2010
Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010
The House met at 1:37 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
R. Lee: It's with great pleasure that I introduce to the House today the winning students of the Democracy on Location contest, sponsored by the Speaker of the House and the Chief Electoral Officer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sophia Chen, Aleem Dhanji, Kate Gao and Javed Siddoo submitted the winning YouTube video, entitled Why Should Youth Care About Democracy? Their video promoted a youthful perspective on the importance of democracy in our society in celebration of the United Nations' annual International Day of Democracy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They are grade 10 students from Burnaby North Secondary School in my riding. They are accompanied today by their social studies teacher, Mr. Dale Lintott, as well as Harry Neufeld, the Chief Electoral Officer. Will the House please make them feel very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Today we are joined in the gallery by a number of representatives from the community social services. They are the front-line workers and have been here talking about the impacts of funding cuts to their communities. I'd like to introduce them, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They do take up a good part of the gallery here: James Cavalluzzo, Stephanie Seaman, Cameron Gerard, Chelsea Vaneck, Cherie Dobbie, Chris Mikulasik, Demian Young, Dianne Black, Dorothy Bartsoff, Gale Engstrom, Joanne Dyck, Karen Wickham, Kiran Kang, Loanne Pickard, Pamela Pye, Pamela Schneider, Patsy Harmston, Roy Scafe, Vicky Dalton, Andrea Duncan, Melody Carleton, Donna Wright and Wesley Guiboche. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm sure members here may be familiar with them from their community. Please give them a good welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Black: I have the honour of representing four municipalities in my riding, and the mayor of one of them joins us today. Joe Trasolini, the mayor of Port Moody, City of the Arts, joins us today, and I'd ask the House to join me in making him feel most welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to welcome to the House today David and Mary-Lou Moore from Powell River, the Pearl of the Sunshine Coast. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1340]
Hon. N. Yamamoto: In my riding I have the pleasure of having one of Canada's leading boarding schools, and this is Bodwell High School. They have grades 8 to 12 and university preparation there. Today we have 70 grade 11 students, accompanied by five adults. Because the group is so large, there's one-half watching us now, and the other half will come in later. Would the House please make them feel welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Thorne: I, too, would like to welcome the mayor of Port Moody, Joe Trasolini, to the House. I had the honour of taking him for lunch today. We've been friends for a long time. He's here doing some Metro Vancouver business with the Municipal Finance Authority and some other assorted business. I think that because he's such a great mayor, we could welcome him a second time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Horne: It's with pleasure today that a group of students from Scott Creek Middle School, a school in my riding — a grade 6 class led by Dave Devaney — is joining us here in the gallery. It doesn't appear that they're here yet, but when they do arrive, I hope the House will make them truly welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Dalton: In the gallery we have Bill Brooks. Bill is with the Tim Horton Children's Foundation, and we had lunch together today. Tim Hortons is looking into starting up a camp in the north end of my riding, in the Mission area, for children from disadvantaged homes. This is something we're quite excited about. Tim Hortons is working together with government and First Nations and other partners to hopefully see this progress through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Reid: We are joined today by my niece Michelle Ramsell and her husband, David. David has been recently posted to Esquimalt in Her Majesty's loyal service, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. Yap: Visiting from my riding today is Glen Arnsdorf and his family. Would the House please help me welcome Glen, Kathy, Alicia and Sarah to the Legislative Assembly public gallery for their visit to our House and to watch question period. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN DEMOCRACY
L. Reid: In the words of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Harry Neufeld, "free and fair elections and an active civil society are critical measures of the strength and durability of British Columbia's democracy." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Civic engagement involves more than citizens marking ballots every few years. Working to help a candidate get elected, volunteering for a political party, working at a voting place, being a political journalist, studying political science, expressing your views on public policy in various forums — all of these activities contribute to a healthy democracy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Encouraging and educating today's youth about the value of civic engagement or the principles of democracy builds a stronger foundation for tomorrow. And this is fascinating, hon. Members. Voting in provincial elections of 18- to 24-year-olds has seen a dramatic decline over the past 30 years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Not so long ago 75 percent of youth were voting in elections. However, in last year's provincial and general elections only 26 percent of eligible voters in that age group actually cast a ballot. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Studies across western democracies indicate that a non-voting generation of youth tends to be followed by another non-voting generation. Studies also indicate that voters who miss out as participants in their first three available elections will likely never vote in an election during their entire lives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As fewer and fewer citizens engage and participate in civic life and the overall democratic process, concerns for the long-term legitimacy of governing institutions will grow. The end result of less civic engagement is less debate, the fibre that holds our democracy together. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Democracy doesn't take place just in this House but in every house, every classroom, every workplace, every day. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us democratic rights that facilitate this freedom, choice, equality, fairness and empowerment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So hon. Members, every time you have an opportunity to encourage an 18-year-old to vote, I suggest that that is the price of freedom, and all of us have a responsibility to participate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1345]
PARALYMPIC TORCH RELAY
IN MAPLE RIDGE–PITT MEADOWS
M. Sather: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to commend my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for its enthusiastic display of Paralympic spirit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On March 10 the Paralympic Torch Relay passed through Maple Ridge, with the main event being held in Memorial Peace Park. Ceremonies opened with the Kwantlen First Nation bringing the flame to light the torch and then performing a traditional song. Afterwards the 5,000 local residents who attended watched as the 32 torchbearers, like local Paralympian Jennifer McKenzie, carried the torch around the park in a celebration that featured live entertainment and that was aided by cooperative weather. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The enthusiasm of the crowd was palpable, with many cheers as the torchbearers proudly paraded by. That the community showed such spirit is not surprising. In fact, it is in keeping with Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows' character of inclusion and acceptance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are several Paralympians who call Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows home, and this past summer the community had the honour of hosting the 2009 B.C. Disability Games. With the community's full support, the games were a complete success. I was privileged to hang medals around the necks of winners at the award ceremonies. The spirit I saw there was much like what I had witnessed at the torch relay, leaving no wonder as to why Maple Ridge was designated an official celebration community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would like to extend kudos to the torchbearers, volunteers and citizens of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for making such a memorable torch relay possible. Events like this show our Paralympians that their games matter just as much as the Olympics and serve to affirm our support of all athletes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
WINTER LIGHTS CELEBRATION AWARD
FOR KAMLOOPS
T. Lake: Canada's tournament capital has found yet another reason to retain its bragging rights. Kamloops is not only the reigning Communities in Bloom national champion, but a few weeks ago it was awarded first place in the Canada-wide Winter Lights Celebration. Kamloops was entered in the over-50,000 category, beating out cities like Brampton, Barrie, Kingston and, dare I say, Prince George. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It didn't matter that this was the first year that our glowing community entered the competition. The city, its residents and community groups have been welcoming tourists and visitors to Kamloops for generations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
During the months of November and December trained volunteer judges evaluated all of the participating communities on the program's five criteria: visual presentation, festive season celebrations, winter pleasures, goodwill programs, and tourism and promotion. The judges were impressed by what Kamloops has to offer, as they visited spectacular Sun Peaks Resort, took part in the light-up ceremonies at the Spirit Square on the North Shore and St. Andrews on the Square downtown, were taken on the seniors' twinkle tour and saw the historic 2141 steam train in all its seasonal glory. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With so many attractions in any season, Kamloops and the surrounding area are truly a year-round destination. Stops were also made at Memorial Arena, Christmas Amalgamated, Kamloops Food Bank, McArthur Island Sports Centre and the Tournament Capital Centre. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to thank Gay Pooler and Glenn Grant for co-chairing the Kamloops WinterLights Committee and presenting the city of Kamloops so well to the rest of the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
NOWRUZ CELEBRATION AND
CULTURAL HOUSE OF MAWLANA
M. Elmore: I rise today to recognize Persian New Year, or Nowruz in Persian. Nowruz translates as "new day" and is celebrated on March 21 by more than 300 million people worldwide. It marks the first day of spring and the beginning of the new year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
UNESCO recognizes March 21 as the International Day of Nowruz, a spring festival of Persian origin, and it's been celebrated for over 3,000 years in Iran, Iraq, India, Afghanistan and central Asia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Last week I was fortunate to be able to celebrate Nowruz with friends from the Iranian, Asian and Afghan community at the Cultural House of Mawlana. The theme was to celebrate the start of the Persian New Year with friends, to come together as a multicultural community and celebrate our shared humanity. They also marked International Women's Day with very moving poetry and speeches. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We enjoyed traditional foods such as haftmeewa and jelabee, as well as poetry readings and performances on traditional instruments like the rabob, tabla and harmonium. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Cultural House of Mawlana is run by members of the Afghan community in the Lower Mainland, and it's named after Mawlana, more often known as Maulana Muhammad Jalaluddin Rumi, or Rumi. Rumi is known in the west as one of the most prolific poets of all time. His poetry promotes the understanding of spiritual unity underlying all religious truths, and he happens to be one of my favourite poets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The culture house is a very welcoming and hospitable place, and everyone there is working hard to promote Afghan culture in the Lower Mainland. They offer music lessons for youth on the traditional instruments. They teach history lessons about the rich cultural heritage of the region, calligraphy and also poetry lessons. They have a youth group as well as a website and a biweekly newsletter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1350]
The House of Mawlana is a gathering place for Afghan culture and the Afghan community, but it's also much more. It's a place for all communities and cultures to come together. On their behalf, I'd like to extend an invitation to all of you and British Columbians to pay a visit. Drop in on any Saturday for poetry readings and musical performances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On behalf of my friends at the Cultural House of Mawlana, I'd like to wish everyone a very peaceful and prosperous Persian New Year. Happy Nowruz. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B.C. VOLUNTEERS
H. Bloy: Over the years we have recognized and awarded many exceptionally great people in our province. Without these great individuals and thousands and thousands of volunteers who make our communities the best place on earth to live, work and play…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So many of them are making their mark on our province and even the world, people like Peter Legge, 2008 recipient of the Order of British Columbia for his work of over 25 years with Variety Club for children; Senator Yonah Martin, a teacher for over 20 years before her appointment to the Senate of Canada. Senator Martin was honoured with the order of Korea for her work in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We can also thank people like Cy Saimoto , who was recent awarded the Order of Japan for his work in Canada. Cy has been a leader within the Japanese-Canadian community and is a longtime supporter of the Vancouver Japanese Language School. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Even our own member for Surrey-Tynehead has been awarded the order of India for his work that he has done here in Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now we have two Burnaby firefighters who will be awarded with the B.C. Community Achievement Award. Firefighters Jeff Clark and Miles Ritchie were the ones who brought the 2009 World Police and Fire Games to the Lower Mainland, but it wasn't only their work with the World Police and Fire Games. It's all the community work they do, from charitable fundraising to coaching amateur sports teams, which makes them very deserving of this award. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As an MLA, I'm really lucky as I get to say thank you to so many people who give so much to our communities around the province. I thank these individuals, and I want to thank the thousands and thousands of volunteers who make our communities the best place on earth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HARI SHARMA
R. Chouhan: Today I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend Dr. Hari Sharma. After a long and courageous fight against cancer, he passed away on March 16, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Dr. Sharma was born on November 9, 1934, in India. He moved to the U.S. in 1963 and got his PhD in sociology from Cornell University. He taught briefly at UCLA before accepting a position at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, where he stayed until he retired in 1999. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hari, like many enlightened academics of the 1960s, was involved in the anti–Vietnam War movement in the U.S. and Canada. As a member of the faculty of Simon Fraser University, he became a champion of the academic rights of colleagues who were faced with the threat of dismissal for the support of the student-led movement at the university. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hari was a founding member of the Georgia Straight collective, which publishes a weekly paper, the Georgia Straight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I met Hari in 1975, when he recruited me and others to form the Indian People's Association in North America. Hari was the primary force in the formation of the British Columbia Organization to Fight Racism. He also played a leading role in the formation of the Canadian Farmworkers Union. He was involved in and supported many progressive causes in many countries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Besides being an able political organizer and a gifted writer of short stories, Hari was also a great photographer. His photographs have been displayed in many exhibitions. He also proved himself to be an excellent director of political drama. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He is an inspiration to engagement in the struggle for a better world, a world without exploitation, without religious, caste, ethnic or gender oppression. I'm so grateful that I was able to hold his hand when he took his last breath. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Thank you, Hari, for everything you did for me and others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Oral Questions
HOME CARE FEES
C. James: On February 1 the government implemented a new regulation that capped the monthly cost of home care for seniors at $300 per month. But then we learned that seniors like Guy Aubin are being forced to pay more. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1355]
The 85-year-old pensioner from Lantzville is speaking out about his situation. He's being asked to pay $550 a month for his home care, a 26 percent increase, effective February 1. Can the Minister of Health explain: if he passed the regulation, if he made the change, why are seniors like Guy paying more for home care? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I don't have the information. I'd be happy to address that if the member could share it with me. What I can tell the member, generally speaking, is that 70 percent of home care is delivered at no cost to individuals. There is a cost associated with your income level. I would need to know what the individual's income level is before determining whether or not the amount being charged is appropriate or not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd like to inform the minister that this was a regulation change in the minister's ministry that capped home care support at $300 a month for clients. It's $26,000 a year — what Guy is earning as a senior with old age pension. The regulation is very clear. As of February 1 seniors will only pay $300 a month as a cap for home care support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question again is to the minister. Can he explain why seniors — Guy is one example, but perhaps the minister could let us know if there are other examples — are being charged more than the regulation that has been passed by this government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: I understand that Mr. Aubin is concerned because his contribution is increasing. I understand the contribution is increasing by about $4 per day, on average. I am led to understand from staff that Mr. Aubin's home support rate is increasing because his income has been increasing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I should also recognize that we have dramatically increased the level of home supports. It might be interesting for the Leader of the Opposition to know that, actually, during the 1990s, sadly, we saw a cut in the number of home support clients, by 31 percent during 1994 and 2001. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: How many months has this minister been the Minister of Health? How long is it going to take this minister to get on top of his health care file? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This was a regulation passed by cabinet, and I'm guessing that the Minister of Health should have been paying attention, since it was coming from his ministry. This was a regulation change that took effect February 1 and that says very clearly that seniors will not be paying more than $300 a month for home care support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Aubin is paying $550 — clearly a violation of the regulation. I'd like to ask the minister again: when is he going to get on top of this file, and when is he going to explain why the government passed a law that isn't being followed out there in health care? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: This year health authorities will spend $682 million on home support services. That is a 70 percent increase from 2001. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We hear the Leader of the Opposition loves to talk, loves to pretend that they had such a great record. Their great record was that they cut 31 percent of the people off of home support between 1994 and 2001. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That was your record in government. I will gladly put our record up against the record of the NDP, dismal and terrible as it was, any day of the week. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
[1400]
Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Hammell: In response to Mr. Aubin's concerns about the rising cost of home care, the ministry suggested Mr. Aubin get on the wait-list for long-term care — a ludicrous and expensive suggestion, one that would cost our health care system even more and damage Mr. Aubin's quality of life. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Does the Minister of Health think that this is a solution to a problem that he has created? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: I'm going to address that in a moment. But you know, I think it is interesting. Actually, Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I thought that what they were going to be standing up and asking me is why the latest CIHI, Canadian Institute for Health Information, numbers show that B.C. has been rated number one in the country for reducing wait times for medical surgeries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's what I thought I was going to hear, because every day in this House we listen to the members opposite talk about just how terrible it is in British Columbia, how bad the situation is for elective surgical procedures, yet a report comes out and says that B.C. is number one. Nothing. Not a sound from the members opposite. I find that quite interesting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to Mr. Aubin, the situation is actually pretty straightforward. I'm happy to brief the member after if she'd like. The fact of the matter is it is income-tested. His income has gone up, and therefore, he does pay more. I acknowledge that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Hammell: We know that it is far less expensive when people who are able to live at home continue to live at home. But despite that fact, this government continues to erode home care support programs. Per-capita funding has fallen well below the national average since 2001, and the number of British Columbians receiving home care support has declined by nearly 25 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why would this government force seniors out of their homes into residential care when the less expensive alternative, home care, is a preferred option? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: This is an individual who had a front-row seat while they cut home care spaces by 31 percent. Front-row seat. It is incredible to me that if they are going to pick an individual to ask a question about this issue, they would pick a former cabinet minister that had a front-row seat while they cut spaces 31 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have increased funding by 70 percent — $682 million. We are housing and supporting more home support seniors than we ever have in the history of the province of British Columbia. That's our record. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
K. Corrigan: This is very straightforward, and we're still waiting for an answer to the basic question. This minister and this government passed a regulation capping home care at $300 per month. Guy Aubin is being charged $550 a month. Why is this government violating its own regulation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the members are mixing up two different issues. Mr. Aubin's income has increased. That's why his contribution is increasing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1405]
There was a mistake in the regulation. The word "qualified" was used inappropriately. That is being amended. I acknowledged that, and an individual did point that out to the ministry, but those are two separate issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It doesn't get away from the fact that when you were in government, you ranked ten out of all of the provinces in home care support, and today we are among the leading in the country in home care support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL
STERILIZATION UNIT
A. Dix: It only took six questions for the minister to admit that he failed. He made a mistake, and Mr. Aubin is paying the price for it. So let's try and find an area of health care that maybe the minister knows something about, that he might have heard about — not regulations that he brought the cabinet, nothing like that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the minister will know, for the last six weeks at Royal Inland Hospital there have been cancelled and delayed surgeries as a result of problems with sterilization — serious concerns about sterilization. Two years ago the CEO of the Interior Health Authority acknowledged, admitted, that the sterilization unit was inadequate and needed retrofitting. In spite of this warning, he and his predecessor failed to act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Two years later nothing has changed, circumstances are worse, and patients were put at risk. Can the minister explain? I know it's hard. It's a big ministry. Can the minister explain why no action was taken to ensure patient safety for two years before there was system collapse? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: The common theme that you hear in questions from the opposition is trying to find ways, scanning the entire system that serves over two million visits a year in our emergency departments, that in a population of just over four million serves tens of thousands of people in our acute care hospitals every single day…. What does the NDP do? They will try to find any situation to try and run down the system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They always ignore independent reviews that suggest that we have the best system in the country. That's what the Conference Board of Canada said. The Canadian Institute for Health Information said that we had the number one results for reductions in wait times and surgical procedures. You never hear that from the NDP. All you'll hear from the NDP is trying to run down the system and the professionals in the system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact of the matter is that Royal Inland Hospital acted entirely appropriately by immediately halting elective procedures the moment they became aware that there were some problems with surgical instruments not meeting the standard of cleanliness. They've done an external review. The external review will make recommendations. They'll follow the recommendations. I have every confidence in the professionals at Royal Inland Hospital. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: I can't believe that a Minister of Health thinks that unclean surgical equipment is a minor issue and thinks a two-year warning isn't enough. It is completely unacceptable. How can he talk about wait times to the people of Kamloops when more than 1,000 patients, more than one in four patients, have waited more than a year for surgery in Kamloops? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He's talking to them in answer to this question about wait times? Why did they do nothing? Why did the empty-suit Minister of Health replaced by the other empty-suit Minister of Health do nothing while patients in Kamloops were put at risk? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the comments about my abilities and the former minister's abilities. I'll tell you this. I certainly don't want to have to get into discussing that member's record as the chief of staff to the NDP government in the late '90s. I'm happy to if the member would like, because I will put my record and the former minister's record up against his record any day of the week. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1410]
Now, I understand that he has a problem with dates. I understand that the critic has a problem with dates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Two years ago a health audit was undertaken with respect to surgical cleaning. That's what we do in our system, Mr. Health Critic. We actually do regular audits. It made recommendations. Those recommendations were implemented. When they identified a problem, they immediately acted on it, and they acted absolutely appropriately. There's an external review underway. When that review makes recommendations, they will be implemented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm proud of the workers at Royal Inland and how they've managed this file. They have done a very good job on behalf of British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SUCCESS BY 6 PROGRAM
M. Karagianis: Success By 6 was a creation of this government in 2003. Now not only is their funding being cut in half this year; the entire program is being cancelled in March 2011. The coordinators of this program have worked tirelessly for six years to build relationships across government — with business, with First Nations and the non-profit sector. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The cancellation of this program will have a devastating effect on organizations already stripped to the bone by this government's cuts. How can the Minister of Children and Families justify eliminating funding to an organization that supports so many front-line services to families? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Success By 6 has been a tremendous partnership with the government of British Columbia, with credit unions, and we're proud that since 2003 we have invested $27 million in Success By 6. In addition to the $2½ million that Success By 6 will receive in a grant this year, we'll also be, across government, spending almost a billion dollars in early childhood development, child care services, children and youth with special needs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We will continue to work with Success By 6 as we look for opportunities to help them transition some of their programs in these difficult times. But there's no question that this is an area that we deem a priority, and we certainly invest more than the opposition ever did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: So this minister admits that they're proud to have cut this program by 50 percent and that they are doing away with it by 2011? That's the kind of support that this minister offers to communities? The early childhood development provincial partnership has said that without the three partners in place — the United Way, the credit unions and, most importantly, the province of British Columbia — they will not be able to carry on, and Success By 6 will be dissolved along with 400 programs across this province that it serves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
After six years the program is strong. It is delivering innovative programs to communities, and now the B.C. Liberals will cancel it outright. It does not make any sense. This is another bad decision by a government that proves over and over again that it does not care about supporting families and communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would ask the minister: will she stand today and reverse the decision and reinstate the funding for Success By 6? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Year upon year since 2003 this government has responded by supporting Success By 6 with grants. Year upon year upon year, grants that the opposition voted against every single time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We will continue to be working with Success By 6 as they work with the $2.5 million grant we will provide this year in order to ensure that we help them to transition their programs and to look for opportunities to enhance community capacity-building across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1415]
G. Coons: The minister's comments ring hollow, especially to the children that need the emotional, social, cognitive and physical skills that they need to enter school. The previous minister basically said that they want to build programming that's durable, to ensure they have the tools in the toolbox. But we know what this minister has taken out of the toolbox. She's taken out the screwdriver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The cancellation of Success By 6 is a lot more than just one program. More than 400 programs are supported. This means no more literacy programs, no more books, no more support for first languages projects. The list goes on and on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This cut is contrary to everything this government claims they stand for. Will the minister admit that this was a mistake and restore full funding for Success By 6 and the hundreds of programs it supports? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Really, the question about support for early childhood development and early childhood education is: when on earth is the opposition going to get on board and support programs like full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds? When are they going to support the $1.75 billion across government that we are going to spend and invest on literacy this year? When are they going to support programs like aboriginal Seeds of Empathy, Children First, Building Blocks, family resource programs, young parent and at-home visiting programs? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Consistently we bring forward strategies and investments that'll support our kids, support our families, and every time that opposition votes against it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Coons: You know, the minister keeps tightening the Phillips on this one to the most vulnerable. Success By 6 has made connections and built capacity in communities around the province and has become an indispensable resource for families in rural and, especially, aboriginal communities. On the central coast Success By 6 is the only organization providing early literacy program, because they don't have access to Children First or other early-years programs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the minister admit this was a bad decision, reverse the cut and make sure those communities are not left out of front-line family services? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Since 2003 a $27 million investment in Success By 6. This year alone we'll spend across government a billion dollars in early childhood development, child care, and services for children and youth with special needs. Across government this year we'll spend $1.75 billion on literacy programs. The question is: why can this opposition never vote in favour of those investments? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: Let's be clear. For six years this province has had the highest rate of child poverty in all of Canada. That is something that is completely shameful. So the record of this government on child poverty… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: …on child support — working with children in any way — is a complete failure. But there are a few initiatives that you could point to that would work, and Success By 6 is one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a program, and I'll quote from the manager of Children First, Cranbrook — Gail Brown. This is what she says about Success By 6: "The benefits of this program on the health and development of young children in rural regions has been enormous." But she goes on to say that "the loss of funding from the government puts childhood programs back to being beggars" — and these are her words — "rather than bona fide partners." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The cuts are a mistake. Will the Minister of Children and Families admit the mistake and put back in place the funding that serves 240 communities in rural British Columbia? Will she do that today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: The programs around this province are numerous. Aboriginal Seeds of Empathy; Children First; Building Blocks; family resource programs; young parent and at-home visiting programs; parent-child Mother Goose programs; fetal alcohol syndrome programs; Ready, Set, Learn programs; and over 40 aboriginal early childhood development programs to boot. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1420]
The record that this has produced is one that we can be proud of. Fewer children in care. We've tripled the number of aboriginal children being served in delegated agencies. We've increased the number of child protection social workers, and we've doubled the number of front-line mental health workers — unprecedented support for children and families, which that opposition consistently votes against. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: There's a mindlessness to this cut in particular, like many of the cuts that we've seen since this budget — a mindlessness to it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In 2003 this is what the government said about the program: "For every dollar invested in early support services for children and their families, at least $2 is saved in later social costs. For children living in high-risk situations, this early intervention can result in far greater savings." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's not very often that PAB will produce something that I'll agree with, but there's a truth to that. By the government's own admission, this cut is shortsighted. It is going to cost the province in the long run. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again to the minister: will she re-evaluate this far-reaching, shortsighted decision, recognize the value in the strong community partnerships formed with credit unions of B.C. and the United Way and give our communities back successful programs? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: It would be easier to believe the member's concern for early childhood development if the member were supportive of a program like full-day kindergarten. It would be easier to believe the member's concern if the member was in support of a program like StrongStart B.C., which they voted against. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact of the matter is that as a result of our investment in children and families since 2001, there are fewer children in care, there are fewer children on welfare, and there are fewer children living in poverty than when that member opposite was in government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
DENTAL PROGRAM FOR
LOW-INCOME CHILDREN
N. Simons: My question is to the minister responsible for the Healthy Kids dental program, which in the last budget was cut in half for children's visits to the dentist. Now, everybody in this room understands the importance of preventative care for children, except perhaps the members on the other side of this House. How can the minister justify cutting access to preventative dental care for the low-income children of this province? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The member has it completely wrong, as usual. In cooperation with the B.C. Dental Association, we did a review of the programs relative to dentistry in B.C. A number of things became apparent that they asked us to look at. One is that we had a program where we said we'd only spend $700 a year maximum for dental work for any person that was on social assistance in B.C. They asked if we would change that to $1,400 over two years so that if they had more procedures and need, they would be able to do it, and families would not avoid bringing in their children for the care they needed. We've done that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They also asked us if we would increase, which we did.... We increased the amount of money for procedures that would be medically necessary procedures from $500 to $1,000, which is a substantial increase with regards to that. We talked to them about what the annual checkup for children would be, which they agreed would work at one year given the fact that it would be the same as other procedures and other jurisdictions across the country for people on social assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1425]
N. Simons: Going from two visits to the dentist to one is a cut. Mr. Speaker, $3.1 million cut from the program is a cut. I challenge the minister to find any dentist who thinks it's a good idea that children in low-income families don't have access to preventative dental care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would further ask the minister: how is it possible that we as elective members here, as MLAs — our program allows our children to have two visits to a dentist every year, but children in low-income families don't have that same access? How can the minister justify that discrepancy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear to the member. He mentioned low-income families. Low-income families in this province in many cases don't have any dental plan at all. People on social assistance do, plus they have a number of…. But during the time of the NDP…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Hon. R. Coleman: Relax. Relax. I think you've got to get your language straight over there before you ask a question. I'm happy to train you after question period on how to do that if you wish. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister. Continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: You know, under the NDP, there wasn't universal screening on 16 different things for children at birth. There are under the B.C. Liberals because we believe in universal screening at birth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've improved the program so we can be there for the serious procedures that are available for children. We're going to manage it in conjunction with the relationship we have with the B.C. Dental Association. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[End of question period.]
K. Corrigan: I seek leave to make an introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introductions by Members
K. Corrigan: I'm very pleased to see that we have in the gallery this afternoon a good friend and a former colleague of mine in the research department at CUPE, a brilliant researcher — Mr. Keith Reynolds. I hope you'll make him welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motions Without Notice
REFERRAL OF REPORTS TO COMMITTEES
AND POWERS OF
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have provided my friend, the Opposition House Leader, with a copy of a motion which, by leave, I move. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1 That the reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the second session of the thirty-ninth parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report referred to in section 22 of the Auditor General Act which is referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services; and in addition that the following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:
Report No. 5, 2008/09: Removing Private Land from Tree Farm Licences 6, 19 & 25: Protecting the Public Interest?
Report No. 7, 2008/09: Home and Community Care Services: Meeting Needs and Preparing for the Future
Report No. 10, 2008/09: A Major Renovation: Trades Training in British Columbia
Report No. 12, 2008/09: Planning for School Seismic Safety
Report No. 13, 2008/09: Public Sector Governance and How Are We Doing?
Report No. 14, 2008/09: Grant Administration of the BC Arts Council; 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games
Report No. 15, 2008/09: Wireless Networking Security in Victoria Government Offices: Gaps in the Defensive Line
Report No. 16, 2008/09: Homelessness: Clear Focus Needed
Report No. 4, 2009/10: British Columbia Crown Corporations Executive Compensation Arrangements: A Work in Progress
Report No. 6, 2009/10: Making the Right Decisions: Information use by the boards of public sector organizations
2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act.
In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and
(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
This is the motion that charges the Public Accounts Committee to conduct its work. It refers the reports of the Auditor General deposited with the Speaker during the second session of the 39th parliament to be deemed referred. It then lists a series of additional reports referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and provides that committee with the ordinary and usual sets of powers to conduct the usual and ordinary work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I, by leave, move that motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour will be discussed. In this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 2. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1430]
Committee of the Whole House
BIll 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2010
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 2:31 p.m.
On section 59.
B. Ralston: Perhaps I'll afford the minister an opportunity to introduce the staff that have joined him. Or perhaps he can wait until he begins his first answer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 59 proposes an amendment to the Assessment Act which deals with port lands. The minister will know that certainly the issue of the taxation of port lands is an issue of some considerable financial interest for those affected municipalities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Metro Vancouver organization has a port cities committee. They recently — that's last year — struck a commission to examine fairness of port-related property taxes. For example, the mayor of North Vancouver — this a common theme — is expressing concern about the declining revenue that the municipalities receive from port-related property in their municipality. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This amendment appears to attempt to coordinate two separate acts, the Assessment Act and the Ports Property Tax Act. I'm wondering if the minister can explain the purpose of this amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It does seem that by allowing a designation under this act as late as December 31 of a calendar year, this may have an impact upon the budgeting process for municipalities because if the assessment of a property has changed that late in the calendar year, the budget cycle has already begun, usually, for the municipalities. It may, then, have an impact on their prospective revenue and, as a result, on the budget as a whole. For some cities this is a considerable source of revenue, and they've expressed that concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister, then, address the purpose of the amendment and its likely impact upon municipalities? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The member asked if I would introduce the staff that are joining me, and I'm pleased to do that. Paul Flanagan is to my right, and to his right is Jeffrey Krasnick, and to my left is Chris Dawkins — all from the Ministry of Finance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This section 59 is really a technical amendment. Its intention is to make sure that we have a similar approach in both the property tax act and the Assessment Act. It is meant to simplify and clarify the specification of actual value for port lands and to ensure that there is consistency between the two acts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the process by which port land will be designated in a manner that's consistent with the Ports Property Tax Act under this proposed amendment of the Assessment Act? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1435]
Hon. C. Hansen: Now, I'm not entirely sure I got the member's question clear, but let me respond in this way and see if it addresses where he's coming from on this. In the case of both acts, this is done by regulation. It is done prior to December 31 in the year preceding. That brings the consistency for both of these statutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I understand that previously the designation would be done by October 31. This enables this designation to be done as late as December 31. I'm wondering if the minister could address the potential impact upon revenue forecasting and planning at the municipal level, given that for some municipalities port-related revenue, taxation revenue, is a significant part of their budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: It is currently the practice for all other sectors — whether it be a large industrial property or a mall in a community, a commercial retail mall — that the assessment roll is closed by December 31. That is to allow for a cutoff by which those valuations would be established for the following year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What this does is ensure for the port facilities that it is the same deadline as other sectors for the time at which the assessment roll would be closed off. This means, basically, that the port properties would be treated exactly the same as all other commercial, industrial and personal and private properties in a particular municipality. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: My note here of the amendment is that the section that's being removed from the current section 20.3 of the Assessment Act is subsection (5), which refers to: "Subject to subsection (6), in order to be effective for a taxation year, a regulation under subsection (3) (a) must be in force on or before October 31 in the preceding year." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's the change that I'm addressing. The designation prior to October 31 is being changed to December 31, and the questions of timing and planning on behalf of municipalities arise out of that change — at least as I understand it. I stand to be corrected in this very technical area, if the minister could explain that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The original provision to establish this on October 31 was really in recognition that if a port was designated under these provisions, then it allowed for that period between the end of October 31 to December 31 for the assessment authority to go in and do their valuations in time for the assessment rolls to be closed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1440]
The assessment authority is now of the opinion that that time is no longer required as the transition has been completed. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to harmonize these two legislations with the same date for the assessment rolls to be changed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Once the word "harmonized" starts to be used, I begin to become concerned, I suppose. I meant that only as, perhaps, a weak attempt at humour in this context. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister, then, explain the assessment process more broadly for port land, because essentially, this does not follow the normal process of market-based assessment that the B.C. Assessment Authority engages. Most people will be familiar with assessment of residential property where the assessment is based on sales in the immediate area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Would the minister confirm that assessment of port property is simply a designated assessment? In other words, the value is assigned by statute and by regulation, and the taxes that are paid to municipalities are taxes paid in lieu rather than taxes directly raised by the municipality on the designated port land. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct. Ports are evaluated in a different manner than other properties. Essentially, this is a rather simplistic way to describe it. I gather it is a lot more technical than this, but it is essentially established on an area basis — although I must confess that I would have to refer the member to the B.C. Assessment Authority if he wanted to get a more detailed description of exactly how that assessment process is done or the evaluation process is done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Once that valuation has been established by the B.C. Assessment Authority, then it would increase by inflation in the years that followed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Can the minister confirm that by coordinating — if I can use that verb — the two processes under the two separate acts, the value will be the same? There will be no discrepancy between the two assigned values. Is that essentially the purpose, to ensure that there's one assigned or designated value for any individual property? Would that be the correct interpretation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: These amendments that are before us do not change the valuation. There is only one valuation that is done, and that is according to the Assessment Act, and what the ports act does is the designation of a property as a port. So in no way do the provisions of the ports act change what would be determined to be the valuation under the Assessment Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The amendment also uses two terms. One is "designated," which the minister has just used, and the other is "eligible." I understand that eligible port land can then be designated under the act, and the value, for the purposes of taxation, can then be paid. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
Can the minister confirm that that is the distinction between the two terms? If that is explained, then can the minister advise if, indeed….? For example, in Metro Vancouver is there any port land that is not already designated? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The distinction would be that eligible port land would be properties that could be considered to be designated as port lands. Once they are designated, they go from being eligible to in fact being a designated port land. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Just to get a better sense of the issue and what the change may mean. For example, in Metro Vancouver is…? I understand there was a study — I believe it was completed several years ago — about the impact of industrial taxation on port land. The government made a policy decision, essentially, through this mechanism to cap taxation on port land, and the municipalities have had to bear the revenue consequences. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister advise if there's a pool of what is eligible port land that could be designated and therefore have an impact upon future municipal revenue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Just, I think, as a point of clarification for the benefit of the member. When he talks about the municipal cap, that municipal cap is provided for under the Ports Property Tax Act. The municipal cap is not contemplated in the Assessment Act itself. This amendment that we have before us is simply with regard to the Assessment Act, not the Ports Property Tax Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Then given this amendment…? Is there contemplated as a result of this amendment that there will be further designations? What's the administrative action that's likely to flow should this amendment be passed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: This amendment does not change in any way what may or may not be eligible port lands, and it also does not in any way change the designated port lands that currently exist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
Section 59 approved.
On section 60.
B. Ralston: This section repeals certain sections and the schedule to the Budget Measures Implementation Act of 2008. At that time it was certainly the express view of the minister that this was necessary to implement an alternate minimum tax for financial institutions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This amendment amends the budget implementation act of 2008 and does away with all those sections. Can the minister explain why, after all the statements of his predecessor and some of the ballyhoo surrounding that, this decision has been made to eliminate those sections? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I think there are really two reasons behind it. First of all, the federal government has a minimum corporate income tax act that is applicable to large financial institutions. The province benefits from that as our proportional share of corporate taxes that may be collected. So in fact, to have a provision on the provincial books would be a duplication of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, given the structure of the minimum capital tax provisions that we had in our Budget Measures Implementation Act, it was…. Because of the structure of the federal act, it would not trigger the provincial measures. Therefore, the bottom line is that the provincial measures were redundant, given the federal provisions, and we're removing it from the books. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can then advise whether those provisions that he refers to as making these sections redundant were in force in 2008. It's my understanding that they were, but I stand to be corrected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Certainly that was not the public position taken by the minister and the ministry. I'm quoting from a news release of the Ministry of Finance on February 19: "Tax measures include replacing the financial institutions capital tax with a minimum tax." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was certainly no qualification at that time. There was no reference to any federal legislation. There was no suggestion this was unnecessary or redundant. This was a news release issued on or shortly after the budget, and as the minister knows, news releases concerning tax measures are carefully scrutinized all the way up to the deputy minister level in order to give certainty to the public and those who might rely upon the representations of the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister explain why that was the case in 2008 and now appears to be something that can be brushed aside as being unnecessary? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Subsequent to 2008 there has been more work done in terms of what would trigger tax under the minimum tax act. Upon further examination of how the federal minimum tax act works and the implications of it, it is not necessarily that that minimum tax winds up getting triggered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What does happen is that financial institutions ensure that they are structured in a way that avoids that tax from being triggered. By avoiding the federal minimum tax from being triggered, the same is true for the provincial one. Therefore, the provincial one would seem to be redundant, and therefore, we are repealing it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today I notice my old friend Coun. Sue Powell from the city of Parksville. I'd ask the House to make her welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
Debate Continued
B. Ralston: Of course I accept what the minister says about more work being done since 2008, but I suppose it is regrettable indeed, because the public pronouncements of the minister on this question…. The minister will know that this is a question that does attract some political interest across the spectrum, and public opinion is sometimes, frequently, engaged when it comes to the taxation of financial institutions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That was certainly part of the rationale for the transition from the previous provisions of the Corporation Capital Tax Act as it applied to financial institutions — that an alternate minimum would be in place. I believe a figure of $100 million a year was given as an example of what might be raised by an alternate minimum. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It does seem, and I think the minister is indirectly conceding this, that perhaps a wrong impression was left with the public about (1) the effect of those changes and (2) the revenue that the suggested alternate minimum tax might raise. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I think that both the minimum tax that we put in place provincially and the minimum tax that is in place federally are structured in a way to encourage financial institutions to undertake their business in a way that makes them taxable. They avoid the minimum tax by structuring their revenues in such a way that they will be taxable above what that minimum level will be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact that there is that provision in place means that that is being accomplished. If you talk about how much tax would be collected or how much tax was intended to be collected by this minimum tax in place, the answer is zero, because it was recognizing that institutions would structure their behaviour to avoid that minimum tax being triggered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is true today. It will still be true after the passage of this legislation, because of the way the federal minimum tax is structured. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, I don't want to belabour this point, but certainly, I was a direct participant in the debate and debated the proposed amendment sections here in the Legislature. The impression that the minister left was rather different from what the minister is stating more baldly today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't expect the minister to apologize on behalf of his predecessor, but I think it's noteworthy for the record that any suggestion that the alternate minimum had any real effect on financial institutions and the tax that they might pay here in the province was completely academic and purely theoretical. Perhaps it was designed as a political distraction from the real business, which was relieving financial institutions of the obligation to pay a corporate capital tax, a tax which had been in place for at least 35 years and not tampered with by the Social Credit government, by Premier Bill Bennett or any of the other predecessors to this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I appreciate that it may be asking too much for the minister to make that concession, but perhaps he'd be willing to consider it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I'd love to engage with the member on a debate as to whether the elimination of the corporate capital tax was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do. It ensures that British Columbia can still be competitive. But that's not the subject of the amendment that's here before us, so we would probably have to find another forum for that debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 60 approved.
On section 61.
B. Ralston: This is an amendment proposed to the Carbon Tax Act. It appears to impact the sale of propane. Can the minister explain the purpose of the amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
Hon. C. Hansen: The vendors of natural gas and propane are excluded from this requirement because natural gas and propane are outside the security scheme, and the tax is collected and remitted to government by retail dealers. That is what currently is the case. What this does is actually simplify the administration of this tax by transferring the point of collection of the tax to the security scheme that is in place for other fuels. So this is going to be far simpler. It's going to save administration costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Can the minister briefly explain the term of art that he used, "security scheme"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: When a company either imports fuel into British Columbia or manufactures fuel in British Columbia, then under the security scheme what they will do is pay to the province the value of the taxes that would be required. They then distribute that fuel, and it is eventually sold at the retail level where they then collect from the customer the value of that tax to reimburse what they had transferred to government at the time of importation or manufacturing. So it's simply just a different stage in the chain where government actually collects those taxes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 61 to 63 inclusive approved.
On section 64.
B. Ralston: This rewrites the definition of natural gas. Can the minister explain the purpose of the amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The intent of this amendment is to clarify the definition of natural gas as it pertains to acid gas and waste gas. We are aware that there are more implications on this change and more information that we're gathering. Therefore, there is also an amendment that I'm going to be tabling, when we get to the implementation date, to alter the implementation date of this particular section. But the intent is to clarify the definition of natural gas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: My understanding of this may be imperfect. These would appear to be what are sometimes called processing emissions, I believe. As the minister will know, that is sometimes, again, the issue of debate and concern among members of the public about process emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So is the purpose of the amendment, broadly speaking, to apply the tax to process emissions? The definition is being broadened to include acid gas and waste gas, which is not currently captured by the definition and therefore would not be subject to the tax. Is that a fair summary of what's taking place, or at least the beginning of an understanding of the change? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
Hon. C. Hansen: The intent of the amendment as drafted was not to expand into processed gas. That is obviously something that governments, in cooperation with our other partners and neighbours in the Western Climate Initiative, are working on. In terms of the implications of this amendment, it does have ramifications in terms of how processed gas would be treated. That is the reason why, while we are implementing this section, we are also going to delay the implementation date of it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned now several times that he has an amendment about delay. I take it, then, that the purpose of the amendment, delaying implementation, would be a consultation of some type. Can he explain — briefly, of course — who the consultation would be with, and would members of the public, for example, be involved in this process? I'm sure that while it wouldn't be a broad concern, there are certainly some public interest groups that might have an interest in the issue as it relates to natural gas emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The consultations, I think, have been quite extensive over the last number of years with regard to the climate change agenda and how various fossil fuels should be treated, including issues around the carbon tax and its implementation as well as cap-and-trade. Those consultations have been, to date, very extensive, and they will continue to be extensive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Just to go back to the definition that's being proposed. The definition is being, as I understand it, altered to include the words "natural gas…includes acid gas and waste gas that, as a part of processing, have been removed from other components of natural gas, but does not include refinery gas." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The words suggest that those components have been removed from one body of natural gas and are somehow distinct. Can the minister then explain why those terms were chosen and what's the meaning — or a brief description — of both acid gas and waste gas which appear to result, in the wording of the amendment, from processing? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, acid gas and waste gas are terms that are often used interchangeably for the same thing, but essentially they are hydrogen sulphate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, my knowledge of chemistry is probably weak. But is this another term that is sometimes used to describe sour gas? Certainly, if that's the case, then I'd ask the minister to confirm that because, as the minister will know, there's considerable public interest from time to time about sour gas emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I have to plead the same lack of skills on chemistry. It was a long time ago that I was in grade 10 chemistry class. To correct what I said earlier, it should be hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide — what constitutes acid gas and waste gas. It is not the same thing as sour gas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
B. Ralston: Is it intended that sour gas would be captured by any of these definitions, or is that something completely different? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I will apologize to the member. I got that last answer 180 degrees wrong. It is sour gas. So these are the terms that are also used for sour gas. Hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide is what that would constitute. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Then given that it's sour gas, I think that obviously brings about a new level, at least for me, of public awareness of this issue. So is the intention of this amendment, when it comes into effect, to apply the tax to sour gas if it's possible to record or track those emissions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: We do not intend to expand the tax base with these amendments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Then perhaps the minister can explain the purpose of the amendment. It's broadening the definition. It is in the Carbon Tax Act. Can the minister then explain the purpose of the amendment, if it's not intended to make the subject of the broader definition subject to the tax? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The intention of the amendment is to ensure that we properly capture a definition for natural gas that constitutes what is intended to be taxed under the Carbon Tax Act. We recognize that we do have some more work to do in this particular area in working with the industry to fully understand exactly the implications of this, and that is why we are also going to delay the implementation of it — so that work can be done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that explanation. Can the minister then, given the necessity for the delay of implementation for further discussion with the industry, give at least a sense of the industry's concern about the effect of this amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm wondering particularly what the revenue implications might be. Obviously, my sense would be that the industry would want to avoid further taxation if at all possible, and the government might wish to collect more tax, both in pursuit of its economic objectives and in pursuit of the climate change objectives that it professes from time to time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister give a bit of a sense of the points of difference or at least, perhaps, the points that need to be clarified and that will be achieved by this delay of implementation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The intent of the Carbon Tax Act is to ensure that the carbon tax is properly applied to the burning of fossil fuels in British Columbia. It is not the intention of the Carbon Tax Act to tax process emissions. We are working on other initiatives, including cap-and-trade, to look at how we can best address the issues with regard to process emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What the industry has expressed to us is that because of the wording of this amendment, it may in fact result in taxation on process emissions, which is not the intention. Therefore, that is why we will be delaying the implementation — so that we can properly work with the industry to ensure that the definition we use for natural gas is in fact what is intended, and that is to apply the tax to the burning of natural gas in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Then the obvious question arises: if there's such uncertainty and the amendment appears to conflict with the government's legislative objectives, why introduce the amendment at all, I suppose? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The amendment was tabled. I think that is when some of the new information came forward subsequent to the tabling of this legislation. Therefore, it was determined that the best way to deal with the uncertainties around it and the need for more information was to delay implementation so that additional work can be done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
Section 64 approved.
On section 65.
B. Ralston: This changes the tax rate for kerosene so that it has the same tax rate as jet fuel. The note in the budget on page 85 says: "The change removes a costly compliance burden." So could the minister explain what's meant by that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: This change is simply to simplify and streamline the administration side of how this tax is applied. The tax rate for kerosene and the tax rate for jet fuel were very similar. For efficiency, it is standard practice for fuel manufacturers to produce jet fuel as a primary fuel and sell a small portion of it as kerosene for heating or lighting purposes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This change actually impacts provincial revenue by less than $1,000 a year. But for that very small change of less than $1,000 a year, we result in considerable administrative simplification. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 65 approved.
On section 66.
B. Ralston: This amendment refers back to the debate we had on section 60, referring to the changes to the 2008 Budget Measures Implementation Act and the alternate minimum on financial institutions. I just wanted to confirm that this is related to the debate that we had in section 60. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, it is a consequential amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 66 approved on division.
On section 67.
B. Ralston: These series of amendments initiate some changes in the Home Owner Grant Act, which make reference to northern and rural area homeowners and an additional financial benefit that they would be eligible to receive. At least I'm advised…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There may be rural members of my caucus who wish to enter the debate at this point. I'm not sure if we'll hear from them, but I've certainly given them that notice now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There appears to be some lack of clarity as to the definition. I don't know whether that's a consequence of broadcast or reporting of these proposed amendments, but in order to minimize misunderstanding, perhaps the minister could just explain the purpose of this amendment and those areas of the province which homeowners who fall within those areas would be eligible for this benefit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I think the amendment, the new definition that's being proposed, is very clear. It is very explicit that it includes the areas of the province outside the boundaries of the greater Vancouver regional district, the capital regional district and the Fraser Valley regional district. Those are well-defined boundaries. What we are defining as a northern and rural area are those areas of the province outside of those boundaries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: So can the minister then explain what a qualifying homeowner will be entitled to receive and why the government has chosen to take this step at this time? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: This is part of the revenue-neutral carbon tax initiatives, where all of the dollars that we collect under the carbon tax are returned through tax reductions or other measures to British Columbia families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
The argument was made that the ability of some residents of the province to minimize their carbon footprint was less if they lived outside of the urban areas. This initiative, I think, is in recognition of the differences, generally speaking, that homeowners in these parts of the province face. The provision allows for an increase in the homeowner grant of up to $200 a year for eligible homeowners. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: With the Chair's indulgence, perhaps I can ask this question now. I think it technically arises in one of the series of amendments that relate to this section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It appears that the intention is that properties that have taxes of less than $920 a year — or $945, I believe, in certain cases — would not be eligible for this grant. These would obviously tend to be ones that were occupied by those who earn less, and obviously, taxes would be lower on apartments and on condominiums. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister explain why that choice has been made? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Currently under the homeowner grant provisions for seniors, there is a minimum property tax payable of $100. For other homeowners, there is a minimum property tax payable of $350. This increase in the homeowner benefit in those parts of the province…. Regardless of whether they're seniors or otherwise, those minimums do not change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the rationale for that? This change really has no impact on those who are paying the least. Can the minister explain the policy reason for that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: It is a benefit that actually flows, obviously, not to all residents of the province. It requires that it is somebody that owns their own home. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member is correct. If the property is valued such that the taxes would be so low that they would be maxing out their benefit under the current provisions, then this increased benefit would not necessarily benefit them specifically. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I think if the member looks at the other provisions that we have for the offsets for the revenue-neutral carbon tax, there is certainly something for everybody in British Columbia. They would benefit one way or another from that revenue neutrality. Even if they don't benefit from this particular provision, there are certainly other provisions in the carbon-neutral initiatives that would be of benefit for everyone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Obviously, in modelling and deriving an estimate of the cost of this particular change, the ministry will have calculated the number of properties that would benefit and similarly, or conversely, the number of properties that fall below the threshold. I'm wondering if the minister could, if it's available through the staff that are there, give some rough numbers of properties that might benefit and properties that would fall below the threshold and therefore not be eligible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
Hon. C. Hansen: It is estimated that about 400,000 would benefit from this particular program. I don't have the exact number of how many would have property taxes low enough that they would not. I've got the number of how many would be eligible. I don't have a number available to me as to how many living in those areas would not be eligible because their property taxes were already quite low. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. Could the minister then undertake to provide that at a later date? If staff can research that, if that could be provided in a written form, that would be helpful. I'd appreciate that. I don't know if it's possible to get an answer from someone who's watching these proceedings in one of the relevant offices. Perhaps that could be sent in as a note a bit later this afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: We will endeavour to see if that information is available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister referred to other benefits that would flow from compensation, if I can put it that way, or for the impact of the carbon tax, particularly in northern and rural communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly — and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — that he's referring to the low-income carbon tax credit. If that's what he's referring to, then please confirm that. If there's anything other than that that he's referring to, perhaps he could specifically provide that as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I'd be pleased to provide it now. If you look at the low-income climate action tax credit that is in place, the reduction of 5 percent for the first two personal income tax rates, the provision of the northern and rural homeowner benefit, the reduction in the small business corporate tax rate are all examples of initiatives that are funded out of the carbon tax revenue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 67 to 74 inclusive approved.
On section 75.
B. Ralston: We've now moved to a new series of amendments. These are revisions or amendments that are proposed to the Income Tax Act. Section 75 extends the flow-through mining share tax credit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister briefly describe the likely financial impact in terms of revenue forgone, if I can put it that way, on the provincial budget? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
Hon. C. Hansen: The forgone tax revenue to the province under this measure is estimated to be about $7 million a year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Can the minister give the composition of that $7 million in the sense of how many individuals it's estimated will be benefiting from that particular share tax credit? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: For the most recent tax year that we have information on — which, of course, is the 2008 tax year — the number of claims that were received as of January 31 of 2010 was 5,720. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I'm aware that this is something that the mineral exploration association and the mining association advocate. Indeed, those of us on this side of the House have supported this measure as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It does seem to be a relatively small amount and a relatively small number of individuals. Is there any particular reason why that is the case? Is it that the takeup of the program is not that great, or are there other limitations that flow from this kind of a program that are maybe not apparent at first blush? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as the member knows, the exploration history in British Columbia over the last nine years has been a phenomenal success story. At one point I think we had seen the annual amount of money being spent on exploration up 13 times what we had seen as of about 2001. That may be off a little bit in the last year because of the economic climate. We know there is still tremendous interest in mineral exploration in British Columbia today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The vast majority of the funding, most of the funding, for exploration is coming from corporations. This is a program that actually encourages individual investors to come forward and, quite frankly, take some very big risks in terms of whether or not they will ever see a return on their investment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the fact that there are just short of 6,000 individuals preparing to put up their investment dollars for the risks associated with mineral exploration…. The fact that there are that many is, I think, impressive, and I think it is a very important part of raising the capital necessary for the huge success we've had on the exploration side of mining in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I have to quarrel a bit with the minister's characterization of the expenditure and exploration. Certainly there was a significant decline last year, but that's obviously a result, to some extent at least, of the global financial climate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister, then, explain the mechanism by which this works for an individual? Is the full amount of an individual's investment deducted from their taxable income, or is it only some portion of the investment that's made that's deducted from their taxable income? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
Hon. C. Hansen: The British Columbia mining flow-through share tax credit allows individuals who invest in flow-through shares to claim a non-refundable tax credit equal to 20 percent of their British Columbia flow-through mining expenditures. Any unused credit at the end of the tax year may be carried back three years or forward ten years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The British Columbia flow-through mining expenditures are specific exploration expenses incurred after July 30, 2001, and renounced by the corporation issuing the flow-through shares in order to avoid it being double-counted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: This section extends this program to 2014, and indeed, that's the specific amendment in section 1.1. There have been representations made by the Association for Mineral Exploration that this program be made permanent. The government has chosen to extend the program to 2014. Is there any particular reason why that course has been chosen — yet another extension rather than making the program permanent? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: It's my understanding — and perhaps the member knows this more firsthand than I do because he was a member of the Finance Committee with the prebudget consultations — that this three-year extension, rather than the annual extensions that have been previously done, was a measure that was specifically recommended to the Finance Committee by the mining association. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister may have the better of me in terms of recollection, but my recollection was that was certainly a position advanced, but I think the preferred position was that the program be made permanent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I appreciate that it's no longer an annual event, but can the minister explain: is there consideration being given to making the program permanent, and if not, why not? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I think we do have some tax credit programs that are in fact permanent. We have others that are time-limited. I think it allows us to review these on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in fact, they're still working. Are they still generating the economic activity and the results that we want? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think by establishing a three-year term, it does give the industry more certainty. It allows them to plan with more certainty over that time frame. It's certainly, from the industry's perspective, a significant improvement over the annual extensions that we were doing previously. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister refers to the opportunity to review the program. Can the minister advise if there's been a recent…? That is, within the last, say, previous two fiscal years of the program. If so, what were the results of that review, and is the minister prepared to share that review publicly? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: It's not a formal review in the sense that there is a report that has been prepared each year on this. This is a subject that would come forward to the Minister of Finance in discussions with tax policy officials in the ministry, and that annual discussion would take place and the determination made as to whether or not the program should be extended for a further year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This year we determined, given its success in past years, that we would extend it for the three years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 75 approved.
On section 76.
B. Ralston: This is a consequential amendment that flows from the previous amendment. It refers to the mining exploration tax credit. Can the minister explain the distinction between the mining flow-through share tax credit and the mining exploration tax credit? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
This amendment makes it clear that both credits can't be claimed for the same expenditure, but perhaps an explanation of the distinction between those two credits might be helpful. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The mining exploration tax credit is a credit that can be claimed by the individual or the company that is actually undertaking the exploration activity. So the purpose of this amendment is simply to make it clear that the same expenditure cannot be claimed for a tax credit under both programs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 76 approved.
On section 77.
B. Ralston: This section begins a series of amendments to the film and television tax credit. Can the minister explain the amendments that have been proposed in section 77? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Currently the tax credit is limited to 48 percent of the total production costs. The federal program that is in place actually allows a tax credit for qualified labour to be up to 60 percent of the total production costs. We have made this change from 48 percent to 60 percent to ensure that, first of all, our program is consistent with the federal program and also to ensure that those productions that have a higher labour component of it can in fact reflect the benefit accordingly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: One of the considerations — and I'm wondering if the minister will confirm this — is that the province of Ontario has recently changed its tax credits in the same industry. Can the minister advise whether this change is comparable to what's taking place in Ontario? And if it's not, why is it being advanced at this level? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of this ceiling on the percentage of production costs that could be claimed for qualified labour expenditures, Ontario did not make any changes with regard to their domestic productions. This applies to domestic productions. It's our understanding that Ontario currently has a ceiling that's at least 60 percent, if not higher. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Is the minister, then, saying that this new position is directly comparable to Ontario — or that Ontario's is more advantageous to the industry, if I can put it that way? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I can't say that it's exactly the same as what Ontario has, because I'm not exactly certain what their ceiling would be for the labour component. As I say, Ontario made some big changes to their tax credit structure earlier this year, but they did not make any changes to the tax credit structure for domestic productions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, my advice, and this may stand subject to correction by the minister's officials, is that Ontario increased their basic film and tax credit up to 40 percent of the first $240,000 of qualifying labour expenditure for first-time producers. So there was an incentive to new entrants on the domestic side in that form. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
In these amendments, is there anything comparable to that proposed change that Ontario has advanced? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I should point out that our intention was not to match Ontario. Our intention was to find a film tax structure that worked for the industry in British Columbia, that actually encouraged the convergence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I said at the time we made the announcement, this was not about funding the film industry in British Columbia as we have known it. It's about supporting the film industry as it is becoming. We certainly looked carefully at the changes that Ontario had made on the foreign film side. We wanted to make sure that we picked a program that worked for British Columbia. It wasn't our intention that we were going to go out and match what Ontario did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I can well appreciate the caution that the minister is exercising in terms of automatically wishing to match the credits and the tax structure of a competing jurisdiction. Certainly, overall within Confederation, within the economic relations between provinces, that can be very destructive in the long run for the tax base of all the provinces. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
But in this particular industry, given that the tax credit has really guided, in many ways, production decisions that are made, is the minister concerned by the position that he's taken — that this will lead to further erosion of the advantage of British Columbia and the flight of productions from British Columbia to Ontario, based on a more, or at least perceived more, favourable tax environment for these kinds of film productions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The decisions that are made as to where film production is done — digital effects, animation — are not made just because of tax credits. I think I'm correct in saying this, but not 100 percent certain, that the province in Canada that has had for a number of years the most generous tax credits for film production is Manitoba. So if it was all about tax credits, you would assume that's where all the film production has gone, and it has not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that British Columbia can be proud of its film industry, its digital media industry. We have a very strong infrastructure here. We have incredibly talented crews and workers that work in this sector that I think are second to none. So I think when companies are looking for places to do their production, British Columbia ranks very, very high, regardless of the tax credit structure that's in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We believe that the tax credit structure that we have now adopted is one that supports the industry. It allows them to compete, to continue to have a competitive edge, and that competitive edge is made up of a whole bunch of factors, of which tax credits are only one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, I don't disagree with the minister in characterizing the B.C. industry. Certainly the labour tax credit, which is one of the principles of this form of tax credit, which requires the company that's seeking eligibility for this to actually hire people within the province, has led to the creation of a very vibrant industry here in British Columbia — very highly skilled crews and a close cooperation between the industry side and those who work in it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not suggesting, and I mean no disrespect to the Manitoba government nor its citizens…. But the more direct competitive comparison is between British Columbia and Ontario, given the substantially existing base for the film industry there already. I suppose…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
Is the minister not concerned? I appreciate all the cautions about duelling reductions in tax revenue and implications for government revenue broadly, but nonetheless, is the minister not concerned that the position that B.C. is now taking might jeopardize the future of this industry here in British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is no. I think we have a very strong industry and will continue to have a very strong industry. The measures that Ontario adopted on their film tax credit program, I think, are beyond what is in the public interest. I will say that on the record. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that the magnitude of the film tax credits that Ontario is offering to the industry is extreme. They are exorbitant, and they will not produce, in my view, the economic benefit to justify them. I think that we want to encourage the industry, but it's not a case of saying that we are going to do that with taxpayers' money at all costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think there are lots of industries in British Columbia that we would like to encourage, and quite frankly, there are lots of industries that would be creating many, many thousands of jobs if they had the kind of tax credit structure that we are offering to the film industry in this province today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The bottom line is we have a strong industry. We've got good infrastructure. Even since we announced the changes that we did — and did not match Ontario — there is new investment that is being announced to be built in British Columbia. We've got new productions that are being announced for British Columbia. Clearly, these are companies that are looking for quality crews and quality infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The tax credits help. But as I say, that is only one of the factors that make their determination as to where they want to film their films and do their digital and special effects work — and now integrate into the film industry the digital media industry, as well, which is becoming a big part of what the future of the film industry is all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I appreciate the frank remarks of the Minister of Finance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I suppose a member of the public might ask if there is a mechanism, either through dialogue or discussion at the interprovincial level, where these kinds of views are communicated? Not to suggest a combine to arbitrarily set tax rates across the country, but certainly, given the strength of the minister's views, I'm wondering if he's communicated those to his provincial colleague in Ontario, the Minister of Finance there, and had that discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I appreciate that the minister may not be in a position where he can share what might be a confidential conversation. I gather from the tone of the minister's remarks that the exchange might have been very blunt, but can the minister express the reaction of the Minister of Finance of Ontario to the position that he's taken here publicly today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I have a very, very good and cordial relationship with my colleagues, the other Ministers of Finance from across Canada, including the province of Ontario. We did have a very good and a frank discussion about film tax credits. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think there is a recognition that we need to work together more so as provinces. Just as an example, when we finalized our decisions around the changes that we announced at the beginning of February, we ensured that we gave a heads-up to Ontario to make sure that they knew what we were doing and why we were doing it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We certainly didn't want them to interpret our move as somehow ratcheting the levels up even further, that what we did was…. Ours are structured quite differently because ours are aimed specifically at qualified labour expenditures. Ontario has done a different tax credit rate, but it's based on all production costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
We wanted to make sure that they knew that we were not upping the ante on this race to who could have the most generous tax credits. Ontario can probably claim that today, and we're quite prepared to allow them to continue to claim that position, because we think we have lots of other strengths in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a question of, I suppose, national tax policy between provinces, is there a mechanism or an envisaged mechanism, beyond the regular meetings of Ministers of Finance at the provincial level nationally, to engage in these kinds of discussions in a way that might lead to the result that the minister suggests would be more desirable? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: It is an area that there's probably room for improvement on. Discussions around tax initiatives are by their very nature held within a very close circle. Even as we get down to budget time, initiatives and discussions and things that we're considering as tax measures are not discussed other than in a very tight circle of decision-makers. So it's very difficult for provinces to start to share that information across provincial boundaries with other jurisdictions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I think if we look at some of the initiatives going back to the early 1990s that led to the agreement on internal trade –– where provinces agreed to not undermine each other's interests with things like subsidies and incentives to poach jobs from one province to the other, for example –– there is certainly room for more discussion among Finance Ministers nationally to ensure that we build the Canadian economy and we do it in a way that ensures that the entire country is stronger as a result of tax measures and changes that we undertake. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned the avenue that the Ontario government took, which was a tax credit on the total cost of film production, as opposed to the B.C. approach, which is a labour tax credit which had its origin, dare I say it, in the 1990s. Can the minister explain why the government has chosen to follow the labour tax credit model, or continue to follow the labour tax credit model, as opposed to credits for the entire cost of film production? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: There are a couple of reasons. I guess what I cannot explain for the member is why Ontario chose to go away from a tax credit based on labour. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The tax credit on qualified labour expenditures is, first of all, consistent with how the federal government structures theirs. It also ensures that there is actually a much more direct benefit to the B.C. economy per se. If you look at total production cost, there's a lot of leakage in terms of where that benefit actually comes from. It could also include things like equipment purchases for a film that still have a residual value. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
By focusing in on the labour tax credit, it's very definable, it's easy to administer, and it's consistent with the federal approach. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 77 approved.
On section 78.
B. Ralston: This section provides for an additional tax credit on digital animation and visual effects. Obviously, this is where increasingly the action is in this industry and where the growth is. Can the minister explain why this tax credit of 2.5 percent, as I understand it, was chosen? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The rate that has been in effect now for a number of years is the 15 percent tax credit rate for digital animation and visual effects — DAVE credits, as it's referred to in the industry. I think that that tax credit program has been very successful in ensuring that we can retain and build a very dynamic digital animation and visual effects industry in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
This increase is modest, but I think it also reflects the fact that we wanted to take a measure that would allow us to continue to ensure that we're competitive with other jurisdictions. It doesn't match what Ontario does, but it does allow us to continue to support the industry in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 78 approved.
On section 79.
B. Ralston: This section provides for an additional 8 percent to the production services tax credit. Can the minister explain the rationale behind this proposed amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. Actually, the explanation is the same as with regard to the previous section. It is recognizing that, yes, Ontario did increase their tax credits. We wanted to ensure that in the balance of all the benefits for British Columbia production, we didn't need to match Ontario in order to stay competitive. But we did need to make some movement in that tax credit. Hence, we increased it from 25 percent to 33 percent, which applies only to the qualified labour portion, as we mentioned earlier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Ontario tax credit, I believe, is at 30 percent, but it applies to all production costs. This was actually the one measure where we wanted to be clear when Ontario heard the move we were doing — that we were going to 33 percent — that it was still only on the qualified labour expenditures and not on total production cost, as was the change that was done in Ontario. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 79 and 80 approved.
On section 81.
B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the distinction between this section and the previous section 78, which both appear to be directed to digital animation and visual effects? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: There are two sections in the act. One applies to foreign productions, and the other applies to domestic productions. By amending both sections, we make sure that this modest increase in the credit applies to both domestic and foreign. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 81 approved.
On section 82.
B. Ralston: This section initiates a series of amendments to the Land Tax Deferment Act. It broadens the eligibility for the possibility of deferring property tax. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the program entails and why he's chosen to include it in the budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: We have had, for a number of years now, a property tax deferral program for seniors. Recently — I think as of just a couple of years ago — the age eligibility was reduced to 55 years. That program, I think, has been a very valuable option for some seniors. Not all who would qualify for it, needless to say, have exercised that option, but it is clearly an important option for some seniors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We recognize that as families in British Columbia go through their challenges of raising families, there are cases from time to time where they're facing financial challenges. It may be, for example, that one of the breadwinners is between employment or perhaps in layoff for a period of time. The challenge there is that while they may need some financial relief, it's not like they can go to the bank and take out a second mortgage on their house, even if they have the equity in their house, because they may not have the income stream necessary to support a second mortgage in order to qualify for that second mortgage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a mechanism that provides an option to those families so that if they face challenges like that, they could have the option of deferring their property tax for a few years in order to get through those challenging times. Again, as I say, it's just one additional option that families have at their disposal to meet their financial challenges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister will confirm that this has no impact on the tax revenue to municipalities, since the provincial government will provide the taxes that would be deferred. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
This measure has been criticized, as I'm sure the minister is aware, as simply encouraging families who may be in a precarious financial situation to take on more debt. This is not a program that contemplates forgiveness of the tax obligation. It merely defers it. It remains on the title of the property, and it has to be paid at some point, presumably at either a future sale or death of the property owner. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is the minister not concerned that this may send a signal of encouraging those in a precarious financial situation to take on more debt and ultimately worsen their financial situation in the long run rather than dealing with financial problems, such as they can, at the time they arise? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I think the opposite is true. If you find a family that is going through a challenging stretch…. If they own their own home and have equity in their home and yet can't afford to pay their property taxes or perhaps meet other household expenditures, the choice that they would have is to not go to the bank and take out a second mortgage, as I say. But their choice would be to sell their house. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, a number of years ago I met with a constituent who was in exactly that position — between jobs — and their only opportunity was to sell their house and move into some less expensive accommodation. This is a measure that gives them a bit of breathing room in a circumstance like that, so I think it's actually one that supports families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is not something that I think would be utilized by a family year in and year out for 18 years. Obviously if they did that, they would erode their equity. But I think every young homeowner, every young family that I know…. If I take myself back 30 years, I could probably put myself in the same boat. Home ownership is something to aspire to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that once you have that first home, the goal is to make sure you get it paid off. Sometimes that takes many decades. This is actually something that allows for a bit of a safety valve if they wind up in temporary difficulty. They get that little bit of additional support that may help tide them over until they're perhaps re-employed or their job is reinstated — they're back off layoff or whatever it may be — and then they can once again get back at paying down the mortgage on their home. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Can the minister then advise how many years an eligible property owner would be permitted to defer property taxes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: We have not at this point put a limit on that. As I said, when we announced this measure, I was quite explicit in indicating that we will look at that issue over time to determine whether or not we should in fact put a time limitation on it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The limitations that are in place and will be there from the beginning are that the property owner must have a minimum of 15 percent equity in their home, and they would have to have children under the age of 18 that they would be responsible for. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is an annual application, so every year that homeowner would have to reapply for another year of tax deferment, and they would have to meet those two requirements in order to qualify. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: What is the mechanism that the minister is thinking of to limit the number of years that the tax could be deferred? It would seem that now would be the time to perhaps consider that. Is the minister envisaging that this might be dealt with through regulation at some later stage, or is there some other avenue that's being sought? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: It's my understanding that if we were to put a time limitation on that, it would have to come back to the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
B. Ralston: Is there any study or, I suppose, sense of how big the takeup of this program might be? And is the minister waiting to get a sense of the takeup of the program before making a decision about placing a limit, if any, on the number of years it can be deferred? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: For the seniors program that's been around for some time, there are about 26,000 homeowners who are deferring property taxes. That's about 6 percent of the number that could be eligible if they choose to pursue this program. I didn't mention this earlier, but there are about 400,000 homeowner families that could be eligible for this new program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We don't know the uptake rate, but if the same uptake rate was in place as is there for seniors, it would be about 24,000. There is not a similar program that we can look to, to give any certainty around that estimate. It is just that. It's an estimate at this point. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The legislation or the amendments that are proposed will set an interest rate that the deferred taxes will attract. Can the minister advise the House what the proposed interest rate would be? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The interest that would be applied would be prime. That is calculated semi-annually. Sorry, it is determined. Prime is set semi-annually based on what prime is at that time. I think the other thing that's important is that this interest is simple interest, not compounded interest that is applied. The current rate that would be applied if this program were in place would be 2.25 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 82 to 89 inclusive approved.
On section 90.
B. Ralston: This is an amendment to the Ports Property Tax Act. That's a statute we discussed earlier, and I just wanted to confirm that section 90 and section 91 are consequential amendments related to section 59 that we dealt with earlier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I would not characterize these as consequential, but there are, of course, consequential amendments we'll get to in this bill. I'll read the proposed amendment or the description of the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's to require the designation of port property to be made on or before December 31 of the year preceding the taxation year for which the designation is to take effect. It specifies that if land in a municipality ceases to be occupied by a port and becomes occupied by the Crown and ceases to be designated, the rescission of the designation is effective as of the date the land ceased to be occupied by the port. So it is following up on the same amendments we had earlier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 90 and 91 approved.
On section 92.
[1615]
B. Ralston: Sections 92 through 96 deal with forgoing property transfer tax for the amendment of a strata plan in certain circumstances. Can the minister briefly describe what the purpose of this group of amendments, 92 through 96, is for? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: These sections actually provide for two changes. The first is to allow for an exemption to the property transfer tax to correct conveyancing errors. The example that was given to me is if you were buying a strata unit and in the conveyancing you were actually given the wrong unit, we could allow for the property tax to be exempted while that gets corrected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other change is with regard to the Strata Property Act. Under the old Condominium Act there was a provision whereby if the strata council were to amend the strata plan in a way that the end result was that everyone had the same properties at the start of the amendment to the plan, that would not trigger a property transfer tax. What this amendment does is ensure that those same provisions that were in the condo act continue under the Strata Property Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 92 to 96 inclusive approved.
On section 97.
B. Ralston: This next group of proposed amendments, section 97 through section 101, deals with proposed amendments to the School Act as it applies to provincial industrial property tax owners. It proposes some revisions to that tax credit. Can the minister explain the changes proposed by these amendments and the rationale for making them at this time? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: This is part of the carbon tax recycling initiative to ensure that all of the dollars collected under the carbon tax are returned to individuals and corporations in the province. So it's a recognition that, yes, the carbon tax actually has an impact on some of our industrial property users in the province. But to ensure that there are still the incentives that the carbon tax is intended to drive, the carbon tax stays in place in its application as set out. Some of the revenues it collected can go back to the benefit of those organizations, but not by reducing the incentive for them to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is one way of ensuring that there is tax recycling, and it reduces the school tax in the case of industrial and light industrial property classes. That benefit was originally established at 50 percent of the tax payable. These amendments increase it to 60 percent, and it also introduces for the first time a property tax credit for school taxes for farmland equal to 50 percent of the tax responsibility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
B. Ralston: My advice is that this increase from 50 percent to 60 percent will cost approximately $10 million. I'm wondering if the minister could explain how that's related to the carbon tax cost of these affected property owners. It would seem difficult to achieve that with any accuracy, but I'm wondering: what was the intellectual process or reasoning process that led to this figure? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: As we've indicated, the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. That does not mean it's revenue-neutral to every payer, whether that payer is a corporate payer or a private individual. If you want the carbon tax to motivate the changes that we expect to see, then you in fact don't want to have a one-for-one reimbursement of carbon tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This initiative is one that we feel helps to support our industrial and light industrial companies around the province. It's particularly of benefit in rural communities where many of the industrial firms have been going through some challenging times. This is one way to support them that in a way continues to ensure the change in behaviour that the carbon tax would incent is still in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, I wasn't suggesting there needed to be a one-to-one ratio, but I was wondering whether there was any connection whatsoever other than, I suppose, a notional connection. Perhaps the minister can answer that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the minister will know, his colleague the Minister of Community and Rural Development has initiated a review of industrial property tax. There are a number of people appointed to that, and that particularly focuses on classes 4 and 5 of the assessment classifications. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is the minister making a commitment or undertaking the prospect of reviewing this credit depending on what the results of that study may be in terms of its recommendations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: The committee is looking specifically at municipal property taxes, and to the best of my knowledge, the scope of their review would not include school property taxes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, this tax is obviously one that affects industrial property owners. Essentially, the same properties would be paying those two taxes. Was there any particular reason for excluding it from the review? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: This is not excluded from the review. The review that was set up was for a totally different focus, and that was to focus on municipal property taxes. I'm not privy to their deliberations, but I'm sure that's what they're focusing in on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, what's called the school tax — I'm sure the minister will agree — is effectively a provincial tax on industrial property classes 4 and 5. Municipalities have authority to collect taxes from the same property. So it's coming from the same pocket and, I suppose, adds up to one payment from the affected property owner. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I appreciate that the minister may not have made this decision. But would he not agree that it would appear more logical and more thorough to look at both of those taxes at the same time? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
Hon. C. Hansen: In discussions that we have had with companies and industry organizations around the province over the years, the concern that has been raised has not been around the school tax on property. The concern has been around the municipal tax on property, and that is what the review committee is addressing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 97 to 101 inclusive approved.
On section 102.
B. Ralston: This next series of proposed amendments, sections 102 through 106, deal with amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act. They appear to be relatively minor and technical, but perhaps the minister could briefly explain what the purpose of these amendments is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: This first one, section 102, is simply to clarify the obligation with regard to the wholesaler of cigars and how they need to calculate the tax that they need to remit to the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Then equally, just for clarification and greater certainty, sections 103 to 104 appear to also make reference to the taxation of cigars — not something that…. Well, I know there are cigar fanciers, but it doesn't appear to have broad revenue implications. Would that be correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as the member indicated at the outset, these are relatively minor and relatively technical. The primary purpose of these amendments is to first of all ensure that there is a definition of what a cigar is. There have certainly been variations on products that have come onto the market in recent years, and we want to make sure that the definition properly captures some of those new products but also to ensure that the taxable price is properly defined so that there is certainty and that the province is collecting the full amount of the tax that is applicable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 102 to 106 inclusive approved.
On section 107.
B. Ralston: The end appears to be in sight here. This amendment proposes amendments to the Tourist Accommodation (Assessment Relief) Act. It appears to have impact on what are referred to as short-term overnight commercial accommodation properties. Can the minister explain the purpose of this amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: This amendment in 107 is for clarification of definitions of terms. What it accomplishes is ensuring that the legislation in fact reflects what has been the longstanding administrative practice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
Sections 107 to 118 inclusive approved.
On section 119.
Hon. C. Hansen: I move an amendment to section 119, which is on the order paper in my name. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: The amendment reads: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
["SECTION 119, by deleting item 12 and substituting the following as indicated:
Item Column 1 Column 2
Provisions of Commencement
Act
12 Section 63 March 3, 2010
12.1 Section 64 By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in
Council
12.2 Section 65 March 3, 2010"]
On the amendment.
B. Ralston: Perhaps I can just clarify, then. I think I understand what these are about. These are the proposed delay in implementation of the measures that the minister and I spoke of earlier, particularly relating to the definition of natural gas. Is that correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: That is correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendment approved.
Section 119 as amended approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Title approved.
Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved on division.
The committee rose at 4:32 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
Bill 2 — budget measures
implementation act, 2010
Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010, reported complete with amendment.
Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: With leave, now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted.
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 2 — budget measures
implementation act, 2010
Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 4 — miscellaneous statutes
amendment act, 2010
Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 4 be now read for a second time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The bill amends a number of statutes, and as is the practice in this House, I'll briefly summarize what those amendments are, the majority of those substantive amendments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
Changes to the Coroners Act will give the chief coroner the discretion to forego an inquest into a police in-custody death if that death is due to natural causes and could not be prevented, is not connected to the care or supervision of the police, or is the subject of a public inquiry. All in-custody deaths will be investigated by the coroner, and decisions not to hold an inquest will be made by the coroner on a case-by-case basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The chief coroner must report that decision to the Solicitor General, who could then still order an inquest if, in his or her opinion, the public interest has not been satisfied. That report must be made public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
Amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act clarify that where parents have the financial ability, they remain responsible for contributing to the maintenance of their children when one of their children is cared for by a relative or someone with an established relationship to the child under the extended family program. A similar arrangement currently applies to children in other out-of-care placements and children in care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Employment Standards Act transfer authority for third-party searches of employment standards branch records to the Employment Standards Act from the Financial Administration Act. The $35 fee that has been in place since 2003 remains the same for those searches. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act authorize the council of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia to set annual fees for members in a manner consistent with other professional governing bodies. The ability to set member fees at adequate levels will sustain the association's operations, strengthen fiscal reserves and allow it to carry out its mandate to protect the public interest. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Health Authorities Act is amended to allow a regional health authority to locate a facility or deliver health services within the boundaries of another health authority upon approval by the Minister of Health Services on a case-by-case basis. Currently the act only allows a health authority to deliver services within its own geographic region. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Updates to the Hospital District Act confirm that the B.C. Assessment Authority rather than the Minister of Health Services has responsibility for providing annual tax information to hospital district boards. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Music Teachers (Registered) Act will streamline administration by enabling the B.C. Registered Music Teachers Association to manage its own affairs. Members will be able to ratify bylaws, eliminating the need for provincial cabinet to approve changes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Teaching Profession Act enable the council of the B.C. College of Teachers to delegate its authority regarding the determinations of penalty, publication and notification against former members to the discipline committee, again, streamlining the hearing process. The amendment also clarifies that discipline of former members must be publicly reported and reflected on the teacher registry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Lastly, changes to the Water Act focus on streamlining and housekeeping amendments to provide for more reliable analysis of groundwater quality. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Together these amendments provide efficiencies and improve effectiveness and, we believe, enhance client service. I know that there will be interest in a number of these provisions and perhaps a couple that I haven't mentioned. I know that, again, as is the practice in this chamber, there will be an opportunity for all members to pose specific questions relative to the various sections as we move through the committee stage debate. I expect there will be some general observations of the bill offered in this second reading debate and welcome those remarks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: As I indicated to the Attorney General when he introduced this bill, I was expecting something a little thicker. Nevertheless, the opposition is always happy to chew on whatever the government may throw out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The contents of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act are, as I say, a bit thin. There are some sections, however, that do raise interest in the opposition, and I'm going to go through it in a very general way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act and, on the face of it, the Music Teachers Act and School Act appear to be nothing short of extremely pedestrian. I will just give the Attorney General fair notice that I'll simply ask him to explain the importance of those sections when we get to committee stage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Where there is some concern is not with Child, Family and Community Service Act amendments. Those appear to be extremely straightforward and have simply added, in my reading of it, a couple of sections that are of no consequence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
However, when we come to the amendments to the Water Act, particularly striking is section 14, which provides that section 8(1) is to be amended by striking out "If diversion or use of water is required for a term not exceeding 12 months, the comptroller or a regional water manager may, without issuing a licence," and substituting "If diversion or use of water is required for a term not exceeding 24 months, the comptroller or a regional water manager may, on application, without issuing a licence." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What this does is take, with great respect, out of public review a fairly substantive change. A 12-month to a 24-month increase is of some concern. I look forward to the explanation of the government as to why this is particularly necessary in the circumstances. Public review around water, public concern around water in British Columbia is growing, as we face what apparently, according to meteorologists, is going to be another long, hot, dry summer. Anything to do with water is of interest to British Columbians and to the opposition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other change that stands out is the reduction from 20 to six the number of parcels about which notice must be given of proposed cancellation of a water licence. That appears to be a regressive change, subject to what the Attorney General may respond during the course of debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the time for prosecuting under the act, I note that the government seems to be catching up with a provision that now moves it from a date that requires the laying of the charge from two years up to three years from the date that the information is provided. That, I believe, brings it into a fairly consistent pattern with general things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the health services amendment act, I suppose it begs the question: if a health authority has to provide a service in another health authority, perhaps we shouldn't have two health authorities in the first place. Perhaps they should be consolidated if, in fact, those kinds of facilities are required to be operated outside the geographic jurisdiction. I think it raises an interesting point around that issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The changes to the Employment Standards Act are pretty straightforward. The final section of changes in the bill relating to the Coroners Act, though, on the face of it, arguably, is pretty straightforward. Essentially, what we are doing, it would appear, is changing the legislation so that now it's a requirement that there be an inquest into a situation where there is a death occurring while a person is in custody of a peace officer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, this is adding a qualification, if you will, that says that rather than that inquest being mandatory, if "the chief coroner is satisfied that (i) the deceased person's death was due to natural causes and was not preventable, or (ii) there was no meaningful connection between the deceased person's death and the nature of the care or supervision received by the person while detained or in custody," then it's not necessary to do so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you're considering legislation, one of the things you consider is whether or not it's necessary to have a legislative remedy for a problem. It strikes me that the legislative change being proposed here must be designed to address a problem where we're having too many coroners' inquests when, in fact, they're not necessary because it's just so obvious that a coroner's inquest shouldn't be required simply because a person died in custody. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With greatest respect to the government's position on this, which provides for a qualification and which will be the subject of a fair bit of questioning during the course of committee stage, given what's happened in this country — and I point to the horrible death of Mr. Dziekanski at Vancouver airport and the various inquests that have been held into the deaths of persons in custody — unless the government can demonstrate that this has become a significant problem of requiring inquests that aren't seen as necessary by anyone, then one has to question why we would have this saving provision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
I'm not suggesting for a moment the chief coroner isn't able to, perhaps, come to these conclusions, but in terms of enhancing public trust in our police forces in the province when people die in custody, I'm not sure that this provision is either necessary to deal with a problem that may or may not exist…. I look forward to hearing the explanation and statistics from government that will tell me why there is a problem. I'm just not convinced that it is necessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The coroner's office, as I've said before in this House around debate on changes to the Coroners Act, is one of the ancient offices of our parliamentary political history, if you will. The independence of the coroner, the right of the public to know the cause of death of any individual, has always been seen as extremely important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When a death occurs while that individual is in the custody of a peace officer, public concern is always raised, and public concern should be raised. So I'm looking forward to the explanation as to why such a change is really necessary and why the government would indeed propose the change, in light of the circumstances of the two cases that I've just mentioned around Mr. Dziekanski and the other inquiries into deaths of individuals in custody, some of which have been the source of a great deal of litigation that's ongoing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Even if it were appropriate based on statistics — and I don't think there are those statistics — surely this is not the time, when public confidence has been so shattered in our police forces, to consider this kind of provision. I leave it to the government to provide some explanation to this side of the House as to why it's important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would suggest that in terms of the public interest, there are many organizations in this province that will be extremely concerned by this provision, even though, on the face of it, one can argue that it's extremely logical. It says if the coroner is satisfied that the death was due to natural causes, was not preventable…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The cost of an inquest is not that substantial. The cost of an inquest and the time involved, if it is clearly a death due to natural causes, is not so substantive, surely, that this provision is really necessary. In determining whether there is "no meaningful connection between the deceased person's death and the nature of the care or supervision received by the person," how does the chief coroner satisfy him- or herself that that is, in fact, the case without indeed conducting some sort of inquiry that's tantamount to an inquest in any event? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Surely, to come to that conclusion and, therefore, rely on this saving provision, if you will, requires an inquest-like inquiry in the best of circumstances. I'm just not convinced by the mere wording of the amendments that this is, in fact, an appropriate thing to do. I do look forward to the debate on this issue. I do look forward to the committee stage and hearing answers, if any are forthcoming from the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that other members of the opposition are anxious to speak to this matter today, and I'll take my place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010. I'm going to confine my comments to amendments to the Water Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Citizens in my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows have had their concerns about water heightened by an incident that took place late in May last year, when a large land owner, the Aquilini Investment Group, had taken water from the North Alouette River in a large pipe that actually diverted the river itself within the banks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are dikes on each side of the river. Within the dikes, they had diverted a part of the river to make it easier for them to take water from the river. They put a large pipe, I think 40 centimetres, over the top of the dike and down into their cranberry fields. This was discovered by residents who walk the dikes. I have to say, of course, that they did not have a licence to do so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
It has raised a great deal of concern, and it continues to be in the local press. Today there was another article. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Stewardship groups and others have banded together to try to get a response from the government, and they're very keen to see positive changes to the Water Act that would address situations like occurred in Pitt Meadows. They've been waiting a long time, and they're losing patience, understandably, with the lack of response. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
The case was investigated eventually after considerable pressure by local groups. It was investigated slightly by DFO but more so by the Ministry of Environment. Recommendations have been forwarded now to Crown counsel with regard to this case as to whether charges should be laid. There is a fine of up to $250,000 for such an offence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But there it rests, and we haven't heard anything further. We don't know whether the Crown will make their determination public or not. I certainly hope so, given that there is a strong public interest in my community to hear the outcome of this case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, as I say, the groups in my community have done some proactive work. They are also, of course, angry and upset and have talked to various government officials about it. But they also have some suggestions — good suggestions, I think — as to what they would like to see in terms of changes to the Water Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They're saying, specifically, that water taken out of a public body of water should be metered and monitored by government and non-governmental organizations. As it stands now, when water is taken out of a public river, there's no metering. So there's no real way of knowing how much water has been taken, although there is a broad amount that is approved in a licence or approved by the comptroller without a licence. That can also take place, but neither of those has taken place. So that's one recommendation that they have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Secondly, they want to see water licences contain language that will protect the river system and no longer allow water to be withdrawn, regardless of river conditions. These rivers are subject of course, like most rivers in the province, to low levels of flow at different times of the year. Oftentimes that's in the summer, and those are times too when farmers need water, understandably, for their crops. So they're concerned that there is no system in place under the Water Act to provide for the protection of fish and for a minimum flow of water in the stream. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They have five recommendations. Thirdly, they say that water should be paid for by the licensee and the proceeds used for river ecosystem enhancement. Right now there's a licence fee, as I understand it, but no additional fees — so it's pretty much free water, if you will. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Fourthly, there should be penalties for non-compliance, and they should be swift, automatic and expensive. As I say, they've been waiting a long time to see what, if anything, is going to happen with regard to this particular case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's well known that the Aquilini Investment Group have contributed significantly to the B.C. Liberal Party. The party has their big fundraiser there at the Golden Eagle golf course every summer. The community is aware of that, and I know that's something else they're looking to see — that this government is going to take action notwithstanding that and enforce the law, such as it is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
Lastly, and I think this is a particularly good one, they want a water management plan that must be in place before any licences are issued. They have also suggested some ideas of how, with new technology, you can monitor not only the flow in the river but the water withdrawals. That can save a lot of time — people having to go out and check manually and the like. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When we look at this bill, we don't see any of those changes that they're suggesting, and I know they're going to be very, very disappointed in this bill. In fact, as my colleague pointed out, one of the things that it does have, under section 14, is: "If diversion or use of water is required for a term not exceeding 12 months, the comptroller or a regional water manager may, without issuing a licence…." That's now being extended to two years, so it goes from one to two years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So instead of one year without having to get a licence, you can get authority — which, I repeat, in this case, the authority was not obtained…. It now goes to two years that you can be given authority to proceed with a water withdrawal, which can have considerable impacts on a community and on wildlife, without a licence. That's indeed a great concern of theirs and of mine. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that there's a Water Act modernization process that the government is undergoing at the current time, as we understand it. But one has to think: how long is it going to take for that process to take place? I would assume, certainly, that there isn't going to be any additional legislation in this spring session, because why would they have put these amendments in this miscellaneous act if they were going to do a larger amendment to the Water Act? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the pattern repeats itself, as it did in 2005, where we didn't have a fall session, then we're looking at another year, at least, before any meaningful legislation that will address the real problems that are out there with regard to the sharing of water between communities, wildlife and, in this case, the agricultural community. They have legitimate needs for the water, but there has to be some meaningful legislation to guide the process and to protect all concerns. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I look forward to hearing comments further from the minister during the committee stage that will, I hope, give some assurance to my community that their real concerns are going to be addressed by this government quickly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I won't take long. I am, as always, obliged to members who have participated in the debate, particularly on a bill such as this where it is actually helpful to learn where the areas of interest lie. It is clear from the comments that we've heard in the chamber today that the member for Nanaimo has some questions and concerns as relates to the proposed changes to the Coroners Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can't promise that the member will be convinced by the rationale or the explanations offered by the government. I can assure the House that there are very sound reasons, in my view, for why the proposals are being offered, but I think there will be a good discussion about why those particular proposed amendments exist, and that can take place during the course of the debate at committee stage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The hon. member who has just spoken has outlined some issues that, it seems to me, refer more to what is not in the bill as opposed to what is in the bill, but I suppose those are also…. Second reading is an opportunity for the member to place those views on the record, as well, and I am grateful to him for having done so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that I move second reading of the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
[1700]
Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 5, Zero Net Deforestation Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act
Hon. P. Bell: I move Bill 5 be read a second time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am pleased to speak to this bill. It is a cornerstone of our province's commitment to ensuring that we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions significantly going forward and achieve our targeted goals for both 2020 and 2050. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
This particular area of carbon emissions accounts for about 4 percent of the total emissions in the province. In an average year there are about 6,000 hectares of forest that are deforested in our province, about 2,000 hectares that are afforested in our province, for a net loss of about 4,000 hectares. This is a historical number that goes back to about the 1970s. At that point it was, historically, a larger number, about 30,000 hectares. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you go through the different sectors which contribute to deforestation every year, I can tell you that transportation only accounts for about 2 percent of the total deforestation. Recreation is another 2 percent. Industry is about 3 percent. Mining is about 10 percent. Forestry-based activities are about 13 percent. That's roadbuilding and that sort of thing, where those areas are not necessarily reforested. Oil and gas is at 18 percent, settlement at 23 percent and agriculture at 29 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The model that we are proposing here is really an incentives-based model. So rather than having a restricting activity, particularly in areas like agriculture and other forms of development, what we're going to do is encourage people to afforest areas that are currently deforested in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have about 750,000 hectares that have been identified around the province as areas that have been deforested, either on Crown or private land, primarily Crown land, and we intend to implement a strategy of net zero deforestation by having different sorts of tax-based incentives and other incentives to encourage people to afforest those zones. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I had a very interesting example of that just last week when I was in Prince George. The Minister of Housing and Social Development and I were at the release from a private company in the Prince George area, Pacific Western Brewery, which has committed to planting 150,000 trees over the next three years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's an example of a company that is making an aggressive move to help support afforestation in this province. Their willingness and desire to do that as a Good Samaritan company, a company that intends to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, I think, is a good example of what can be achieved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our interest, our intent, is to either increase or decrease the incentives, depending on how we are tracking towards our goal of net zero deforestation. We will measure every two years the amount of land that is deforested in the province — again, with a goal by 2015 of achieving the net zero deforestation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That information will be reported out in this House. So starting in 2012, the minister must publicly report the progress towards the goal of achieving that net zero deforestation, the actions that government has taken to achieve that progress and the plans of government to continue that progress. It will be a very open and transparent mechanism, a mechanism that, again, is based on incentives, encouraging people to participate in incremental afforestation activity. All of this is consistent with the reporting timelines, as well, under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
By utilizing an incentives-based model that encourages people to go out and work with us on planting trees, on afforesting areas, we think it provides a good solid balance and can achieve the target of reducing this important segment of our greenhouse gas emissions by that 4 percent that we'd identified earlier on in my comments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
Now, this in no way changes the obligation that licensees have that anyone that is in the log-harvesting industry has to go back in and plant the areas that they have harvested. This strictly pertains to areas where the current regulations do not require reforestation because of a conversion of land use. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If land is going to be used, as an example, for agriculture, clearly that's an industry we want to continue to encourage. We don't want to penalize that segment, so they would continue to be allowed to clear land and put it in for agricultural use. The afforestation that offsets that on a hectare-by-hectare basis would ensure that we are at a net zero deforestation, and that is the approach. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Conversely, though, as I said, in the course of normal forestry operations the silviculture regime that has been in place for quite some time continues to obligate licensees to afforest the zones — or to replant the zones.... I shouldn't say that. It's not afforestation if they haven't been deforested for some length of time. But it requires them to continue to plant those zones. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition, the province has its forests for tomorrow program. We are anticipating that this year we'll be planting 18 million trees through the forests for tomorrow program. That's targeted at reforesting areas that have been lost to wildfire, areas that have been lost to mountain pine beetle and not harvested in the normal course of business activity or other forest health reasons. So it is a dual-track strategy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We will continue the silviculture principles and activities that we have historically participated in, and we're confident that that will continue to meet the needs of our ecosystems and our environment. But this new strategy in terms of a net zero deforestation policy applies, as I said, to areas where they have not had traditional silviculture responsibilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am hopeful that the opposition will support this act. I think it is a good, solid, principled piece of work. It is largely a reporting act so the public has confidence and understands exactly what is going on in the province around deforestation. We thought that was the appropriate principle to bring forward here to move us forward towards the achievement of that goal by 2015. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is something that I think is supportable by all sides of the House, by all individuals in this House. I can't imagine that anyone in this House would not support the notion of achieving zero net deforestation. It is a principled approach. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, I'm looking forward to the opposition's comments in this area. I think we have a very solid forest industry. We want to continue to build on that. We want to continue to support the afforestation of areas that are currently deforested, and we want to allow for that to be done in a way that certainly complements any deforestation that takes place through the course of activities like agriculture, transportation and so on. With that, I look forward to comments by the opposition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: Always a privilege to stand up. A rather lukewarm response to a bill that's pretty thin here. The minister has talked about a number of areas over the past six minutes that he's taken to explain this bill that really aren't touched in the legislation. Essentially, this is an enabling piece of legislation and pretty thin on detail. Certainly during the opportunities that we have in third reading to ask specific questions, we'll be doing that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the context for this legislation.... People have to understand we have been in the House since early February, February 9. This is really only the second piece of new legislation that we're dealing with here in the middle of March. Pretty sparse stuff from a government. Pretty sparse stuff, and this bill fits with that. Pretty thin. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, the actual statement of principle, which is essentially just a feel-good statement, is around the idea of zero net deforestation. You can't argue with those sentiments, but clearly for the forest industry to recover.... The minister said something about the strength of the industry. I mean, let's be clear here. We are in the midst of unprecedented challenges for forest workers, unprecedented challenges for forest communities and for forestry executives who are trying to find ways to have their companies be successful. It is a crisis that we have not seen in this province for decades and decades in this industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
There are also unprecedented challenges in terms of forest health. The minister knows that as well as I think any British Columbian who is from rural B.C., certainly from the Interior. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The forest health issues that we need to get our heads around, understand and deal with are incredibly challenging. British Columbia has been almost uniquely blessed with the amount of public lands that we have available to us. Much of the wealth that this province has been able to use for our health care systems, for our education system, has come from that public land, forestry being a continuous supplier of billions of dollars traditionally. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister has said that the industry is strong now, but that's not the case. For the first time ever, last year the Ministry of Forests spent more than the industry, than forestry generated. Traditionally, there have been billions available to public funds. That is not the case. That was not the case last year. That will not be the case this year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's the context that we need to see this in. Managed properly, forestry should in a sustainable way provide social benefits. There should be environmental benefits, and there should be economic benefits. But for that to happen, the government needs to manage properly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The difficulty with this bill is that by putting out a sentiment that people are going to think is…. Well, who could disagree with the idea of zero net deforestation? By putting out that sentiment, it indicates that that is essentially what the government is going to do. With all of the challenges in front of people in forestry communities and in front of the province, that all we get are bills that are expressions of sentiment is deeply, deeply disappointing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You just have to look at this bill. It is problematic because it's more of a political device than it is actually a piece of sound public policy. We have seen so many of these pieces of legislation that, after five years here, you see them, you recognize them, and you know that it is the government putting the piece of legislation in front of this House, in front of the public, hoping that they are not going to really delve into the detail or check carefully into where this leads. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is a two-page piece of legislation. The whole first page is six definitions, and even the definitions are not at all clear. You would think that a term like "deforestation" would be a fairly clear term and that it would be written in a clear way. But it is yet to be defined by regulation, and regulation…. For those who aren't familiar with the terminology, if it says in the bill here that it is going to be determined by regulation, it means that later on the minister, through cabinet, will define exactly what the term means. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So in the legislation that we have in front of us here, of the six definitions, deforestation isn't defined completely. Then you go on to zero net deforestation, which is actually the name of the bill. If deforestation isn't defined, neither is that. In each of the definitions that make up one half of this bill, there is a lack of clarity about what even the definitions mean. So that's not there. That's problematic, because deforestation is a huge problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This bill does not address, as the minister recognized, deforestation for most commercial operations. It does not address the pine beetle–impacted areas or the wildfire-impacted areas. There are 725,000 hectares of not sufficiently restocked land in B.C. today. That is a huge number. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
On slide 20 of the forest practices branch from September of 2009…. There was a PowerPoint, and it was on key silviculture statistics. On that page — and people can go, I believe, on the Internet and find it if they're interested — there were silviculture statistics and a chart that shows government data on reforestation shortfalls. Within that chart, there are the legal obligations for the major licensees. There are the legal obligations for B.C. Timber Sales. Those are marked on the chart. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But what is disturbing is the forecast for the not sufficiently restocked areas that are due to problems created by the mountain pine beetle, just one of many, many pests and diseases in our forest. As well, you have a massive area that is NSR, or not sufficiently restocked, because of the small-scale salvage that hasn't been managed. These are massive gaps in terms of replanting, and nothing in this bill addresses it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, at the very time when investments need to be made, this government is scaling back on those investments. To cover that, I would say to the minister, they put forward a bill like this, which will provide a very good talking point — "Hey, we put in legislation; we're going to reforest" — when the opposite action is taking place. They're cutting budgets that are needed to deal with that very serious shortfall in silviculture. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are going backwards. If you look at this graph, we are going backwards to areas that, in terms of areas that need work on the public land.... We are going back to levels that we haven't seen since the 1980s. In the 1980s the federal and provincial governments started to invest heavily to deal with that shortfall. We made progress, but that progress has been lost. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What that means is that if we don't deal with the issue successfully, we are taking away opportunities for the future. Like I say, this is one of the few things we can do on the land that, done properly, not only enriches us now, as it has in the past, but has the potential to deal fairly with the future generations that are coming. Yet this government is consistently failing the people of this province in not dealing properly with the forest health issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other difficulty with the bill…. Right here — and the minister alluded to it — at the bottom of the first page, just in one line it says that the government "must achieve the goal of zero net deforestation within British Columbia by December 31, 2015." That sounds very reasonable. But it has to be seen in the context of what you see in this House again and again, which is that these promises that are made for the future never actually pan out. For those people who don't follow forestry carefully…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But you will remember this. In 2001 there was a promise by government that there would be 5,000 new seniors residential care beds by 2005 and that they would be non-profit. It's just one of a series of promises that are made, just like this one in this bill — exactly like this one made in this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But how does it pan out? When you go back and look, does it actually lead to action? The fact is — what everyone knows — that promise, like so many others made by this government, which was specific and clear…. In the end, when you look at it, it doesn't pan out. In fact, by 2005 they closed 2,529 beds. They cut. And then they tried to twist it, changing the date when it would be done, changing the definition of what a seniors home would be. They did all of these things. They played around with it, trying to make people forget or confuse people about the reality. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So now they come here, and they say that by 2015 they are somehow going to achieve something that is nebulous and poorly defined. They expect people to take it seriously. This is something that is actually likely to happen. I think most people, if they look at it carefully, will realize that that's not going to be the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another example would be education. This was going to be the most literate jurisdiction in the world or in North America or something by 2010. Then they changed the date to 2015, and now, presumably, they've given up on it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
So it is a tired old trick that we see in this piece of legislation, something that can be thrown out there, used in speeches, and by 2015 — after the next election, by the way — whatever happens will happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The judgment from the B.C. Liberals is that people will have forgotten all about this promise, and it will be just like so many others of these empty promises that lead to absolutely nothing at a time when we need real leadership, when we need the government to recognize that if we want forestry to rebound, if we want something to happen in the future, there have to be investments, there has to be leadership. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We cannot continue along the same path that we have for the past eight years, where you have almost a complete lack of interest in terms of what's going on, on the land base, and an unprecedented record of failure. There needs to be energy. There needs to be new ideas. And in this legislation there certainly are none of those things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Even within forestry…. I'll just draw the public's attention to something specifically within forestry that gives an idea of why I would look at this and be so reticent in supporting the idea that anything good is going to come out of it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you go to reports that were supposed to come yearly on the state of the forests…. In 2004 this government promised that it would put together a reporting system for the state of the forests. I think this is something that was the chief forester's responsibility. So as they dismantled, in 2003, all of the protections that were there, the environmental protections, they said: "No, don't worry. The B.C. Liberal government will produce a report on the state of forests in 2004." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That first report, when it was put together…. They said: "Well, we only have six of the 24 indicators that we want to use ready, but here's the report, and the next one you can expect next year." Well, 2005 came and went, and there was no report, even though it was promised, just as this one is promised. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In 2006 there was a report. In 2006 they had made it up to 12 of the 24 indicators, so they were a year late and half done. Then they said: "Don't worry. Next year, 2007 — it's coming." Well, it's been 2007. It's been 2008. It's been 2009. It's into 2010, and if you go on the website now, it's somehow being prepared. "It's coming. Don't worry." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So then for the government to come in and tell us in this two-page act that somehow we should depend upon them following through on a promise to report something in 2015…. I would say most think that that's pretty unlikely. Pretty unlikely. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then you get to the second part of the legislation, this second page. This is why it takes only six minutes for a minister to describe it. The second page is basically the power to make regulations. Essentially, all that it says is: "We are going to make the rules up later in cabinet." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So you come here to the Legislature. You put a piece of legislation that gives cabinet the ability to go by regulation and do whatever they want without the scrutiny of the Legislature. The minister talked about some of the things he intended to do. He didn't put it in the legislation. He didn't put it in the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, we will, during the committee stage, try to understand the details of what the minister's talking about, but let's not underestimate the complexity of what he's talking about here. There are a series of questions, and during that time we'll see if this is in any way thought through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reporting on net deforestation, by the way, begins in 2012, in that year. I presume it would be reported out in 2013. Maybe it will be from the previous year and reported out in 2012, or maybe it's something slightly different than that. That puts it right around the time of the election. Pretty hard to hold them accountable on anything done, and anyway, that's just going to be a base. The idea is that between 2012 and 2015 there is somehow going to be this zero net deforestation that is yet ill-defined. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
All of that comes at a time when you have this incredible need for leadership and for a government that is actually going to take the industry seriously, take our public land seriously and do something. Instead what we get is this piece that I can almost guarantee people will lead nowhere. It will lead nowhere. The reports that somehow were supposed to be produced will just not be produced. Like so many of these other promises from the B.C. Liberals, they just will not happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You ask yourself: what's the purpose? Why would they put this piece of legislation out there? It's to confuse people, for the minister and others to stand up and say: "Oh well, we've got this in legislation. We're going to have zero net reforestation." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you tie it back, it ties back to something that the Premier said, and the Premier will find it useful in speeches to talk about it. Like so many of the initiatives that have flowed from this government, it leads to nothing, or worse, it leads to complete collapse. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's useful when we look at this, as well, to just go back to what the government was talking about when they took on responsibility for the public lands. There was a time when the B.C. Liberals, I think even themselves, thought they had all the answers. They thought they knew. They had a bag of tricks they were going to try, and they laid out their vision in 2003. They called it the forest revitalization plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For rural communities, it had a massive impact that's felt just recently in Kamloops with what happened with the transfer of title there. It wouldn't have happened before this act, but it happened, as it has in many parts of the province since. The impacts were dramatic. The social contract that had been there since the time of W.A.C. Bennett was removed. What the people in rural B.C. would recognize.... Appurtenance where the wood that was in an area would be milled in an area — that was removed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Environmental standards were degraded. Environmental protections. You had companies that were allowed to leave waste, and they did — in their interests perhaps, certainly not in the public interest. With the revitalization plans, there were promises — just as the minister is going to stand up and talk about what this is going to do. The fact is that the promises all too often lead absolutely nowhere. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So let's look at some of the rhetoric that was around the forest revitalization plan from 2003. There was a promise to revitalize the economy of forest communities. Well, since that was said, there have been 71 mills shut — and all the ripples of damage that it does in a community. That's the statement from the government, and the record is there for everyone to see. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They said that it would generate jobs. The B.C. Liberals, when they put forward the forest revitalization plan, like so many other initiatives that they have.... They say: "It's going to generate jobs." So that's the statement, but the reality is — what? — 31,000 good, family-supporting forestry jobs are gone, a portion of the jobs that were there before they took over. The rhetoric does not match what happens on the ground. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They talked, with the revitalization plan, of spinoff benefits for communities. Well, communities have been left high and dry, and that's the reality. Whether it's Mackenzie or Kitimat or Kamloops or Campbell River, communities have been abandoned. The programs that used to be there to support communities in transition, and should be there, were removed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The money that did come in — and there has been some — has been largely federal money, $129 million in federal money. I think if you look at what that federal money accomplished, it accomplished quite a bit and should be a model for what you can do if you actually decide that you're going to help communities. But it's a decision that this government has chosen not to make. They are not going to help communities in transition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
So you have a promise. You have commitments that are made, and they are not followed through on. Instead, you have an unprecedented collapse. Again, with this legislation, Bill 5, there will be some promises and fancy words about zero net deforestation, but the practical result will be absolutely underwhelming, and that's a problem, because it is a time when we need things to work better than that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There have been other policy decisions, other things that have been tried by the government around taxation. You had, very early on, the reduction of the PST — no study as to the impact of that by the government. You'd think that that would be something that the government would do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's been a reduction in the school tax — again, no study. There have been the heritage rates in power — again, no study of whether that was beneficial or not in terms of jobs. You had corporate tax cuts, which continue and still no study as to whether it works or not. Then in the future this government is proposing the HST — again, no studies, nothing to say whether the approach will work or not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You have this vacuum of leadership that this bill does nothing to fill. You also have giveaways like with the TFLs, those sweetheart deals like around Jordan River. That was presented as something that was going to create jobs, be beneficial in some way. As everyone knows…. I mean, the Auditor General was clear. The public good wasn't served by those decisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So a record leading up to Bill 5 of failure after failure after failure. What I would say to this government and what I would say to the minister is that there are challenges that are real. I don't think anyone could reach any conclusion other than the fact that the government does not have all of the answers. For me, they don't seem to have any of the answers. To be fair, the reality is that I don't think anyone out there does have all the answers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister will stand up and quite correctly point to the challenges that we have with markets, that we have with the dollar, that we have with climate change, and what I would say to the minister is this. This Bill 5, I will characterize as essentially a stunt. We can pass it. It will sit on a shelf somewhere — likely do no harm; likely do no good. But we need to get to a place where we work seriously on the issues that confront rural British Columbia, and the way forward on that is for the Premier to decide that it's time to work together in the way that this Legislature should work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Since 2005 the predecessor's critic for forestry has called for an all-party committee on forestry. What I can tell you is that I know, from people that are within this Legislature on both sides, there is keen interest in addressing the problems that I will say very clearly are complex and difficult. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do not doubt the sincerity of the minister in trying to grapple with these issues. I've seen it myself. Much of what the public sees is this debate, which is set up to be confrontational, and rightly so. There's a purpose that's served in that. But we also as legislators do often meet and try to solve problems, because in the end, we want things to work. It is incredibly important, for the people that I represent, that forestry works, that there is success. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have this government for the next three years. It is absolutely crucial that they not continue with the failures that they've had. It has to be something different, for the benefit of not only the people that I represent but for others in this House that represent rural B.C., and there is a way to move forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
There is that opportunity to have legislators work together and do real work, because the answers are out there. The answers are out there in the communities with the people that are on the land and that deal with these issues all the time. There is opportunity to work with forestry, to work with forest health based upon a set of principles that British Columbians will embrace and understand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are public lands. The sentiment in rural British Columbia is strong that people in rural British Columbia should be re-engaged in making decisions on the land that surrounds them. There is a strong sense that this government has given away far too much control to corporations and that rural British Columbians have been left out of decision-making not only in forestry but in the public land in general. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Around that principle, you could have discussions and find solutions and engage in real grass-roots decision-making, because the actual wisdom of British Columbians sits within our communities and sits with people who have done this work their whole life. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that the communities I represent…. There is tremendous expertise there, and there is a tremendous ability to solve problems if we empower them. That's part of what we should be doing — taking that wisdom and putting it into place as public policy. But too often, instead, what we get is political stunts like this, which will lead nowhere. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The solutions are there if we allow them to come forward. We could again focus on the principles of ecosystem protection, the principles of making sure that forest health is the focus of the Forest Service, not what we see it headed towards — being a facilitator for industry getting as much out as quickly as it can. The Forest Service needs to be, again, the body that looks after forest health for the people of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There needs to be a recognition of the importance of biodiversity and the resilience that that puts into our forests and into our communities. If the government gets and if we here get the forest health piece right and support the innovations that we clearly need, we can make progress. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are lots of ideas around biomass that are out there. People talk about these ideas. They talk about other initiatives, but it needs leadership. Bill 5 is not part of that leadership. It is not the leadership that British Columbians are looking for. There are real and complex issues that need to be worked through. Bill 5, in my view, is a way of avoiding that necessary work. That is my concern, and it is a problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I would invite this government to do is think again about putting together a forestry committee and allowing legislators that are here to do the work that they want to do and allow the wisdom that is there in our communities to come forward to get this industry on its feet again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. Yap: It's an honour and a privilege for me to take my place and participate in second reading debate on Bill 5, Zero Net Deforestation Act, which the Minister of Forests has introduced. I appreciate my colleague the Minister of Forests bringing in this important piece of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[L. Reid in the chair.]
I'm actually glad that I'm following the speaker from the opposition who just spoke, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who not surprisingly took a very negative stance on this important piece of legislation — a negative stance that was filled, sadly, with…. Some facts were missing. Because we're in debate here, I'd like, for the record, to set a few of the facts straight before I get to the substance of my remarks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
First of all, I heard the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke make mention about…. He went a few years back to the commitment of our government to build 5,000 seniors beds. To set the record straight, the record is that over 7,000 beds were achieved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
The member also talked about the fact that our government is somehow not living up to the commitment towards literacy and education. I just want to set the record straight because British Columbians need to know the facts. The fact is that the investment in education has never been higher. We're spending record amounts on education towards literacy in British Columbia. So that's another fact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Getting back to forests, let's focus on one of the comments made by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke — that there have been a number of forestry job losses in the last few years. That's very difficult. We know that communities have had a challenging time. Forestry jobs, we know, have not been at the levels that we would like to see them. Historically we've had stronger employment in the forests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the member neglects to state that the reason that the forestry industry is not seeing the better, stronger days is because our largest market for forest products, the U.S. housing market, is roughly 20 to 23 percent of what it was before the deepest recession in a generation hit. So I just want to put that out there for some balance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The previous speaker, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, did talk about leadership. I want to start out by being very clear. No province in Canada has shown more leadership, has taken more action in the area of climate change than this government under this Premier. In fact, we have received international recognition for our climate action, our proactive approach in dealing with climate change — perhaps the challenge of our generation, as has been said by many. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, one of the member's colleagues personally attended the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December last year and should know. I think all the colleagues should know, because this was quite a wonderful event. The province of British Columbia — our Premier — was recognized in Copenhagen for the leadership this government has shown in taking action on climate change. British Columbia is taking proactive action in dealing with climate change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This bill that my colleague the Minister of Forests has introduced is one of the tools towards ensuring that we continue to take positive action in dealing with the effects of climate change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, the member talked about leadership. Well, where was the leadership in the 1990s, when his colleagues were in government, when the signs of climate change were evident, when we saw the destruction of our forests from the pine beetle infestation? Did they do anything? Well, the record shows that they knew it was a problem, but they kept waiting. Instead of taking action, no leadership. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's ironic that the member talks about leadership, when his own party, when they were in government in the 1990s — another example — just didn't take the kind of action needed to deal with climate change inasmuch as the forests and pine beetle infestation are concerned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This bill will set British Columbia on a course to ensure that our forests will continue to be a great resource for generations. We are blessed. On this point, I agree with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke that we are blessed in British Columbia in having a rich forest resource. We have millions and millions of hectares of forests that can provide, through this great asset on the land base, opportunities for communities right around the province — for economic opportunities, for communities to sustain communities — and also, importantly, can help deal with climate change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
As has been stated, about 6,000 hectares of forest in British Columbia are deforested each year, and roughly 40 percent of this happens on private lands. This is a fact. It's important that we support afforestation, the replacement of trees, and this bill sets a commitment that we will achieve net zero deforestation by 2015. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We understand that the members on the other side are perhaps feeling that this is a government that's showing leadership in dealing with climate action. We know from the record that members of the opposition like to talk about being in favour of climate action, but the record shows that at every opportunity to join us in showing leadership, they have failed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For example, the revenue-neutral carbon tax that our government introduced, for which we have received recognition around the world — the NDP voted against it. Yes, I remember well that the NDP campaigned against the carbon tax, and now, apparently, they're in favour of the carbon tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Cap-and-trade legislation. It's important that we move to recognize the pricing of carbon pollution for large emitters through the cap-and-trade system. We've introduced legislation on cap-and-trade. This opposition voted against it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They voted against our transit plan, which will provide transit throughout major centres around British Columbia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. This opposition voted against it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They voted against initiatives that will lead to clean energy development. For example, the innovative clean energy fund — this opposition voted against it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's clear, when the members opposite talk about leadership, it is this government, this side of the House, that is showing leadership in climate action, in taking positive action on climate change, and this bill is part of our action plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deforestation has been described by the National Geographic Magazine as a modern-day plague. If I may, I'd like to quote from a recent article in the National Geographic. "Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world's land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year. The world's rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at the current rate of deforestation." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government is taking action to ensure that we preserve our forests, that afforestation is encouraged and that we achieve our goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It's very important that our forests contribute to our climate action plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we all know, forests are tremendous assets in collecting and concentrating carbon. They are not only the lungs of our province, but they are a great storer of carbon. It's important that we, through this legislation, encourage the afforestation that's needed to get us there so that we preserve our forests, so that we are at a net afforestation. This legislation will help us get there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have support for this legislation. A number of people have spoken up in favour of the legislation that has been introduced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
An environmental group, the ForestEthics group. I would like to quote Valerie Langer, speaking on behalf of ForestEthics, a respected environmental non-government organization. "It's good to have a zero net deforestation act." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another quote from a third party. Michael Rosen, president of Tree Canada, says this: "The province of British Columbia is to be commended for its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by implementing a zero net deforestation policy." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's support for this legislation, in spite of what the members of the opposition say. As the Minister of Forests has outlined, we have legislation that will use tax incentives to encourage businesses — through business expenses, tax incentives — to encourage afforestation. Charitable donations are another mechanism through the tax system — and fees and property tax incentives — to provide the framework for us to achieve zero net deforestation — and, of course, carbon offsets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Carbon offsets are an important way that we will be able to deal with greenhouse gas emissions — to reduce our emissions through credible carbon offsets, which our forests provide. This will be another opportunity for us in terms of taking action on climate change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm very proud to support this legislation. It's important legislation as part of our climate action plan. It's part of our plan to support communities that are forestry-related and -dependent. This will continue to set us on the course for a future where we have a lower-carbon economy, and British Columbians will participate in the low-carbon economy that is the future for all of us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government is showing leadership with this piece of legislation. I support this piece of legislation and encourage all members of the House — including members of the opposition, who can see that it's important to take action on climate change — to support Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I look forward to hearing some of the comments from my colleagues in the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Routley: Interesting. The member from Richmond has quoted a few experts, and he had the idea that he could correct my friend. He was on the wrong beds. Unfortunately, he was talking about beds that are mostly assisted living, not the long-term beds that my friend was talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's talk about the zero act. Let's just shorten it up and call it what is it really is, a zero act. I remember the old…. I think there's a Three Dog Night song that says, "Nothing from nothing is still nothing," and that's what we've got here — a nothing act from a nothing government with no plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, this bill completely ignores the most important forest health issue in the province of British Columbia. It ignores the major deforestation that's happening right as we speak throughout the province of British Columbia. This government, when it first came to power…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Member, please take your seat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members on both sides, I am now having difficulty hearing the speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Please proceed.
B. Routley: This government has, since it first came to power, systematically gutted the laws that provide any real forest stewardship in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
Instead of any kind of real plan to do anything about the sad state, unfortunately, of our B.C. forests, we get this feeble attempt to try to appear to be doing something. It's really just more window dressing — no real action in this bill at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will go through the bill systematically to explain why that's the case, but first, I want to take this opportunity to show how this bill is building on their legacy. Just last session we had what I would call the "We can't agree to use B.C. wood" act. That's what it should have been called. At the end of the day, they called it the Wood First Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our opposition party talked about a fair-minded and simple fix to the legislation. At the end of the day, our fix was going to have B.C. communities and B.C. forest workers put first. But no, this government…. How did they vote on B.C.? This government, shamefully, had to vote against their own province. It's unbelievable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our position was that the bill should just include B.C. Like, let's use B.C. wood. But no, this government screwed up the courage and came en masse to vote against the province of British Columbia. It's shameful that this government can't even agree to use B.C. wood products and to make some certainty so that B.C. woodworkers and their families and communities would have some opportunities. They actually voted against a commitment to use B.C. wood in their Wood First Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm glad that the minister is here. Maybe he can share with us at some point an update on how we're doing with the six-storey wood public buildings. Do we have any yet? I suspect that that was, again, more window dressing as a result of the follow-up on that act. There are no six-storey wood buildings being built in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's interesting that this government just has more zeroes in front of its plan. This bill is so feeble. It's the equivalent of trying to wallpaper over a clearcut that is so large that it can be seen out in outer space. The fact is that this government is trying to put little trees on wallpaper and wallpaper over a problem with this feeble attempt of a bill, which really, by its own admission, is talking about some 750,000 hectares instead of a real plan to do something about forest health issues in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Not only the people of British Columbia but people throughout the world have travelled to British Columbia, and this government isn't hiding a thing. Anyone that flies over B.C. on a clear day can see the problem: serious forest health issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government is still studying the problem. This government has no plan for forest health, so what we get is this papering over of the real problems with the transparently flimsy attempt to look like they're doing something about B.C. forest health issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, let's examine some of the problems that we have in forest health. I want to talk for a minute about what the association of B.C. professional registered foresters has to say about one of the key problems that we face in British Columbia. I had a discussion with some of them, and they made the point that without sound inventory information, we can't plan now or in the future. We can't address carbon issues in any real way if we don't have good inventory data, the baseline information that we require to plan not only now but in the future and as we move forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The foresters say they produced a report entitled Assessment of the Status of Forest Inventories in British Columbia, which made it clear that there were not enough inventories going on, and they offered 19 recommendations. It was softly worded but very highly critical. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
"The keys to solving these issues are establishing clear baselines of responsibility for forest inventory, supplying sufficient baseline funding to implement the inventory, appropriately managing data and producing inventory products." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sadly, this government has failed to move forward with an adequate plan to deal with the inventory issues that are sadly lacking in the province of British Columbia — baseline information that we simply must have in order to deal with our forests going forward. Even the harvesting plans in our forest. How can we be harvesting? With all this dead and dying pine forest and other health issues, we're still cutting. A lot of the cutting that's going on is based on forests that just simply don't exist. They're dead and dying. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister talks about dead and dying forests. He made the bold claim a little while ago. I remember reading in the news that he was saying that the beetles got all the pine. Well, I'm not sure that that's true. I think there's still the odd pine that they're after. I know the beetle has breached the Rockies. I was up in Dawson Creek a little while ago, and I saw pockets of dead pine in very scattered areas. It's really sad to see, but there's no plan to deal with it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to talk for a minute about what the silviculture contractors' association has to say. I looked at John Betts' statements in the WSCA website. This was in 2009. He says: "There's little doubt what the future holds. We can be certain of at least three years of extremely depressed demand for tree planting" — wait a minute; what's that? — "for seedling production, for site preparation, for stand tending, for prescribed burning and fuel management, if we stay on the present course." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He says: "We are in the worst decline in silviculture we have ever seen." Shame. Again, we get this so-called Zero Net Deforestation Act, and the real professionals, the people that actually go out and plant the trees, are the ones that we need to look at to see what's really going on in this province. They report a very sad tale indeed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They go on — their association. Mr. Betts says: "The biggest issue for silviculture contractors right now is the future of their industry and how it's going to be affected by the current crisis in the forest sector." This bill does nothing to deal with these problems. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Forest health. They go on: "The Campbell government is spending less on forest health as a proportion of overall spending than ever before at a time when our forests need it the most." This isn't me, the member from Cowichan, talking this way. This is the silviculture association here in British Columbia that does tree planting all over B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They talk about the vast impact of the mountain pine beetle epidemic — more than 14.5 million hectares affected and counting. I know it's even greater than that number now. The uplift in the provincial allowable cut is not reflected in the numbers for reforestation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Where does that leave us today? He says: "It's darn hard to make sense of current events by simple arithmetic. We are harvesting at a rate that should see reforestation at five times" — five times, hon. Speaker — "the present level. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been talked about and promised to mitigate the mountain pine beetle, but astonishing little is reaching the ground and the contracting crews." My, my. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A big part of the problem in ensuring the short- and long-term viability and sustainability of our forest resources is a current lack of accurate data for the forest land base. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805]
So now we have the registered professional foresters and the Western Silviculture Contractors' Association laying it out — the bare facts. There it is. It's a naked truth, absolutely. There we are with the lack of accurate data, conflicting data sets from the ministry, and the seed-planting and revenue divisions tell different stories in terms of what is being planted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They go on. "In the case of the mountain pine beetle plague, the Forests for Tomorrow program will only address a minor increment of the 15 million hectares, and that's over the next 20 years." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They're doing such a mediocre job. "With the area of mountain pine beetle that is not recovering through natural regeneration estimated in some cases to be as high as 40 percent of the attack, the Ministry of Forests has yet to come up with a strategy to address this extensive degradation in the forest abundance and diversity." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are shocking reports. These are not my words. These are the reports of professionals out in the field that are doing the work day in and day out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here we have yet another one. This is December 15 of '09 — so very, very recent. They say: "The current B.C. forest management model may not be suitable any longer to properly support forest ecosystems, communities or the economies to properly support forest ecosystems. The beetle plague, wildfires and the pending falldown of timber supply, the inability to capitalize on the biomass windfall, along with the collapsing timber product sales are, in part, symptoms of how we manage the forest resources". [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What an indictment. This is from yet another group that is out there looking at what's going on within the Ministry of Forests and the forest policies and saying that it is an absolute failure. We're not dealing with the forest health issues in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They talk about how the general public thinks that the silviculture industry must be very busy these days dealing with the forest health problems, but they report that they are not busy at all. "In fact, it's just the opposite. Silviculture contractors, nurseries and forest consultants all face bleak prospects." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How can that be? That flies in the face…. It totally contradicts everything that we have heard. Here is a government presenting a plan — Zero Net Deforestation Act. Again, it sounds like an act…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're going to try and help them out. They obviously needed help last time, and they wouldn't take our advice. I doubt they'll take our advice again, but we've got some ideas on how we can improve this bill and this act. We're going to introduce them at the appropriate stages. But will they listen? I doubt it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Anyway, they go on to say that there's a sentiment that the silviculture industry has become a stale sector and that there is "little actual substance in the province's promises and the headlines regarding climate change and a green economy." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's interesting, following up on the speaker from the other side, from Richmond, who claims their government is doing all kinds of wonderful things about climate change. Yet here are groups outside of this Legislature who are the real validators of what's going on, that are out in the field planting trees all over British Columbia. They say that it's just smoke and mirrors, that it's not really happening and that there's a real crisis coming when it comes to dealing with the issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
Finally, in December they said, "The number of seedlings planted…will soon be only half what they were a few years ago" — half. Again, those are the facts as presented by the silviculture association, and I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the material that they put on their website — none whatsoever. I believe that they are presenting what they see are the real issues here in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, this is just another example of this government's continuing jiggery-pokery. I couldn't resist, hon. Speaker. I just had to get it in yet again. This bill certainly gets a zero for effort, more of the kind of smoke and mirrors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's go through the bill point by point. Basically.... [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
B. Routley: Well, we're going to try to amend it, but anyway.... [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government vulnerabilities.... Let's look at this as a zero net deforestation. It only means selective kinds of deforestation, and get this: they delay doing anything. They delay doing anything until 2012-2015. My, my. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It doesn't include deforestation from pine beetle or from wildfires. Too much is left up to regulation. Oh, and I've got to read my favourite regulation in here. This is kind of the Liberal philosophy in a nutshell. This would be their philosophy in a nutshell. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It says under item 4, power to make regulations: "In making a regulation under this Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following." And this is my all-time favourite. In (c) it says: "make different regulations for different persons, places, things or transactions." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My, my, isn't that wonderful. We can kind of make it up as we go along and make whatever regulations they feel like making, and they can make them different for different persons, places, things or transactions. It is simply incredible and meaningless. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The analysis of the definitions, when you look at it.... Deforestation — again, it doesn't include pine beetle or other pathogens and diseases, and it doesn't include forest fires. It could be argued, I would suggest, that it fails to adequately predict, prevent and manage forest fires, or you could argue they're Liberal-induced problems in the forests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why do I say that? Because of lack of action. When you don't take preventative actions and deal with forest health issues head-on, you're going to have the kind of crisis we've got that's going to be reported on by silviculture contractors and forest professionals all over the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So much is left up to regulations. For example, in the area afforested, when it comes to forest land again as defined in the regulations, also deforestation "does not include the removal of trees from any area of forest land that is excluded from this definition by regulation." My goodness. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The goal regarding net zero deforestation. It simply states that the government must achieve this goal by December 31, 2015. And get this: they don't even have to take any action. Here they are today, in March 2010, introducing a bill that they want, in point 3, to start by beginning with a report on net deforestation within British Columbia for the 2012 calendar year. That means we're not even thinking about getting a report done before the next election. That's how laughable this is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government comes in with a shell of a bill with a bunch of jiggery-pokery and tries to present the notion that they're actually doing something, when yet again — and it's clear from the way this has been drafted — they have no intention of doing anything about deforestation. So net zero, while it's something that obviously is a laudable goal, at the end of the day is a toothless tiger because they put it off. It's not even on the radar, as they like to say, yet again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1815]
When we continue with the analysis here, this does not mean that the plan is to have zero net deforestation for British Columbia. This talks about net deforestation between 2012 and 2015. So I ask: what about the net deforestation that has happened all over B.C. in the last nine years and will continue to happen throughout 2010 and 2011? What about that? How much net deforestation has there been? How much not sufficiently restocked land? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's talk about not sufficiently restocked land. It's a growing number, and this minister, I'm sure, is aware of that crisis, and yet more of the same. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's look at some of the other promises this government has made regarding forest policy and then reneged on over the years. In 2003 in the B.C. heartlands strategy on forests they said, and I want to quote right from their statements: "An improved Forest Practices Code…." Their idea of an improvement, by the way, was to totally dismantle the regulations and make it a basically "we hope you'll get along with this" kind of approach to their corporate pals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The answer was to totally deregulate the Forest Practices Code to the point where they claimed, and these are their words, not mine…. This is the Liberal plan. It says that an improved Forest Practices Code will provide environmental protection backed up by tough penalties. We're going to have tough penalties for non-compliance, including fines of up to $1 million, or there was going to jail time. Oh, I like that one. That was just to add a little drama to the whole thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government said: "Boy, we're serious. We'll show you how serious we are. Million-dollar fines and a little jail time if you're not complying with what goes on here." Clearly, the move to a less-prescriptive Forest Practices Code required, by the Liberals' own admission, the need for tough penalties and enforcement and, presumably, enough staff on the ground to notice anything was amiss. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Not only would these companies be required to outline how they would meet the new standards, but the Liberals claimed that a team of specialized staff in the Ministry of Forests will conduct — listen to this — thousands…. "We're going to have thousands of inspections every year." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now let's talk about what's really going on. I have in front of me what's happened since the time that they started their legislative change. They had more inspections and more tickets, and currently they have far fewer inspections and many have no ticket violations at all. The ministry stopped reporting the number of violations that small-scale producers had. I don't know. Our researchers can't find any reports at all after 2007-2008. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think this ministry has gutted, so badly gutted, the compliance and the enforcement group that were supposed to be out there doing thousands of all these compliance…. They were going to be doing a flood of reports, and we were going to have first-class forestry in British Columbia. They were going to make sure, because they were going to have tough enforcement penalties and maybe even jail. Well, nobody has been put in jail — not a single person. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, they've even cut the amount that they're penalizing people. They have been going backwards. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1820]
In 2002-2003 there were eight tickets between $10,000 and $20,000. There were four tickets above $20,000, and one ticket was at least $50,000 minimum, between $50,000 and $100,000. That was the snapshot when things were about to get tougher. They were going to get a whole lot tougher. But let's talk about what's actually happened on the ground. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're heading back to the days where the rules in B.C. have become so relaxed that we're at risk of becoming another poster child for mismanaged forests — with the lack of action and credibility, with cutting out enforcement activities. By 2007-2008 — and this is the last date that we were able to find records for — there was only one ticket, one that was between $10,000 and $20,000, and none, zero, nothing above $19,999. Guess what. That's where the new level is. It didn't go to a million dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The facts are that they've got a non-enforcement strategy. There is a non-compliance strategy, and this government's attitude is to gut the people that are supposed to be there being responsible to look after protecting these forests. When I look at what's happened…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In 2003 — I've got with me a report — 700 forest ministry staff get chopped back then. It was reported that the bulk of the layoffs came from the closure of 20 regional forest offices by March 2003. Heyman has estimated that 70 to 80 percent of those workers laid off would involve field work, monitoring, environmental practices and supervising the volume and quality of the timber. My, my, and here we go again. We've got a government that has chopped — and yet again in this budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What are they chopping? They are cutting the budgets for compliance and enforcement officers in British Columbia. We are going to get to the bottom of that, or try to, at the estimates process, to try and ask some thoughtful questions about this. Our interest is only in protecting and taking action to protect the forests, not only for today but for the future of British Columbia. If we're going to do something that's real, that's not just some fairy tale dreamed up by a government that has no plan, we need to act, and we need to act soon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Krueger: I'm pleased to be able to stand up and speak in favour of Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act. In spite of all the bombast we were just hearing, this fulfils a throne speech commitment from 2008. And a quote from that throne speech: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Each year new developments, urbanization, agriculture conversions, new power lines and other utility corridors contribute to deforestation. That releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and removes millions of trees that are absorbing and storing carbon.
"To reverse this problem your government will pursue a goal of zero net deforestation. It will work with First Nations, industry and communities to put that goal into law by 2010 and establish a viable strategy for realizing that vision by 2015."
The goal date — 2015. Obviously, if listeners or people reading Hansard would care to look at the previous member's remarks, they'll realize just from that quote from the throne speech what bombast they were hearing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
British Columbia is one of the first jurisdictions in the world to implement a zero net deforestation goal enshrined in legislation. B.C. is in a position to provide global leadership on this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. K. Krueger: Who but the NDP would disapprove of that? Who but the NDP would speak against it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member who just spoke probably has never looked at the NDP record, probably has never been near a logging show in his life, probably doesn't have a clue what the NDP did to the forest industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1825]
And the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke — I'm always disappointed when I hear the things he says in this House. He spoke about an unprecedented record of failure, and that's the NDP record. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I was in opposition to the NDP government when they brought tremendous expense and financial ruin upon B.C.'s forest industry. Today they're not ashamed of that record. Most of them don't even know about it. They just get up in this House and talk. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When I ran in 1996 and I was elected to opposition, I defeated an NDP incumbent. He was a nice fellow, a very honest fellow. I remember one of our all-candidates forums. It was in Barriere, B.C. There are probably still people who would remember it very clearly, because someone asked him in the Q and A: "Mr. MLA" — which is what he had been up until then — "what is FRBC?" He looked at them for a moment and then, in his honest way, said, "It's a way to spend money," and the crowd burst out laughing, because that's what everybody thought, and he was so honest that he said so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The NDP were making it out to be something positive. But it was a way to draw money out of the forest industry, billions of dollars in super-stumpage, and squander it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He said: "It's a way to spend money." When the crowd laughed, he looked really surprised. Because he was an honest fellow, he thought he'd spoken frankly and couldn't understand why people would laugh, and he said: "No, really, that's what it is. It's a way to spend money." They all fell down laughing again, because that was the truth of the matter, and here they had a fellow who would actually say so, representing the NDP. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He was defeated, and of course, in the following election, so was the NDP — almost annihilated, a Corvette party, a two-seater, after that election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, one day during that first sad term that I had as opposition to a government that was destroying the economy of British Columbia, we came across a list of what they'd spent the money on from FRBC. I'll always remember that one of the expenditures was funding a study in Saskatchewan on bat stratification in caves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Imagine that — taking money away from British Columbia forest licensees, people who were employing honest British Columbians working in the forest, and spending it studying what bats leave behind in caves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then there was the jobs and timber accord. Premier Glen Clark hauled a bunch of unhappy forest licensee CEOs up on the stage — and I can see the House Leader opposite remembering this sad day — obliging them to stand there with him while he announced the jobs and timber accord and how it was going to create tens of thousands of jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How many did it ever create? It created one job, and that was the commissioner that the NDP appointed to administer the jobs and timber accord. I believe that was the only job ever created. We had a Forests Minister in that day who proudly said that government can do anything it wants, and that's what that government did — anything it wanted. Much of it was ruination for that industry, the once proud B.C. forest industry, and for the economy in general. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Super-stumpage, they called it. They jacked up the stumpage so that they'd have money to spend, and they spent it so profligately that Premier Glen Clark referred to what he was doing as "shovelling money off the back of trucks." I would have thought the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke would have heard that word before. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. K. Krueger: He says he heard it in 1997, and that's certainly when his party was in power, shovelling money off the back of trucks. That's what Premier Glen Clark characterized it as. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then there was the Forest Practices Code, a code so process-based, so onerous and so ridiculous that if you stacked up all the documents of the Forest Practices Code, it was around two metres high. Forest companies had to employ an army of people to interpret it, and so did government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the time there were a thousand registered professional foresters working for the government, for the Ministry of Forests — working and living here in Victoria, British Columbia, where I've never seen any logging in the 14 years that I've been here. But they had a thousand RPFs to work on interpreting their code, and thousands more across British Columbia. That was a terrible draw on forest companies, and it set them on a road that they've never really recovered from. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1830]
Finally, one day the NDP Forests Minister of the day decided to cut back some of the red tape, some that have overregulation. He proudly said in this House that his actions were going to save the forest industry a billion dollars, inadvertently admitting at the time that he knew that his government, the NDP government of the day, had wasted a billion dollars of the licensees' money — probably every year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I remember members standing up in this House and pleading with the NDP government about that overregulation. Winter logging shows that were never going to see any running water, going to be working on the frost, required to put culverts under roads when everybody knew…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Krueger: Required to put culverts in roads that were only going to be used for the winter and decommissioned before the spring, so there would never be any water in those culverts. The only H2O they'd ever see would be if a worker threw a snowball in one because it was a winter road alone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I remember a logging contractor on one of our tours, opposition tours, talking to us about how desperately the NDP was forcing him to waste money. He said he'd come to a snag in working through the area that he was permitted to log, and he'd had to stop work. He said to his workers: "Look at this. There's an eagle's nest in that snag. If I cut it down, the Ministry of Environment will fine me, and if I don't cut it down, the Workers Compensation Board will fine me. There's no way I can avoid a fine." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He actually worked out which fine would be smaller, and that's the action he took. Sure enough, he was fined, because he just couldn't win in the forest industry with the NDP. Except for Carrier Lumber — they lost for a long time, but they won in the end. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Probably the members opposite know that sad story, because they're getting kind of quiet. The NDP took away the cutting rights of Carrier Lumber, a family-built company from Prince George with a new technology. They could go out in the bush with portable sawmills, set them up, cut the wood and dry it. They're still cutting wood out in the Chilcotin Plateau because the wood has stayed dry long enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those people had a great technology. They had a forest licence. It was taken away from them. So they sued, of course — could have bankrupted their company. On the eve of trial, the NDP miraculously produced 47 boxes of missing evidence, and then the trial folded because obviously Carrier Lumber was going to win. That's what happened — again, at huge taxpayers' expense. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's been a really sad history of the NDP and management — the NDP working with the forest industry or the forest industry actually not being able to work because of the NDP. So how can these members get up in this House and say anything negative about this piece of legislation? Absolutely shameful. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The NDP did tremendous harm to the forests and to the forest industry in British Columbia. I remember being on an opposition tour in Vanderhoof and the people of Vanderhoof telling a group of B.C. Liberal opposition members about the spread of the mountain pine beetle kill — coming out of Tweedsmuir Park forest and the government of the day not doing anything about it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A Socred government — that's what we were told. Certainly it came out of the park, and it continued to come. In the Socred days the mountain pine beetle had made a run. The Socreds logged ahead of it, cleared off the land and managed to suppress it. But the logging contractor said, "This government's not doing anything about it," and now we all see the terrible devastation that has flowed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll tell you what people said to me about our forest practices, not long after we were elected government. I went on a road tour with Chief Nathan Matthew of the North Thompson Indian band, now known as the Simpcw people. He said to me: "The forests are so well managed now, there will be forests forever." He didn't foresee the advent of the mountain pine beetle which was, by then, well on its way across the Cariboo, throughout the Chilcotin and now has swept through most of the southern Interior. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Fortunately, to make this legislation work, we don't need the support of the NDP. We've never had the support of the NDP on anything. I think my colleague's right — that probably, having heard all this bombast, having suffered through another day of NDP rhetoric, we're going to see them all stand up and vote because they would be embarrassed not to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1835]
But there are initiatives currently underway that complement zero net deforestation. Local governments, for example, have signed en masse on to the climate action charter with the province and are participating in a whole variety of programs, increasing the amount of forest cover in communities. How about that? We have partners in local government. We've certainly never had any assistance in all our worthy objectives from the opposition opposite. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
About 6,200 hectares of forest in B.C. are deforested each year, and about 40 percent of that deforestation in 2007 was on private lands. Well, we're out to do something about that. We're out to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and to sequester carbon dioxide. This is a noble purpose. It's a noble piece of legislation, but all we hear from the other side is lampooning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There will be job creation. An average hectare of afforestation creates three days of silviculture employment. I hear the members opposite talking about the reduction in silviculture. What do they think is happening when people aren't logging? The world is in an economic recession, and logging companies have not been cutting the forests they would have in good times. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Krueger: But once again…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Minister, please take your seat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Minister, please continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Krueger: The member from Cowichan, my colleague, just explained to me, said that there were no buildings under construction in British Columbia that will be six-storey wood buildings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You might want to make a trip to Richmond. One is under construction there. We thought we'd like to put that on the record. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There will be many incentives to private individuals as a result of this legislation. There will be tax incentives for charitable donations by individuals and corporations, who will get tax credits for tree planting. For example, donations to Tree Canada, a registered charitable organization, can be used to fund tree planting in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There will be fees and property tax incentives to avoid, minimize or mitigate deforestation. Local permit fees and property tax could be reduced, for example, by reclassification to private-managed forest land. Communities that have signed the climate action charter will have the incentive to exercise many potential options. And of course, there will be carbon offsets. Afforestation projects will be able to generate offset credits in voluntary and regulated offset markets including the Pacific Carbon Trust. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's good legislation. We've heard a lot of negative talk about it. We always do. We don't hear much positive from the other side of the House ever, except on those occasions, as with the Olympics, when they realize they're so embarrassed by their negativity, so embarrassed by their incessant opposition, that suddenly they get up and praise everybody involved except the government that worked to make it happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I expect we'll see them stand up and vote for this legislation. They'd look awfully silly if they didn't. I'm going to take my place, because I'm looking forward to seeing that. We'll see if their next speaker has anything more positive to say. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act. Zero net deforestation means simply that as much forest as you remove, you're afforesting, or planting, so it equals out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When the government introduced this bill earlier this week, I was impressed. I thought: "Wow. That's going to be really something to get zero net deforestation, considering where we're at now in terms of deforestation." It's a pretty sad situation. Sadly, however, I was a little disappointed, to put it mildly, when I had a look at this voluminous piece of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It bears a little discussion. What we've actually got before us…. The definitions for this bill are certainly of interest. "Deforestation" is defined as meaning "the human-induced removal of trees" — so cutting trees and the like — "from an area of forest land to such an extent that the area is no longer forest land…." Okay. That's part of, at least, the definition of deforestation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1840]
In the news release that the Ministry of Forests and Range put out with the release of this bill, it says that the "Zero Net Deforestation Act defines 'deforestation' as the 'permanent loss of trees from an area.' Timber harvesting in B.C. is sustainably managed and not considered to be deforestation." Whoa. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The timber harvesting lands of this province are not considered to be deforestation. They're not encapsulated or covered by this bill, not covered by…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
M. Sather: That's what it says in the press release, Member. I'm reading it from the Ministry of Forests and Range press release, and if they've said it wrong, then perhaps they will want to correct it. But that's what the press release says. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you hear the glowing reports from the government side about what this bill is supposed to accomplish…. The minister called it a cornerstone of the government's climate action plan, and there were other glowing comments from the Minister of State for Climate Action about this being one of the tools in the toolbox, etc., to fight climate change. Yet the forest land base from which we harvest our forests is not included under this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So we must search further to try to understand what in fact this bill is all about. If you look at the Ministry of Forests and Range material that they put out, it says that there are 90 million hectares of Crown land in B.C. Of those 90 million hectares, 49 million are forested lands — 49 million hectares of forested lands. Of course there are a lot of mountains in British Columbia, a lot of grasslands. We've got cities and the like, so that makes up a large part, and industrial development makes up a large part, of the difference between the 90 million of Crown land…. Then, of course, there's private land as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Of these 49 million hectares of forested land, about 25 million hectares of that is managed for timber production. So 25 million hectares of land is managed for timber production, and that's not covered by this bill. It's worth noting, though, that about six million hectares, or a quarter of that 25 million hectares, are managed for other values such as maintaining old-growth ecosystems, visual features and managing riparian areas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Even though they are not actively being harvested, presumably — in most cases, at least — they too are caught under lands that are managed for timber production, and they won't be covered by this bill either. That's a pretty significant wash so far on what, in fact, this magnificent bill is not only going to do for the forests of British Columbia — and the forests were mentioned already a number of times by speakers from the government side — but what it's going to do or not going to do for fighting climate change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, we've got a few high-elevation trees and so on. The sparse forests up near the mountains are not likely going to be harvested anyway, and furthermore, according to Natural Resources Canada, they don't constitute a forest. So there are more and more parts of this province that are not included. Presumably, this bill doesn't cover private forested lands either, but I do wait for further discussion from the government with regard to that. But if you look at the definitions of what this covers, it doesn't seem that it possibly would. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1845]
Then what in fact does the bill cover? Going back to the news release from the Ministry of Forests and Range, it says: "The three keys to achieving zero net deforestation are to avoid, minimize and mitigate deforestation. Sometimes the loss of forest lands to other purposes, such as housing or highway development, is necessary. In these cases, the preferred option is to minimize the footprint and mitigate the impacts by creating new forests on previously non-forested land." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, where are these non-forested lands? I mean, obviously when housing comes in, you're not going to be putting forests there. Highway developments, similarly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Some of the other things that were mentioned by previous speakers…. I think it was the Minister of Mines who talked about power lines. Well, you don't plant trees under power lines. They poison them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Agricultural development has been mentioned, and here's a really mixed message from the government side. The Minister of Mines said that agricultural development would be encapsulated by this bill presumably, but the Minister of Forests said: "Oh no, don't worry about that. We're not going to be going out and planting forests on agricultural land." So that's not captured by this bill either. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then the Minister of Mines also mentioned urban development. Well, I mean, when the houses are built in the city, I don't think we're going to be planting trees there. Or maybe it's between the houses we're going to be planting the trees. I'm not sure exactly where this afforestation, as it's called, is going to take place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the members opposite — it was the Minister of State for Climate Change — mentioned Mr. Rosen. He mentioned Tree Canada, which is a non-profit organization out of Ottawa that is trying to preserve trees — a very noble goal. I hope they come to Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, because we could use some help with that. It was suggested by Michael Rosen from Tree Canada…. He's quoted as saying: "It's to do with urbanization and restricting urbanization and that sort of stuff." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I'm trying to figure out, looking at my community, what lands would be encapsulated and be covered by this bill. I heard one example from Prince George from the minister. He mentioned a brewery. I guess they must have some fields or whatever, or maybe they have some lands additional to the…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
M. Sather: I could do it. I mean, I know it's a good deal to plant trees wherever you can, but a major cornerstone in the government's plan to fight climate change? Whoa. I'll tell you, we've got a lot of worries if this is what the government is depending upon to fight climate change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
I'll tell you one thing that does worry me, though. I've heard a couple of the government members talk about carbon offsets. I see what they're doing with so-called carbon offsets and carbon trading, which is somewhat different but related. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In Maple Ridge and throughout the province — I mentioned this before — they are planting trees. There's a company that goes around planting trees in forests that are already intact forests. Not only do they plant trees there, but they cut down mature trees and plant seedlings, and then they say they're going to get a credit for this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If this is what the government has in mind for afforestation, then we're really in big trouble — big-time trouble. We've got to hear a lot of detail that I can't imagine is going to be there, from what I've seen so far. We have to hear some meat in this bill when we get to the committee stage in order to have any confidence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mean, it's one of these feel-good kinds of things. You say zero net deforestation. Well, who wouldn't want to have that? But then you look at what the bill is actually saying, and to say it falls far short of the mark is far too complimentary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve my place to resume the debate, and at this time I'll move adjournment of the debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
[1850]
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I Chong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada