were simply echoing and supporting the points made by the tech sector representatives, at the time, that venture capital funding, as well as more resources for education and graduating students in tech-related skills from both K to 12 and post-secondary, would help increase the number of jobs in British Columbia substantially.

So I will have questions about the fund and how it’s administered. The fact that it exists is a good thing. The fact that we don’t know how it’s going to be administered is not necessarily a good thing, and many others have echoed that comment as well.

Let me ask the minister…. One of the items for government is a carbon-neutral capital program for ministries, K-to-12 schools, health authorities, PSIs and Crown corporations. My question to the minister is: what funding will be provided by his ministry for this initiative? And given that the tech strategy is under the minister’s aegis, I don’t think it’s untoward for me to ask: any other funding from government, of which he is aware, to support an initiative in a strategy that he is advancing and taking credit for?

[1420] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: In this age, certainly, of trying to achieve carbon neutrality and efficiencies in the buildings that my ministry has conduct of, let me respond in two parts.

First of all, part of ongoing operations of the variety of buildings that the ministry has oversight of…. The conservation of energy, the retrofits, the examination of how to emit less is part of daily operations. It’s just part of what is done every single day, whether it’s examining what types of light bulbs or what types of energy efficiencies are available, how those can be upgraded. It’s just, if I may use a euphemism, how we roll. That is the existing building stock.

As it relates to new buildings, any new buildings…. There is no budget sitting on the side saying: “Well, we’re going to use this budget for carbon neutrality.” It’s 2016. The expectation in 2016 is that buildings are built to the most efficient world-level, energy-efficient standards. That’s LEED gold at minimum. All new building construction, when it goes out for requests for proposals or tender or however that works out, every new building is
[ Page 13092 ]
going to be an appropriate LEED standard. It’s just part of the procurement process.

As I said, that’s the expectation in this day and age. When we build new buildings, they’re to the best of world standards, and they employ all the techniques that are emerging across the world. Buildings across British Columbia — any new buildings — will meet those standards.

G. Heyman: So I can assume from the minister’s answer that nothing will be done for existing building stock, and there will be an expectation — this would be what the carbon-neutral capital program is — that any new building stock will be built to some sort of carbon-neutral standard. It’s good to have that explanation.

I think it’s worthwhile…. The minister might want to actually do a bit of research, or his staff might want to do some research, on LEED standards, which don’t necessarily directly relate to carbon neutrality or carbon emissions. In fact, in some cases, because of some of the perverse measurements that are used, they can actually lead to less energy-efficient buildings.

Regional districts and municipalities are therefore adopting other sorts of building standards, such as the more flexible, but very targeted to a result, passive building technologies. I’d commend that to the minister and his staff’s research if they’re serious about a carbon-neutral capital program.

Does the ministry track any metrics or benchmarks to see how effective the #BCTECH strategy is? Or will it be introducing metrics or benchmarks to see how effective the initiatives of the #BCTECH strategy will be?

[1425] Jump to this time in the webcast

Let me offer an example. One of the initiatives is to introduce a short-form request-for-proposals process that would make procurement quicker and easier. A simple way to assess the effectiveness of the strategy would be to track if more companies are completing SRFPs now. Many of the initiatives in the #BCTECH strategy could be similarly tracked.

What actual numbers or results can be provided to British Columbians — or does the ministry intend to provide to British Columbians — so that we will know which initiatives are performing well and which are performing poorly?

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: The question was around the metrics around the success of the tech strategy, and the answer is yes. Our teams are very much involved in the process of putting together the appropriate metrics by which to measure the success of the strategy.

[1430] Jump to this time in the webcast

By the example used by the member on the number of companies that use the short-from request for proposals, in fact, to date, 131 short-form RFPs have been posted to B.C. Bid since April of 2014 when that came out. So the broad answer is yes, we’re developing metrics and will continue to.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer to the specific example. I would ask…. I’m perfectly happy to receive this in written form. In fact, I’d prefer to see in written form any broad metrics template that the ministry plans to use to track the various elements of the strategy, the success of those elements, any deliverables that are attached to the elements or anything else that would be relevant to public knowledge about the implementation and the success of various elements of the tech strategy.

Let me ask another question. Is there any kind of reporting currently underway for any of the #BCTECH strategy initiatives, and if so, will the data or findings be made public? If the answer to that is yes, will that be all data and findings or just some data and findings?

Hon. A. Virk: The question is surrounding reporting. The member certainly knows the #BCTECH strategy is part of the B.C. jobs plan. Of course, the member certainly knows the success of the jobs plan in having the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, the highest job growth in Canada.

The B.C. jobs plan will continue to report on the success of a variety of job creation initiatives. As such, the #BCTECH strategy being part of that jobs plan, that reporting on job creation has occurred and will continue to occur at intervals that the member has seen in terms of job creation in British Columbia, which notably has been the best in the country.

[1435] Jump to this time in the webcast

G. Heyman: The minister is right. I’m aware of the jobs numbers and the reporting. But my question was specifically with regard to a way of reporting and tracking the success of #BCTECH strategy initiatives so that we know if this particular initiative is successful. The minister has not provided an answer to that question. I’ll just let the record note that the minister indicated no specific way of reporting for any #BCTECH strategy initiatives.

Let me drill down a little bit. There are some initiatives that have very firm numbers attached to them. For example, the strategy says to “realize a 10 percent increase in the number of tech companies connecting with buyers outside of B.C.” This strategy was published in January of this year. We’re five months in, and we still have no way of knowing if we’re on track to meet those targets, if the ministry has a plan to measure and report regularly on success or lack of success in meeting that specific target.

Can the minister tell us how we’re doing with respect to that target to date, what initiatives have been taken specifically to realize that target and how the minister intends to report out to the public on our success in meeting that target, or our lack of success in meeting that target?

[1440] Jump to this time in the webcast


[ Page 13093 ]

Hon. A. Virk: The question surrounding the measurement around the number of companies that are engaging in external markets…. It’s indeed an initiative that does occur. As the member knows, the tech strategy is about multiple ministries working on providing and increasing jobs in the tech space. Multiple ministries are engaged in the initiatives in the tech strategy.

The Ministry of International Trade is responsible to target in relation to how the tech companies are reaching international markets and the support they’re providing tech companies in reaching the international markets. The Ministry of International Trade does keep measurements as to the engagement activities that they have.

G. Heyman: If I understand the minister’s answer correctly, the Ministry of International Trade has a system to track the number of tech companies connecting with buyers outside of B.C.

Hon. A. Virk: Correct. As I said on the Ministry of International Trade, their role is to take British Columbian companies in whatever space they might be in and, if the opportunities arise and when they do arise, be able to engage in external markets. That ministry will continue to do that.

I’ve been part of those trade missions, and they do continue to measure the number of external stakeholder contacts they make.

G. Heyman: That ministry’s measurements of external stakeholder contacts include other jurisdictions in Canada, outside of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Virk: I think that’s a question best posed to the Ministry of International Trade, in their estimates, on how they do measure this across the country.

G. Heyman: Let me frame the question in a way that the minister should have an answer to. It’s part of the tech strategy that a 10 percent increase in the number of tech companies connecting with buyers outside of B.C. be realized. So my assumption is that the minister will know how all of those will be tracked, whether it’s international or national.

My question to the minister is: how will we know how his ministry is meeting this specific target?

[1445] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: The question surrounded the measurement of engagement of another ministry in terms of supporting the tech sector outside of B.C.

I believe the members opposite would certainly support the various trade mechanisms. We are an exporting nation, whether it’s technology or natural resources. They would certainly support…. To support the tech space, you would certainly have to support the variety of free-trade agreements that are occurring or yet to occur across the world, because that is, indeed, the success of the tech sector.

I welcome the member standing up in whatever venue to support the trade agreements that are being negotiated right now, because they’re certainly in the best interest of our tech companies.

[1450] Jump to this time in the webcast

The question that he asked — the member — in terms of the reporting of engagement, the reporting success…. The B.C. jobs plan has continued to report on the success of the economy in British Columbia, the success of the job creation, the success of the unemployment rates.

The Ministry of International Trade certainly can answer questions. That’s a venue where he can put forth in terms of the exact metrics of how they measure and how they report out. As this is the estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, that’s a question that I know the member knows he can best pose to the ministry that’s doing the measurement as part of their input into the broader tech strategy.

G. Heyman: Well, I’ve tried twice now to invite the minister to tell the people of British Columbia exactly how we can know that the target set and the strategy put forward in his name and his ministry can be tracked and monitored so we can know the extent of success. I can only assume that the minister doesn’t know how that can happen, because he hasn’t answered the question.

Will the minister commit to implementing a process of tracking and quantifying the success of various B.C. tech initiatives?

Hon. A. Virk: Yes.

G. Heyman: We look forward to seeing what that looks like. I would invite the minister to forward the framework and metrics for that process of tracking and quantifying to me, either now if it’s done, or in the future when it is done. I assume that the minister will agree to do that.

[1455] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: As I’ve said a number of times, the #BCTECH strategy, and the member knows, is certainly part of the B.C. jobs plan. He has seen for some time the success of the B.C. jobs plan and the numbers that continue to be openly available, not only to him but available to any British Columbians, and the metrics around those factors in the B.C. jobs plan.

So the answer is yes. All the information contained in the tech strategy forms part of the B.C. jobs plan, and the success of that, inevitably, is the creation of jobs. The B.C. jobs plan will continue to report out the success of job creation in this province and will not only be available to the member and his colleagues but to every British Columbian in terms of what job creation in British Columbia looks like.
[ Page 13094 ]

G. Heyman: I’m a bit confused because, in answer to my question — “Will the minister commit to implementing a process of tracking and quantifying the success of the various tech niches?” — which was very clearly addressed to a ministerial commitment, he answered yes. Then when I asked if he’d share it, he referred me back to the B.C. jobs plan report.

I’m a little confused, frankly, about whether the first commitment was actually a yes. But if we don’t find what we’re looking for in the B.C. jobs plan reports, which I suspect we might not, because we’re asking for very specific responses to tracking the tech strategy, we’ll just have to see what interest the public has in that and whether the public is satisfied that the tech strategy is actually being met.

I’m going to move on to the tech innovation fund. Before I do that, I just want to read a little bit from an op-ed by Jock Finlayson in the Vancouver Sun today.

[1500] Jump to this time in the webcast

Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council said:

“But at the same time, B.C. sits below the Canadian average on several other dimensions of innovation, such as investment in machinery and equipment, the extent and cross-sectoral distribution of private sector R-and-D activity, the pace at which firms take up and adopt sophisticated technologies, and the development of advanced skills. B.C. punches below its weight within Canada in the number of university degrees granted per capita, notably in engineering but also in computer and information sciences, management disciplines, the physical and life sciences, and some other fields.”

He goes on to say: “First and foremost, B.C. must continue to invest in developing well-educated, creative and technically skilled people.” That’s specifically why I asked the minister if there were plans to actually invest additional funding or resources in a number of the education-related initiatives that are part of the tech strategy, and unfortunately, the answer was no.

Moving on to the innovation fund, it’s been five months since the initial announcement of the B.C. tech venture capital fund. Can the minister provide an update of the current status of the fund and when the minister expects it to be fully operational?

Hon. A. Virk: The question, after some editorial comment, was about when the expectation of the firm being selected…. The answer is that in the fall of this year, fall of 2016, that firm will be selected.

I’ve had discussions across British Columbia and other locations about what a B.C. company needs to do. They need to sharpen their pitch. They need to be ready. They need to have their statements and their value propositions ready to roll when that company is announced and operational.

[1505] Jump to this time in the webcast

G. Heyman: There is quite rampant speculation — some would say leaks — that the fund is expected to be managed by Kensington Capital, which is a Toronto-based firm. Apparently, two B.C. firms were on the shortlist. Can the minister confirm that Kensington Capital in fact has been chosen or will be chosen to manage the B.C. tech fund? And if the answer is yes, why has the minister chosen to put the B.C. tech fund in the hands of a Toronto-based firm?

Hon. A. Virk: The selection process, as the member certainly knows, is underway. The member also knows that all participants in this kind of process are required to a sign a non-disclosure, so I’m not going to confirm or deny any speculation or rumours that the members wish us to bring forward. The process is yet to be finalized.

G. Heyman: In that case, we will take it as a matter of simple coincidence if we learn in a few month’s time that Kensington Capital was the successful proponent to manage the B.C. tech venture capital fund. Maybe just a happy accident.

I just want, in the event that it does turn out to be Kensington Capital, to put on the record some concerns that have been raised by Kirk LaPointe in Business in Vancouver. We should bear in mind that this is a fund to build the B.C. tech sector through venture capital, help promote B.C. companies. He says:

“If there is anything British Columbians love least, it’s a decision made in Toronto with their money…. None of the firms in the process will discuss their bids or the outcome. The province is mum. But word leaked last week…. None of its management team is from here or based here. Its website lists only one B.C. member on the advisory board, Gerri Sinclair, former president of the Premier’s Technology Council.”

Mr. LaPointe goes on to say:

“Kensington has a track record as an investment house. It has done some business with B.C., including a few investments in helping the earlier Renaissance Fund, run by the provincial bureaucracy, choose venture capital funds in which to invest…. But it has not been a big player in the fund-of-funds field and has not strayed often to the left coast.”

Frankly, experience in managing the ill-fated and not very successful Renaissance Fund is hardly something that most would put on their resume.

With that, I remain to be surprised that perhaps it won’t be Kensington Capital who is chosen to manage the fund. Or perhaps I’ll be surprised that somehow, miraculously, through a coincidence, it was Kensington Capital.

I will now conclude my comments and questions. I believe my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has some questions.

M. Mark: Chair, thank you for the opportunity to ask some questions on behalf of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant constituents. We know that they are calling on it being the Silicon Valley of British Columbia. There’s a lot of interest and, also, a number of challenges.

My questions refer to your service plan, February 2016. It states: “The #BCTECH strategy articulates how the ministry will support the technology industry to move
[ Page 13095 ]
ahead and attract and retain talent, employers and investors. One of the ministry’s roles is to work with the B.C. Innovation Council to help foster collaboration between the technology industry, academia and other parts of government that will enable job growth.”

[1510] Jump to this time in the webcast

It should come as no surprise that in early February, two chief executives — one of Hootsuite, Ryan Holmes, and Michael Tippett of Wantoo — raised concern around the affordability issue around housing in Vancouver. I’ll just provide a quote that Michael Tippett offered.

“Unaffordability is emptying Vancouver of one of its most valuable assets, young people who grew up in the city and who are invested in it. As well, qualified newcomers who could bring talent, drive and vision to Vancouver are looking elsewhere. This is worrying for several reasons. Chief among them is that it makes it exceptionally hard to grow a business in Vancouver. I’ve experienced this firsthand, but it’s hardly unique to the technology sector.”

My question for the minister is: do you believe that the affordability issue is a serious issue? If so, what do you think needs to be done to address the issues that are raised by these executives in the tech sector?

Hon. A. Virk: I just returned from a trip to that other tech sector down south of us that will go unnamed. We are not a north version or east version of any other sector anywhere. We are #BCTECH, and we are proudly #BCTECH. Those companies that are in #BCTECH — whether it be Acetech or HR Tech or British Columbia Technology Industry Association or the Cleantech Alliance — are very proudly part of #BCTECH.

In other places around the world where tech sectors have flourished, there was the availability of supply, a supply not only for the business but supply for the individuals that worked in that business.

[1515] Jump to this time in the webcast

The member certainly knows, and I think it’s been clearly well established that we need to work together at all levels of government to increase supply. In fact, I think there were some questions earlier about Jericho lands. My reply is: well, can you imagine 90 acres available right in Vancouver for additional supply?

I encourage all levels of government to work together on increasing supply, expediting the process.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Virk: I’m not sure of the comment. I don’t believe this is a place for heckling, but I guess we can change the format here for the member from the west end of Vancouver there that wanted to heckle here in the middle of estimates.

Also, if you look across British Columbia, the tech sector doesn’t just reside in those few square miles that my colleagues across the aisle wish to refer to. Look no more than a mile from here or a kilometre from here. The tech sector is flourishing and, in fact, is the number one sector in Victoria. It’s moving up-Island to Nanaimo. The member from those regions certainly knows it’s moving up-Island as well.

There is a tech company, the most western tech company in Canada, on Haida Gwaii. A tech company in Coombs is doing cutting-edge work on virtual reality and augmented reality. It’s the tech space in Kelowna. It’s the tech space in Kamloops. It’s innovation boulevard in my own backyard in Surrey, where I can lead the member personally, if she so wishes, to come outside the four square kilometres of her area to a $369,000 condo, eyeball distance from public transit.

The tech sector continues to diversify all across British Columbia. It’s growing in a very strong way. Yet we still need to work collaboratively together to increase the whole supply-side equation, ensuring that there are more opportunities, that there is quicker access to development and that the development permits to allow for density are granted in the most expeditious manner all across British Columbia.

M. Mark: With all due respect, my question was around whether or not you saw this as an issue. Based on your response, it sounds like you reject what Ryan Holmes and Michael Tippett have said, both experts in the field.

I take a little bit of offence. I obviously know how to think outside the box. I was referring to Mount Pleasant as a place that is home to many tech sectors.

My question, really, for the minister, as the deputy housing spokesperson, is whether you might be working with your colleague to address the housing affordability issue and acknowledge that there is a crisis in the Lower Mainland. The concern that the tech sector is bringing forward to our attention and the public’s attention is that we’re not retaining the expertise that we could be. We’re losing people because of the affordability issue.

That’s the essence of my question.

[1520] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: The member asked around programs that help British Columbians move into housing. The member certainly knows the current announcements surrounding first-time homebuyers — up to $750,000 of the purchase price. That covers a very large percentage of homes all across British Columbia where an individual doesn’t have to pay property transfer tax. That’s $13,000 into the jean pocket of that young tech worker, perhaps.

Also, in the tech sector, you have wages that are consistently about 60 percent higher than the industrial average. That’s because the tech sector is flourishing and blossoming in this province. At the same time, we still need to do more collectively at all levels of government on the supply-side equation. The member knows that as well. We’re committed to work with other levels of government on how we can increase supply. I encourage
[ Page 13096 ]
other levels of government. I imagine they’re having this same discussion: how we can collectively work together in increasing the supply side.

The tech sector continues to flourish. It flourishes all across British Columbia. It is one of the fastest-growing job creators in this province, and I believe it will continue to be the fastest-growing job creator in this province.

M. Mark: My question now relates to the service plan, Performance Measure 2: Citizen Satisfaction with Service B.C. Centres. It relates to persons with disabilities and screen readers and whether or not there has been an investment or if there are subsidies, or what infrastructure is available to persons with disabilities accessing programs on line. So it’s around screen reading.

[1525] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: The service centre locations across British Columbia are very broad, very diverse. In fact, there are 62 service centre locations across British Columbia, and they provide a variety of services. I’ve had the honour of actually being at a number of these locations and having one-to-one discussions with our staff. First of all, the dedication of the staff all across the province in terms of the services they provide — and recently the service they provide in terms of organ donorship and convincing people to help others — has been incredibly heartwarming.

The work they provide in terms of the whole area of accessibility and handicaps — that’s an important area. I have the deepest respect for the question that you asked. We endeavour to ensure that all of our locations have the best of access wherever across the province. I have actually witnessed where individuals with disabilities have come in. The service provided at times at those front counters where there are terminals is one-on-one service wherever applicable. I’ve observed that personally as well.

In terms of the technologies, we’re going to continue to explore the inclusion of more technologies so we can get even better at what we do.

M. Mark: This will be my last question or, I guess, comment. And that is that we really, in 2016, need to be doing everything we can to reduce barriers and hardship for people to access systems. We know that technology is a great advancement in efficiency, but we also know that it discriminates against people who don’t have the means to afford laptops and all the tools to access government services. It’s about accessing public assets and services that we all pay taxes for.

My question is just to see that it maybe gets added into the next service plan, that there’s a measure of ensuring that Service B.C.’s standards are meeting the needs of persons with disabilities in all of its access points on line.

[1530] Jump to this time in the webcast

For some people, that’s having a screen reader or having different technologies over the phone or on line. So it’s more of a commentary, but maybe next year I won’t have to ask the question about the service plan.

D. Routley: I’d like to ask the minister a question about performance measure 7, percentage of vacant office space — how office space is being defined as vacant, and how long it takes for a property to enter into that definition, and what requirements there are to take it out of that classification.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: Just broad information for the member, first of all.

[1535] Jump to this time in the webcast

The industry standard for vacant space in the commercial environment is 5 percent. I can report that our vacancy rate right now is 1.5 percent. The ministry engages in space planning annually. It’s a formal process in terms of what growth we expect, what space we have.

The question is how you define vacant space. I guess you could walk in and see there are no people. There’s nobody sitting in the chairs. That could be defined as vacant. But when we have a ministry that for a variety of reasons needs to vacate a space and there is no other ministry that requires that particular space, then that can be defined as vacant, along with the visual examination that there are no seats — bodies in seats, perhaps, would also be another way to look at it.

Formally, the lease has expired, a business entity has moved out, and there is not another business entity looking to move in.

D. Routley: In the resource summary, the services to citizens and businesses has seen a lift. Could the minister describe what that is funding?

Hon. A. Virk: If I get the question correctly and the member is referring to the resource summary on page 16 and the first line says “services to citizens and businesses” and it refers to 2015-16 as $17.923 million and the next year it’s gone up to $18.044 million…. If that’s the correct line in the service plan that the member is referring to — I’m getting the affirmative — the net result of the lift is due to the pay increases for unionized employees.

[1540] Jump to this time in the webcast

D. Routley: Can the minister break down for me what is represented in the “real property” line and the various lifts, particularly the anticipated lift next year?

Hon. A. Virk: The question surrounds the line item around real property — a change from 2015 to 2016 to some sums that are larger. Those are a result of the Okanagan correctional centre. It will be operational later this year. Those are lists, operationally, for that facility.
[ Page 13097 ]
There are miscellaneous items for other facilities across the province.

D. Routley: In the same table — transfers to Crown corporations and agencies of $12.3 million. Could the minister describe what those represent?

Hon. A. Virk: The transfers to Crown corporations and agencies refers to the two Crown corporations, which are the British Columbia Innovation Council and our public broadcaster. That amount reflects the operating funds that go to those two Crowns.

D. Routley: Could the minister describe to me the services represented in logistics and business services versus executive and support services?

[1545] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: There are two distinguishing features of both of these line items. First of all, executive services refers to internal services, corporate service functions for the deputy minister and the minister’s office. The logistics and business services line item includes a number of services — procurement services branch, supply, Queen’s Printer, product distribution, B.C. Mail. The majority of these services are cost recovered, and they’re provided to all of core government.

D. Routley: Transfers to Crown corporations and agencies remain static in the service plan and include the $6.3 million, roughly, for the Knowledge Network Corporation. I’m just wondering if…. I can imagine it will be difficult for that corporation to maintain its service without any accommodation of inflation.

What measures has the minister taken to ensure that the Knowledge Network is able to carry on without diminishment?

[1550] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: I’m actually very glad that my friend has asked the question about the Knowledge Network corporation. I think British Columbians need to learn more about the Knowledge Network. It’s got such a successful organization — children’s programs, documentaries, the Emergency Room program that the member or others may have seen.

Just a little bit of a fact: it actually has more viewership than CBC. It provides incredible programs. It’s over a $10 million corporation, and they have the ability in their revenue models to raise their own revenue from a variety of sources. As such, their grant portion has stayed the same.

D. Routley: The ministry capital expenditures. Can the minister describe to me what is represented in the “real property” line?

[1555] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: This ministry is the builder of government and manages real property across the province as well. When buildings need upgrades — previously asked questions such as carbon neutrality or maintenance capital…. The ministry manages some 17 million square feet of buildings across the province. That’s a lot of square feet.

Examples that would be included in that real property line item, which the member asked, would include the Okanagan correctional centre. It would include the new Maples treatment centre that’s going to be built at Riverview. It would include the Surrey justice precinct expansion, which brings a number of new courtrooms and facilities into the city of Surrey. It includes a routine capital envelope. It includes the Wood Innovation and Design Centre. It includes office furniture at a variety of buildings across the province as well.

D. Routley: Also under capital expenditures, office of the chief information officer: $41.5 million, $55.3 million. Can the minister please explain why those numbers are as high as they are?

[1600] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: The line item that the member asked us about refers to expenditures and investments to modernize, replace and maintain some 1,600 different applications across government. The increase in the number of projects that we are engaged in required the increment to capital. This is part of planned maintenance. This is part of evergreening the systems that government has.

An example would be the question that I answered earlier in regards to the systems built around reporting around the Societies Act. Another example would be applications to help manage forest fires as well. That’s the expenditure in the plan.

D. Routley: Last year in estimates, I asked questions about the previous year’s budget when it came to asset sales. I’d like to ask the minister how many properties have been sold in total in this past fiscal year, how many are planned for the coming year and what value they would represent.

[1605-1610] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: The member may know, but if he doesn’t, I’ll clarify that the Ministry of Finance has overall responsibility for the program. Certainly, questions about specifics can be directed to those estimates that I believe may be occurring next week.

However, our ministry does facilitate the sales as they occur. There it was a total of some 24 sales, of which one was a building, a facility, owned by the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services and a variety of other properties owned by other ministries — for example, vacant sites in Delta or a vacant site in Kamloops.

In terms of future properties to be sold, that’s once again a question that can be directed towards the
[ Page 13098 ]
Ministry of Finance. I can comment, though, that when a site is prepared and ready for sale, it becomes publicly available for all to see.

D. Routley: Can the minister share with me what the assessed or appraised values of those properties were, as well as the sale price total?

[1615] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: I have referred to a number of properties that have been sold. I have one clarification. Some of these properties may have multiple titles on them, so upon further examination, the number may be slightly different than the one I provided to the member.

In terms of his question around appraised value, assessed value and sale value, I can provide the information that the one property that is owned by my ministry, a property situated in Prince George, had an appraised value of $20.67 million. It had a B.C. Assessment Authority value of $14.709 million, and it had a sale price of $28 million.

In relation to the other properties, as I said, the authority rests with the Minister of Finance. He has overall responsibility. I encourage the member to canvass those when those estimates occur in the next week.

D. Routley: Could the minister at least give a percentage of sale price versus those appraised or assessed values and the percentage that is recovered, positive or negative, overall?

Hon. A. Virk: As I said, I’ve given the numbers for the property situated in Prince George — the sale price, the appraised price and the assessed price. I’m sure he can extrapolate what percentage that is. By my crude mathematics, the sale price was considerably higher in this case than appraised or assessed.

In relation to those other buildings, as I said, the responsibility rests with the Minister of Finance, and I do encourage the member to canvass those when the opportunity arises in the Ministry of Finance’s estimates next week.

D. Routley: Can the minister tell me how much was spent on contractors providing services to the ministry in the last fiscal year? Has this gone up or down?

[1620] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: The total amount for service contracts — I’ll provide two numbers. The one for the 2014-2015 year, for comparative purposes for the member, was $128,143,570. And for the year 2015-2016, the amount was $127,921,412. By my math, it’s a $222,158 reduction from the year prior.

D. Routley: Can the minister share with me whether civil forfeiture funds have funded any activities or programs of the minister?

Hon. A. Virk: Not to my knowledge.

D. Routley: Could the minister share with me how much has been spent on government advertising in this ministry?

[1625] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: There was some $20,000 set aside for a budget in this line item. Because the account is not closed, I can’t give the exact number. But it’s anticipated that only $1,000 is going to be expended.

D. Routley: Were any advertising campaigns that this ministry has been involved in been paid for by any other agency or ministry, including GCPE, government communications and public engagement?

Hon. A. Virk: Other than the $10,000 that is set aside in the budget, as I said before, only $1,000 is expected…. Any expenditures other than that are managed and funded through the GCPE budget. I certainly encourage the member to canvass that with the appropriate minister that has responsibility for that line item.

D. Routley: Can I please ask the minister if there have been any non-routine audits of any area of the ministry, ministry programs or agencies?

[1630] Jump to this time in the webcast

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: There are a number of ongoing audits from the Auditor General, and as the member knows, a listing of those is published on the Auditor General’s website. The question was around if there are any non-routine. I’m not aware of anything non-routine, other than the normal Auditor General audits that continue on and are published on their website.

D. Routley: Are there currently any ongoing reviews in the ministry? Have any reviews of the ministry’s services or agencies’ programs been completed in the last six months? If there have been, are they public and available?

[1635] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. A. Virk: In looking at the question, the word “review,” I take that to mean audits or otherwise or external reviews of operations. As such, I am advised that there are none. However, having said that, there are continuing examinations in terms of continuous learning that’s occurring all through the ministry on an ongoing basis to continue to be as efficient and as effective as possible.

D. Routley: I suppose what I meant more was that one would be an internal review versus an external audit by an external agency. But it’s really not of great consequence.
[ Page 13099 ]

I’d like to ask the minister how much was spent on contractors providing services to the ministry in the last year.

Hon. A. Virk: As I take it, I do believe perhaps there’s a duplication. The number was…. If he wants to write it down again, this year it was $127,921,412 for contract services.

D. Routley: These contracts — how many were tendered, and how many were direct-awarded?

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. A. Virk: I’ll answer this one.

The Chair: Minister, division has been called. I’m going to call a recess.

Hon. A. Virk: I can answer the question very quickly.

The Chair: Okay.

Hon. A. Virk: There are 404 contracts, of which 108 were direct-awarded.

The Chair: We’ll call a recess until after the vote is called.

The committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 4:53 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

The Chair: There are no further questions, so I will call the question on Vote 42.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $491,997,000 — approved.

The Chair: The committee will now recess in order to provide an opportunity for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to ask staff together.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 4:58 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

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

The committee met at 4:58 p.m.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $666,552,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. M. Morris: I do. I’m joined here by Deputy Solicitor General Lori Wanamaker; Shauna Brouwer, executive financial officer and ADM, corporate management services branch; and Patty Boyle, ADM, community safety and crime prevention — here to help me out. There will be other staff who will be joining us as we go, throughout the remainder of today and tomorrow.

The safety of all British Columbians is of paramount importance to our ministry, and our focus is on that. There’s a lot of focus recently on guns and gang violence and the strategies that we have around that. Last month we announced an additional $23 million over three years to further that strategy.

With this funding, we’re enhancing public safety across the province under the three pillars of supporting effective enforcement and prosecution; furthering community safety and public engagement, which is an important aspect of that as well; expanding laws and sanctions targeting illegal guns and gang violence, profits and property.

We already provide $60 million a year to CFSEU-BC, our integrated anti-gang and organized crime agency. Its mandate is to target, investigate, prosecute, disrupt and dismantle organized crime groups and individuals that pose the highest risk to public safety.

[1700] Jump to this time in the webcast

Since 2006, we’ve also provided more than $26 million in civil forfeiture grants for programs aimed at youth and gangs, domestic violence, crime prevention and other community-based programs. This includes over $5.5 million specifically targeted to support gang and youth crime prevention projects and programs.

We’re completing the construction of the Okanagan correctional centre, a 378-cell high-security facility north of Oliver, B.C. The region will benefit from an estimated 500 direct and 500 indirect jobs during construction. Once operational, there will be 240 correctional officer positions plus 60 support staff there. I’m pleased to report that the OCC is on time and on budget.

In addition, road safety is a top priority for our government, and we intend to have the safest roads in North America by 2020. Following a public consultation process that resulted in 90 percent of the respondents asking for higher fines, we did just that. We raised the fines and made tougher penalties for those that continue to endanger themselves or others by engaging in deadly driving habits.

There are many other important initiatives underway in the ministry, more than we have time to adequately cover in my brief remarks here today.

However, I wish to acknowledge the incredible work done by all the men and women in the ministry each and every day, in every corner of the province and on behalf of all British Columbians. A big thank-you to the staff in the ministry as well.

I look forward to your questions.
[ Page 13100 ]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his opening remarks.

There are a number of topics that we’re going to…. I know time today is limited, but we’ll be dealing with a number of them on Monday. I just want to give a quick lineup of some of the issues so that the minister and the staff are aware, particularly when it comes to Monday.

I want to start this afternoon with a particular case that I said I was going to raise. So I’ll ask some questions of the minister on that. I understand the issues around a specific case, but I will give the info to the minister. Then some general questions will flow from that as they relate to victims of violent crime.

Then I hope we can get started in terms of the roadside prohibition program, on that. JUSTIN — I’ll have questions on that. DNA — questions on that. I don’t know if we’ll get through all that today, but we’ll follow them over to Monday. Certainly, on Monday…. That’s when I hope we can deal with the IIO, corrections and gangs and, in particular, issues related to the situation in Surrey and in Williams Lake, for example. That, hopefully, is an outline for the minister of the order in which we can proceed.

I’ll get straight to the issue of the case. The individual in question…. I know it has been in the media. The individual’s name is Michael Forry. He was brutally attacked back in 2013. He was left brain-injured. He’s no longer able to work at the job that he had, which was a full-time, family-supporting, well-paying job. This attack and the subsequent injuries from that have really left him in very dire straits. He’s been to victim assistance, and he feels that the system is not working for individuals such as himself and what they’ve had to go through.

I’m going to do two things. I’m going to ask the minister to review the specific case, and I’ll give him additional information when this is over. But I want to ask some questions on a more general basis as they relate to some of the benefits under the program and as to how they are determined and as to how they apply.

My first question is that…. Under the crime victim assistance program’s summary of benefits available to victims, it lists prescription drug expenses. The document lists the services being for “victims who need prescription drugs to recover from or manage the effects of their injuries from the crime.” Could the minister explain under what circumstances CVAP would be unwilling to cover a medication that has, in fact, been prescribed by a physician and under what circumstances it would only be partially covered? In this case, they’ve agreed to pay partial, but this person requires the medication to control seizures. It has a big impact on their ability to live some sort of a normal life.

[1705] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. M. Morris: If the claimant is found, on the balance of probabilities, to be a victim of a crime, they are eligible for financial benefits, including counselling, medical expenses and income support if they are no longer able to work due to their injuries.

Benefits may be denied or reduced if it’s determined that the conduct of the claimant directly or indirectly contributed to their injury. Contribution may be assessed in situations where it’s determined that the offence was the result of the claimant voluntarily engaging in fighting or being the aggressor, committing a criminal offence involving violence or criminal enterprise or engaging in an activity where there’s a high risk of harm to others.

M. Farnworth: The program will, in fact, cover 100 percent of the cost. There’s not a policy saying that we will cover up to 50 percent, for example, then.

Hon. M. Morris: Provided it meets the criteria that we just outlined. So if he wasn’t involved in any criminal activity that resulted in his injuries, yes.

M. Farnworth: My understanding is that he was not involved in any criminal activities, that he was an innocent individual and that he was brutally beaten and left brain-damaged. Since that time, when the assailant was on probation and then was no longer on probation, they engaged in some pretty nasty Facebook harassment. That’s putting it mildly. So I understand what the minister is saying.

In terms of the level of income support that it provides to victims of crime, under what circumstance would a person who is working at the time of the crime and who has experienced a long-term effect on their ability to work not receive income support?

[1710] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. M. Morris: I’d like to introduce a couple more of my staff here, Taryn Walsh and Marcie Mezzarobba, for helping us out here. Thank you very much, ladies.

With respect to your question, the basic criteria are there as well. The person would be provided some income, based on the minimum wage. If he has extended coverage or any other plan in place, those benefits are used prior to our plan kicking in. The compensation would be paid once all the other benefits that he has are exhausted.

M. Farnworth: If there were benefits, for example, from his employment, those would have to be used before provincial benefits became available.

In terms of assets such as a house, would they have to use, in essence, the house as support — I guess to sell the house — to pay benefits before the provincial program kicked in? Would that be the case?

Hon. M. Morris: No.

M. Farnworth: I want to thank the minister for answering those particular two questions. I think there
[ Page 13101 ]
is a real issue here about an individual, Mr. Forry, who was viciously beaten and in a coma for five months in Kamloops and who is, subsequently, struggling. One of the key requirements he needs is the medication covered, particularly as it relates to seizures.

I would ask the minister and his staff to review the case and to see if there is a way to cover the cost of that medication, at the very least. If the minister would commit to doing that review and then getting back to me after the estimates process, I would appreciate that.

Hon. M. Morris: Yes, we will.

M. Farnworth: We’ll move on to the next topic, which is the roadside prohibition program.

I read the minister’s mandate letter, and this is not in here. I know that the ministry was split. I’ll just say this to put this on the record, and I’m not necessarily expecting an answer. Was part of the minister’s unwritten mandate letter to get this program fixed from the terrible mess that it was in before he became Solicitor General?

Hon. M. Morris: Definitely not.

M. Farnworth: I think that’s a good place to start.

As the minister knows, the government brought in the roadside suspension program. It was supported by all sides of the House. One of the key areas that was asked during the committee stage of the legislation was around a review process. At that time, as critic, I specifically asked if this had gone through the constitutional…. “Are you sure that this is going to stand up in court?” I was assured: “Oh, yes, we have the best advice that this is going to work out.” Anyway, as we all know, subsequent to that, the court said: “No. There needs to be a review process.”

Government brought in amendments in, I guess, 2012. I think it was, yes, 2012. Again, those amendments were supported by the House, and a review process mechanism was put in place. Since that time, there have now come to light issues around how the tribunals are working.

[1715] Jump to this time in the webcast

The questions I want to focus on right now are the issues around the backlog, which I raised in question period the other day, and the fact that there are now 1,000 cases outstanding. A key part of that is the issue around the seven day…. You’ve got seven days, and you’re supposed to have a decision in 21 days.

Why is it taking so long to get these decisions made? Why is it that we are in a situation where there are 1,000 backlogged cases?

Hon. M. Morris: Since the IRP program was started, there have been approximately 96,000 IRPs for the drivers. Of the 96,000, approximately 12,800 of them were reviewed. Of the 12,800 that have been reviewed, there’s currently a backlog of 1,105, which represents 1 percent of the total number of IRPs handed out since September 2010.

What we’re seeing in the last short period of time are the complexities of the judicial reviews that have resulted from these. The adjudicators are being inundated now with binders of technical information that has been presented by the law firms that are representing the affected drivers on that.

It becomes very complex and time-consuming for the adjudicators to work their way through that type of information. The adjudicators are also starting to deal with some of the Charter arguments that have been presented here, which also adds to the complexities of the reviews themselves.

All in all, 1 percent of the total number of IRPs that have been handed out have been subject to review.

M. Farnworth: I hear what the minister is saying. Having said that, 1,000 cases that are waiting for review are still 1,000 cases, whether it’s 1 percent or not. The challenge with that becomes — and this is where I think this latest case was: the judge said that you can’t sustain these kinds of delays. I haven’t got the exact wording with me, but it was on the record the other day, and it was pretty clear.

I’m wondering. Is the government not concerned? Given what has been said in this most recent case, and given the fact that these delays are not acceptable, the reality is that you have people who should not be on the road who are still on the road. And then you have people who are innocent or not guilty, when their case is heard before a tribunal, who are having this hanging over their head and not being able to deal with it.

[1720] Jump to this time in the webcast

You’re going to, in fact, face another constitutional challenge. You’re going to face another court case on all these particular cases, and you’re going to be right back where you started from, which is because you’re not dealing with it in a timely fashion. People’s rights are not being respected.

You’re going to find yourself back in court. That’s going to cost a lot of money. That’s going to cause a lot of delays when, really, the answers is to go: “You know what? The judge has made a ruling. We need to fix this, and we need to get the resources in there that get that backlog down to where it’s miniscule.”

Hon. M. Morris: This is an extremely valuable and effective program that we have here. As I said yesterday in the House, we’ve saved 260 lives — a 52 percent reduction in the number of people that have been killed — as a result of this particular program here.

I have to say that since 2014, the backlog has been reduced by approximately 10 percent. We had 18 adjudicators on staff. We added three more recently, and we’re
[ Page 13102 ]
in the process right now of hiring nine more to address the backlog.

M. Farnworth: Given that since 2014 we’ve reduced the backlog by 10 percent, which is 5 percent a year, can the minister then…? Obviously, they know how much each case…. How many cases can an adjudicator adjudicate in a specific amount of time?

The question. Given the fact that you’re hiring — you’ve hired some, and you know you’re hiring some more — you must have an idea, then, how long it is going to take to get rid of this backlog. Can the minister tell us how long the ministry expects this backlog to remain in place?

[1725] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. M. Morris: Bearing in mind that some of them are going through judicial review — so we won’t be able to deal with those ones — with the added resources that we have coming on stream here, that backlog will be addressed within a year. We will be able to maintain that 21-day review period once the backlog is caught up.

M. Farnworth: When will the resources fully be in place?

Hon. M. Morris: Within a month.

M. Farnworth: As the minister states, the program works. People aren’t disputing that. I think everybody wants to make sure the program works.

What concerns me is that when it was brought in, the government said it was going to be fine. It stood up. There was a challenge, and it was found: “No, you need to have a review process.” Now, again, what we’re hearing is the judges saying that the length of time is taking too long, that these reviews are taking far too long.

I understand what the minister is saying about complexity. I’m pleased to see that the resources are being added and that they will be fully in there within a month. My concern, though, is those existing cases that have taken so long that they may well result in a court challenge on the validity now of those suspensions.

Has the ministry looked at that possibility? Are they concerned about the possibility of a court challenge to the changes that have been taking place because of the length of the review process that’s resulted in this backlog?

[1730] Jump to this time in the webcast

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. M. Morris: The decision itself didn’t give any specific time frames, so we are dealing with the backlog, which will address the court’s concern. We’re also now giving reasons why there’s a delay to the drivers in the process here.

We will have that backlog cleared up, and we will be complying with the 21-day time limit, as set out.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister’s answer. I’m glad to see that they are dealing with the issue of the resources and the backlog, and I’m glad to hear that they will be on there within a month.

I still am concerned, somewhat, about the length of time and the backlog in those existing cases. And despite the assurance that, yes, we’re explaining why things are…. There may be vulnerability for the government in terms of a court challenge. Again, that is something that is certainly beyond my control and, to a certain extent, the minister’s control. The minister said, you know, that they are responding to the court’s decision, and they’ve explained why. I accept that.

The flip side of that, however. The reason this backlog has come about is because of the fairly wide, open-ended process, in terms of…. The motor vehicle inspector had the ability to extend the time period for the rulings. However, in the case of the driver, they’re limited to a strict seven-day window, with no exceptions to apply for review of the prohibitions.

Yet in a December 2015 Supreme Court decision, a judge referred to the seven-day window as too short. The judge went on to say:

“I also find that it would be appropriate for the Legislature to consider an amendment setting out an exception to the seven-day period. Clearly this regime is to be considered in the policy context of rapid determinations in the context of an effort to address the problems of driving while intoxicated. Nonetheless, in unusual circumstances, it would seem to me appropriate to enable the superintendent, in his or her discretion, to extend the seven-day period to seek a review. In my opinion, the present period can be too short a window in all circumstances, and the superintendent should have at least a discretion to consider an extension in extenuating circumstances….”

The minister — and I think you were the minister in December….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Mid-December. Okay.

Anyway. The government minister, at this particular time when this particular decision was rendered, came out and said that they would “make the system more fair.” In other words, obviously, they had seen this decision, and they were going to do something about it.

[1735] Jump to this time in the webcast

The question is…. Nothing has been done. Is the government considering what the judge had to say? Did they appeal it? Are they taking into account, or are they making, the changes that the judge outlined and thought would be appropriate? What is happening since this decision?

Hon. M. Morris: I keep forgetting to introduce Sam MacLeod, superintendent of motor vehicles, here as one of my aides this afternoon.
[ Page 13103 ]

The seven days was in respect of the judge’s comments within that particular case. It wasn’t part of the decision itself. We won’t be entertaining that seven-day period of time.

M. Farnworth: What I’m hearing the minister say…. Even though, on the review side, the process can drag out and result in a backlog, on the seven days that you have to make your appeal if you want to go to the tribunal, the government, despite what the judge had to say in her comments, has no plans to make any change to that. That’s what I hear the minister saying. That seven-day period will stay a seven-day period, no exceptions.

I see the minister nodding. Okay.

Can the minister answer another question, then? When that decision came out, one of the things the government did was to stop allowing drivers to see the police report. Can the minister explain why that took place, why that decision was made?

[1740] Jump to this time in the webcast

Hon. M. Morris: The change in the process just occurred coincidently at that period of time here. But anybody who files for a review gets a copy of the report. That was the change. Before that, they were getting a copy of it, but it was backlogging staff. It was impacting on staff time. This gave the staff the opportunity to concentrate on making sure that they met the reviews within the 21-day period of time.

M. Farnworth: If I understand the minister correctly, you got your suspension, you got the report, but there’s a backlog. In order to deal with the backlog, we said no to everybody getting a copy of the report unless they filed an appeal. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Morris: Yeah, there was full disclosure once they filed an appeal for a review. Then full disclosure — they got the report then.

M. Farnworth: So you get the suspension, and you’re like: “Okay, can I appeal? Can I not appeal? What did they say? Why did they…?”

Wouldn’t you think that you, as the motorist, should at least get the report so you can see what is down there and go, “Hey, I disagree with that; I’m going to appeal,” as opposed to going: “Hmm, I don’t know. Do I appeal, or do I not appeal?”

Then, when I decide to appeal, I find out what the report is, and I go: “You know what? I probably shouldn’t appeal. Yeah, I’m done dead to rights. This is like I’m guilty. I’m not going to waste my time. I’m not going to waste your time in appealing that.”

It strikes me as a little bit having it backwards in terms of being efficient. I wonder if that has not caused additional problems that probably would have been resolved if we actually had those resources there in the first place.

Hon. M. Morris: We’ve got to keep in mind the volume there. But it’s like any other court case. Full disclosure comes once you plead not guilty and you’re going to contest the issue, whatever it might, be in court. This is no different. The person decides: “I think I’m going to appeal this process.” Then they get a full copy of the report.

[1745] Jump to this time in the webcast

M. Farnworth: I hear what the minister is saying. My concern is that some of these things contribute — over the long term, as they build up — to the future potential of additional constitutional challenges that I think have the possibility or the potential to undermine the law, which we all want to see work. The goal is to keep drinking drivers off the road.

In that vein…. Somebody is in the appeal. They have to get an interim licence, and that driving prohibition is on there. Again, the fact is that there has been, in some of these cases, such a long time, and that individual is going around with a driving prohibition on their record.

Who can access that? It’s one thing, yes, if you are guilty of the offence, but if you’re not, there’s a stigma attached to that. So is that prohibition strictly confidential until the case is resolved? Or can that be accessed, for example, by your employer, by credit agencies or outside agencies other than law enforcement and the motor vehicle branch?

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. M. Morris: I’ll answer the question here first, Chair.

The information would be available to police agencies and to RoadSafetyBC. As to who else would have it, it’s ICBC information, so we’d have to confirm with ICBC to the extent that they might share it. But it is still personal information, so it would be guarded under that respect.

M. Farnworth: If you could get that to me for Monday, that would be great.

Hon. M. Morris: You bet.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, report progress on the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.


Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.