Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

OFFICIAL REPORT OF

DEBATES OF THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)

Monday, March 26, 2012

Afternoon Sitting
Volume 33, Number 2

THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Entered Confederation July 20, 1871)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR
His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC

Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Honourable Bill Barisoff

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark
Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon
Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ...........................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak
Minister of Advanced Education.................................................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Yamamoto
Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Don McRae
Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................ Hon. Mary McNeil
Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.................................................................................................. Hon. Ida Chong
Minister of Education .........................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott
Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Housing.........................................................................Hon. Rich Coleman
Minister of Environment .................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake
Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Thomson
Minister of Health .................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC
Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation ................................................................................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell
Minister of State for Multiculturalism ........................................................................................................................................Hon. John Yap
Minister of Justice and Attorney General............................................................................................................................Hon. Shirley Bond
Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government................................................................ Hon. Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid
Minister of Social Development ................................................................................................................................. Hon. Stephanie Cadieux
Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................Hon. Blair Lekstrom

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Leader of the Official Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix

Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid
Assistant Deputy Speaker ..................................................................................................................................................................Dawn Black
Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ...................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James
Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees ................................................................................................................................. Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC
Clerk Consultant ..............................................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC
Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz
 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS
Abbott, Hon. George (BC Liberal) ....................................................... Shuswap
Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena
Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton
Barisoff, Hon. Bill (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Penticton
Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin
Bell, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) .................................... Prince George–Mackenzie
Bennett, Bill (BC Liberal).............................................................Kootenay East
Black, Dawn (NDP) ................................................................New Westminster
Bloy, Harry (BC Liberal) .....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed
Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount
Brar, Jagrup (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Fleetwood
Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) .................................Surrey-Panorama
Cantelon, Ron (BC Liberal) ............................................. Parksville-Qualicum
Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End
Chong, Hon. Ida (BC Liberal) .................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head
Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ........................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds
Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal).................................Vancouver–Point Grey
Coell, Murray (BC Liberal) ..............................Saanich North and the Islands
Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) .......................... Fort Langley–Aldergrove
Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West
Coons, Gary (NDP) .........................................................................North Coast
Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake
Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission
de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West
Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway
Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine
Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington
Falcon, Hon. Kevin (BC Liberal) .........................................Surrey-Cloverdale
Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam
Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake
Foster, Eric (BC Liberal).......................................................Vernon-Monashee
Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacific Rim
Gentner, Guy (NDP).........................................................................Delta North
Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers
Hansen, Colin (BC Liberal) ........................................... Vancouver-Quilchena
Hawes, Randy (BC Liberal) .............................................. Abbotsford-Mission
Hayer, Dave S. (BC Liberal) ................................................... Surrey-Tynehead
Heed, Kash (BC Liberal) ............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview
Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock
Horgan, John (NDP) ....................................................................... Juan de Fuca
Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal)..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain
Howard, Rob (BC Liberal) .................................................... Richmond Centre
Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South
James, Carole (NDP).........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill
Karagianis, Maurine (NDP)........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads
Krog, Leonard (NDP) ........................................................................... Nanaimo
Krueger, Kevin (BC Liberal) .............................. Kamloops–South Thompson
Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant
Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson
Lali, Harry (NDP) ..........................................................................Fraser-Nicola
Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North
Lekstrom, Hon. Blair (BC Liberal) ...................................... Peace River South
Les, John (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Chilliwack
Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)........................................Kelowna–Lake Country
MacDiarmid, Hon. Dr. Margaret (BC Liberal) .............. Vancouver-Fairview
Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke
McIntyre, Joan (BC Liberal) .................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky
McNeil, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) ................................Vancouver–False Creek
McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) .................................................. Comox Valley
Mungall, Michelle (NDP)..........................................................Nelson-Creston
Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North
Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley
Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South
Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley
Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ............................................................Richmond East
Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley
Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan
Rustad, John (BC Liberal) .......................................................... Nechako Lakes
Sather, Michael (NDP) ......................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows
Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast
Simpson, Bob (Ind.).....................................................................Cariboo North
Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings
Slater, John (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen
Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) .................................................... Westside-Kelowna
Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara
Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano
Thomson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission
Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville
Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal).......................... North Vancouver–Seymour
Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island
van Dongen, John (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South
Yamamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale
Yap, John Hon. (BC Liberal) ............................................Richmond-Steveston
Vacant .........................................................................................Chilliwack-Hope
Vacant ............................................................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam
Party Standings: BC Liberal 47; New Democratic 34; Independent 2; Vacant 2
LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING
Abbotsford-Mission .......................................................................Randy Hawes
Abbotsford South.....................................................................John van Dongen
Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC
Alberni–Pacific Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser
Boundary-Similkameen .....................................................................John Slater
Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan
Burnaby-Edmonds ......................................................................... Raj Chouhan
Burnaby-Lougheed ............................................................................ Harry Bloy
Burnaby North.............................................................................. Richard T. Lee
Cariboo-Chilcotin........................................................................Donna Barnett
Cariboo North ................................................................................ Bob Simpson
Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Les
Chilliwack-Hope ........................................................................................Vacant
Columbia River–Revelstoke.................................................. Norm Macdonald
Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon. Don McRae
Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne
Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Diane Thorne
Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley
Delta North ......................................................................................Guy Gentner
Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington
Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis
Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman
Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................ Harry Lali
Juan de Fuca ..................................................................................... John Horgan
Kamloops–North Thompson............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake
Kamloops–South Thompson ...................................................... Kevin Krueger
Kelowna–Lake Country ............................................................... Norm Letnick
Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Thomson
Kootenay East ....................................................................................Bill Bennett
Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy
Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak
Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton
Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................Michael Sather
Nanaimo ......................................................................................... Leonard Krog
Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley
Nechako Lakes .................................................................................. John Rustad
Nelson-Creston........................................................................Michelle Mungall
New Westminster ..............................................................................Dawn Black
North Coast....................................................................................... Gary Coons
North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena
North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Yamamoto
North Vancouver–Seymour ................................................. Jane Thornthwaite
Oak Bay–Gordon Head ............................................................ Hon. Ida Chong
Parksville-Qualicum ..................................................................... Ron Cantelon
Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm
Peace River South ...............................................................Hon. Blair Lekstrom
Penticton................................................................................... Hon. Bill Barisoff
Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth
Port Moody–Coquitlam ............................................................................Vacant
Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons
Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................Hon. Pat Bell
Prince George–Valemount................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond
Richmond Centre ............................................................................ Rob Howard
Richmond East ................................................................................... Linda Reid
Richmond-Steveston.................................................................... Hon. John Yap
Saanich North and the Islands ..................................................... Murray Coell
Saanich South ................................................................................ Lana Popham
Shuswap ...............................................................................Hon. George Abbott
Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin
Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson
Surrey-Cloverdale .................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon
Surrey-Fleetwood ...............................................................................Jagrup Brar
Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell
Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains
Surrey-Panorama ........................................................ Hon. Stephanie Cadieux
Surrey-Tynehead ........................................................................... Dave S. Hayer
Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. Bruce Ralston
Surrey–White Rock....................................................................... Gordon Hogg
Vancouver-Fairview .......................................Hon. Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid
Vancouver–False Creek........................................................ Hon. Mary McNeil
Vancouver-Fraserview ........................................................................Kash Heed
Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson
Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore
Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix
Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ......................................... Jenny Wai Ching Kwan
Vancouver–Point Grey ......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark
Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................................... Colin Hansen
Vancouver–West End ............................................... Spencer Chandra Herbert
Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster
Victoria–Beacon Hill.......................................................................Carole James
Victoria–Swan Lake......................................................................... Rob Fleming
West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan
West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ........................................................ Joan McIntyre
Westside-Kelowna .............................................................................Ben Stewart
 CONTENTS

Monday, March 26, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 10329

Tributes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10329

Merritt Centennials hockey playoffs win
H. Lali

Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 10330

Statements (Standing Order 25B) ....................................................................................................................................... 10330

Cassidy Megan and Purple Day
R. Cantelon
Port of Prince Rupert
G. Coons
Avalanche awareness and North Shore Rescue
J. Thornthwaite
Epilepsy awareness
G. Gentner
Bear safety programs
J. Slater
Teck initiative for reduction of nutritional zinc deficiency
K. Conroy

Oral Questions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10332

Changes to federal legislation on fish habitat protection
A. Dix
Hon. T. Lake
R. Fleming
Impact of power project on Ashlu Creek fish stocks
M. Sather
Hon. T. Lake
Release of media correspondence with government to Eminata Group
M. Mungall
Hon. N. Yamamoto
J. Horgan
S. Simpson
Jumbo Glacier resort proposal
N. Macdonald
Hon. S. Thomson
Catalyst mill operations and workers
N. Simons
Hon. P. Bell
C. Trevena
S. Fraser

Personal Statement ................................................................................................................................................................ 10337

Resignation from caucus
J. van Dongen
 Orders of the Day

Introduction and First Reading of Bills .............................................................................................................................. 10338

Bill 27 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2012
Hon. K. Falcon

Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 10338

Bill 27 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2012
Hon. K. Falcon
B. Ralston

Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 10339

Bill 27 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2012
B. Ralston
Hon. K. Falcon

Report and Third Reading of Bills....................................................................................................................................... 10341

Bill 27 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2012

Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 10341

Bill 20 — Auditor General for Local Government Act
Hon. I. Chong
H. Lali
B. Ralston
K. Corrigan
V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................................................................ 10365

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (continued)
Hon. M. Polak
S. Fraser
B. Simpson
J. Kwan
Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture
Hon. D. McRae
L. Popham

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012
The House met at 1:35 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is someone
that was renamed by my colleague from Kootenay West as
St. Ellie. That would be my spouse, Ellie Horgan, the only
woman I've ever met that is able to overlook all of my failings
day after day after day. Joining her from the great state of
Alberta are her brother, Rick Mast, and his able and charm-
ing wife, also able to overlook shortcomings, Aileen Mast.
Would the House please make my in-laws and my love-
ly spouse very welcome.
R. Cantelon: My better half — certainly, by far my bet-
ter half — is joining me in the gallery today. It's a very
special day for us. I've loved her and she's been with me
now for 18 years. It's our anniversary today, so please give
her a special welcome.
V. Huntington: It gives me great pleasure to introduce
two long lost relatives of mine, who I've only discovered
today. Andrew and Robert Orr are in the gallery to see
this wonderful question period. I hope the House joins
me in making them very welcome.
G. Gentner: It's an honour for me to introduce family
members in the House as well — my mother, who is
a constituent of the member for Delta South, Doreen
Gentner, a renowned drummer. Now she is taking up
the ukulele. She is a great artist. With her is my sister
Karen, who got all the good looks. She's a constituent
from Chilliwack-Hope. She is a public nurse, and she is
also a dairy farmer.
Beside her is her daughter, Teresa, a student of the
Fraser Valley University. She is also a senator of the uni-
versity. It's hard for a New Democrat to admit that he has
a relative who is a senator, but she was elected.
Would the House please make them welcome.
R. Hawes: Today is Purple Day, which is a day to re-
member epilepsy, to think about epilepsy.
Today in the gallery are some people from the Fraser
Valley, from my riding. First, Laura Yake is with the
Fraser Valley Epilepsy Society. Belinda Robertson is
from Chilliwack who, on behalf of our member from
Chilliwack, I'd like to also mention. Lastly, Ted and Janis
Downey are the parents of my son-in-law, who I actually
got a chance to introduce earlier today.
I know there are other members that the Minister of
10329
Health is going to introduce shortly, but for them, please
may the House make them welcome.
E. Foster: In the House today we have several guests
visiting from around the world, actually. My wife Janice
is here, always supporting me. Janice and I, as I have
mentioned in the House a few times before, have taken
in international students for many years.
My good friend and now the mayor of Lumby — he
took my job there — His Worship Kevin Acton is with
us. His soon-to-be wife, Jen James, is with us, and their
daughter Phoebe. Visiting from Mexico we have Liz
Degraro; from Japan, Aska Taganashi; from Bolivia,
Delsa Lanos; and from Korea, Min Hoy Kim.
I would like the House to please make them very wel-
come.
S. Fraser: I know there are some students from the
University of Victoria visiting today. I don't know if
they're here yet or not, and I actually don't know him to
recognize one student, Stephen Frampton. I have spoken
him with him on the phone, and he is due here today.
If you are here, Stephen…. I'm very impressed with
his knowledge and interest in politics, and I'd like to
make him and the other students from UVic feel very,
very welcome.
Hon. T. Lake: Today in the precinct we have a number
of folks from an umbrella organization called Organizing
for Change that hosted us at lunch today. We thank them
for an opportunity to discuss environmental issues with
them. Leading the group is Lisa Matthaus.
[1340]
We also had John Bergenske and Casey Brennan from
Wildsight; Tom Hackney of the B.C. Sustainable Energy
Association; Sarah Cox from the Sierra Club of B.C.;
Matt Horne from the Pembina Institute; Josha MacNab,
also from Pembina; Matt Takach from the Dogwood
Initiative; Christianne Wilhelmson and Ruby Berry
from the Georgia Strait Alliance; Nicola Hill from the
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; Jessica Clogg
and Andrew Gage from West Coast Environmental Law;
Joe Scott from Conservation Northwest, Pierre Iachetti
from ForestEthics; Stephanie Goodwin from Greenpeace;
and Sean Nixon from Ecojustice.
Thank you very much to the group for their discus-
sion today, and I would ask the House to please make
them welcome.
Tributes
MERRITT CENTENNIALS
HOCKEY PLAYOFFS WIN
H. Lali: The Merritt Centennials, the Junior A hock-
ey team out of Merritt, is actually the longest continu-
10330 British Columbia Debates
ously running B.C. Hockey League franchise in British
Columbia. I want to say, and I would ask in particular
my two colleagues from Prince George to join me in
congratulating the Merritt Centennials, as they swept
the Prince George Spruce Kings four games to zip to go
on to the next round of the playoffs in the BCHL. Would
the House please congratulate the Merritt Centennials.
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. de Jong: In addition to Ted, Janis, Laura and
Belinda, who are from the Fraser Valley, taking part in
Purple Day for epilepsy awareness, from Victoria and
the south Island are a group of individuals who dedicate
themselves on a daily basis to highlighting the challenges
people who suffer from epilepsy face and challenge all of
us to assist in research and finding an elusive cure.
Katriona Johnson; Vanessa Isherwood; Roxanne
Moore; Lise Anthony — and Lise is here with India, her
beautiful Lab assistance dog; Terry Beaton; Lindsay Beal;
and Nathan Lampbert are all from the south Island, all
in the gallery. All, I know, will feel welcome in these pre-
cincts.
R. Fleming: I want to join my colleague from Alberni–
Pacific Rim, who jumped me in the queue to introduce
24 students, in fact, from the UVic NDP Club here today.
There are a few of them that I know especially well: Raizy
Marmorstein, Leah Ritch, Dylan Sherlock and Darcy
Lindberg. They will be taking in question period and then
meeting with the Leader of the Official Opposition and
several caucus MLAs following question period.
Then something of a tradition now for visiting univer-
sity groups, they will get a tour by the member for Powell
River–Sunshine Coast of the buildings, of which the his-
torical accuracy of the content of his tour cannot be veri-
fied at all. Nevertheless, would the House please make all
of these guests welcome here today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CASSIDY MEGAN AND PURPLE DAY
R. Cantelon: Every year on March 26 people across
the world wear purple in support of those living with
epilepsy. Epilepsy is a brain disease that is characterized
by recurrent seizures, and it affects approximately one
in 100 people. There are about 300,000 Canadians and
40,000 British Columbians living with epilepsy.
Cassidy Megan of Nova Scotia is one of them. She's
also the founder of Purple Day for epilepsy awareness.
In 2008 nine-year-old Cassidy decided she wanted to
help raise awareness about her disease. She wanted to
dispel any myths about the disease and help connect
people living with epilepsy to support networks, treat-
Monday, March 26, 2012
ments and services.
She approached her principal with the idea for Purple
Day. Cassidy chose the colour purple because the inter-
national colour for epilepsy is lavender, and lavender is a
flower often associated with solitude. But Cassidy wanted
people with epilepsy across the world to know that they
are not the alone and that we support them.
Taking part in Purple Day can be as simple as wearing
a purple T-shirt, a purple tie — I see much purple here to-
day, which is wonderful — or taking time to learn about
epilepsy and the people that it affects.
Our healthy communities depend on everyone sup-
porting each other, and I hope all members will join me
in celebrating Purple Day this year.
[1345]
PORT OF PRINCE RUPERT
G. Coons: Safest, deepest, closest to Asia. To what am
I referring, you ask? My hometown, specifically the Port
of Prince Rupert. We are blessed to have one of the safest
harbours in North America with a proud track record of
securely moving ships to and from the Pacific Ocean —
one of the deepest ports, making it a natural choice as a
gateway for the dramatic growth in trade with Asia. As
every member in this House knows, we are the closest
port to Asia by up to three days over other ports.
Last week marked the 40th anniversary of the Port of
Prince Rupert being designated a national harbour by
the government of Canada. But the port's history actual-
ly reaches back over 100 years, when the first train cars
arrived in Prince Rupert from Winnipeg on the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway. This launched Prince Rupert on
the path to developing as one of Canada's most critical
intermodal facilities. The port has come a long way.
In the '70s the first deep-sea facility, Fairview Terminal,
was opened as a break-bulk facility. In the '80s Ridley
Island's coal and grain terminals were developed. In
2007 the port developed a whole new industry, contain-
ers shipped out of the Fairview Container Terminal. The
growth is so impressive that plans to double capacity
have started.
The impact on B.C.'s prosperity is clear. Over 2,000
people from Prince Rupert and other northern com-
munities work at transporting cargo through the port.
The direct economic impact last year was over $120 mil-
lion in wages and $270 million in GDP, and new planned
expansions will unleash billions more in forestry, min-
ing and other B.C. resource investment — all this while
maintaining their commitment to sustainability and en-
gaging with First Nations and communities to create a
new standard in viewing their development and oper-
ations through a long-term lens.
Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago Prince Rupert was designat-
ed a national harbour, and I'm excited about the next 40
years. I'm proud of my city's contribution to our nation's
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
well-being. It is truly an honour to call Prince Rupert
home and represent this amazing community.
AVALANCHE AWARENESS AND
NORTH SHORE RESCUE
J. Thornthwaite: British Columbians are truly bless-
ed to live in a region with extraordinary natural beauty.
I, like many British Columbians, enjoy a variety of out-
door recreational activities in B.C.'s mountains. I am
particularly fond of Mount Seymour. However, these ac-
tivities can come with a real danger of avalanches. This
winter has been filled with many tragic stories of ava-
lanches across our province and has regrettably resulted
in numerous fatalities. There have been close calls and
injuries as well.
This past Saturday, for instance, four hikers needed
rescue on Grouse Mountain. On the North Shore we are
privileged to have North Shore Rescue to provide assist-
ance to people in distress. North Shore Rescue, a team of
approximately 40 dedicated volunteers, conducts rough-
ly 90 search and rescue operations on the North Shore
mountains each year.
In addition, this remarkable team engages with the
public and civil authorities by sharing their knowledge
and experience. I regularly speak with Tim Jones of
North Shore Rescue. He reinforces just how busy this
season has been, conducting helicopter rescues on the
north shore slope.
I was a guest on a Talon helicopter, actually, with North
Shore Rescue in 2009, and that was an exciting experience.
As this winter has demonstrated to us, we all need to be
avalanche aware while we enjoy our beautiful outdoors.
To learn more about how to safely enjoy our mountains,
I urge everyone to visit websites such as avalanche.ca
or northshorerescue.com. Additionally, I encourage all
British Columbians to consider supporting their local
search and rescue organization.
EPILEPSY AWARENESS
G. Gentner: I remember the day it happened. We were
just kids then, just hanging around, about four or five of
us standing at the end of my driveway. I think a cigarette
was being passed around when Rob took it, and he fell
backwards. His eyes rolled to the back of his head, his
head struck the jagged rocks in the driveway, and his
body twitched and shook. We really didn't know what
to do. We didn't take him seriously, because Rob was
always the prankster. We thought it was another one of
his jokes. We knew something was wrong, but before we
could do anything, Rob got himself up, dusted himself
off and asked that we wouldn't say anything to anyone,
including his parents.
But I took it upon myself to talk to his parents any-
way. His mother — I remember it well — while leaning
10331
against the kitchen counter, said: "Oh, not my Rob." His
father, Sid, with a T-shirt and suspenders, sat on a chair
at the table and buried his head in his hands. He looked
at me and said thank you, and took me to the front door.
I or none of my friends — we didn't see Rob much
anymore. It didn't have to be that way, because epilepsy
can be treated. Today is Purple Day, a day dedicated to
increasing awareness about epilepsy, a disorder of the
brain function that takes the form of recurring seizures.
It is more common than you may think.
[1350]
It's time to understand and dispel the myths and in-
form those with seizures that they are not alone. There
is reluctance to talk about it, particularly when I grew up.
The Epilepsy Foundation provides support, and it's time
to reduce the stigma and create a more welcoming and
inclusive society.
I heard recently that Rob had died about 15 years ago,
and no one knows of what or how. But on behalf of my
chums and myself, I hope that you forgave us, Rob. We
were just kids then, and we really didn't understand.
BEAR SAFETY PROGRAMS
J. Slater: The signs of spring are popping up all around
us. The days are longer. The tulips are starting to come
up. The campgrounds are open, and Yogi and Boo-Boo
are waking up.
Every year you hear of the troubles with the bears
in campgrounds along streams, rivers and more now
in our neighbourhoods. In order to keep our families
and properties safe, the British Columbia Conservation
Foundation has created a guide, the Bear Safety at Home
pamphlet, that is distributed throughout the province to
educate homeowners on how to keep bears out of our
neighbourhoods, how to keep families safe and prevent
the unnecessary destruction of bears.
Brenda Lacroix, who is the executive director of the
Christina Lake Stewardship Society, and her team of vol-
unteers have been conducting a very active Bear Aware
program over the years throughout the community. In
2011 they distributed 1,051 Bear Aware packages, de-
livered eight press releases and spent 762 hours educat-
ing the residents, businesses and visitors on how to be
bear-proof.
Feeding or allowing bears to access human food
sources leads to bears being killed. There is enough food
for bears in the wild.
At the annual general meeting of the Christina Lake
Stewardship Society held last week, Brenda Lacroix and
the society received an appreciation certificate from the
conservation officer services of the Boundary-Kootenay
for their work and dedication in educating the commun-
ity and visitors on Bear Aware. I, too, would like to send
my congratulations to Brenda and the society for doing
a great job in keeping Christina Lake safe and in keep-
10332 British Columbia Debates
ing our bears alive.
TECK INITIATIVE FOR REDUCTION OF
NUTRITIONAL ZINC DEFICIENCY
K. Conroy: Here are some concerning facts, Mr.
Speaker. The number of people worldwide who are not
getting enough zinc through their diet, two billion; the
number of people who die annually from zinc deficiency
and related disorders, 800,000; and the number of chil-
dren who die each year from zinc deficiency, 450,000.
As a significant producer of zinc, when Teck first learn-
ed of the devastating impact of zinc deficiency, it recog-
nized the role that it could play in finding solutions to
this global issue. In fact, the amount of zinc required an-
nually for zinc supplements to treat all cases of zinc defi-
ciency is less than 2 percent of Teck's production and less
than 0.1 percent of global zinc production.
The challenge the world faces is not producing more
zinc; it is getting zinc into the diets of people suffering
from zinc deficiency. This requires education, better dis-
tribution networks and greater awareness of the dangers
of zinc deficiency.
Teck's zinc and health initiative is aimed at helping
address these issues by raising awareness about zinc
deficiency with the goal of helping to save children's
lives. Teck has set up zinc and health captains at all of
their operations to help spread the word. In Trail, Capt.
Catherine Adair has ensured each of her over 1,500 col-
leagues on site have learned about the zinc and health
awareness campaign.
Teck has also joined with the highly successful We
Days in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where over
40,000 youth, educators and special guests plus a large
on-line presence learned about the global issues of zinc
deficiency. They were also encouraged to bring house-
hold batteries for recycling. A standard double-A battery
has enough zinc inside it to save the lives of six children.
Thousands of batteries were collected, and all of them
were recycled at the Trail operations, reducing landfill
waste and allowing zinc in the batteries to be recovered
and reused.
It's a wonderful initiative not only for our environment
but ultimately for saving children's lives.
Oral Questions
CHANGES TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION
ON FISH HABITAT PROTECTION
A. Dix: Last week it was revealed that the federal gov-
ernment intends to make significant changes to the feder-
al Fisheries Act. In particular, there's a proposal to delete
protection for fish habitat in section 34(1) of the act.
[1355]
A former federal Fisheries Minister, a Conservative,
Monday, March 26, 2012
John Fraser, has said that to take habitat out of the
Fisheries Act is a serious error because you can't save fish
if you don't save habitat.
I want to ask the Minister of Environment if he agrees
with Mr. Fraser. What consultations have taken place be-
tween the province and the federal government on these
proposed changes?
Hon. T. Lake: Thank you very much to the Leader of
the Opposition for the question. The federal Minister of
the Environment and I have a very good working rela-
tionship, and we have been discussing some of the chan-
ges that are contemplated federally.
I would say to the member opposite that this govern-
ment is committed to protecting fish habitat, to making
sure that environmental sustainability is at the forefront
of all the policies that we do here in British Columbia.
We will continue to make sure that that is the policy go-
ing into the future.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a sup-
plemental.
A. Dix: If the minister in fact believes in protecting
fish habitat in the Fisheries Act, then surely he would
agree that taking it out would be a bad thing. And 625
scientists have said so in a letter they've written to the
Prime Minister.
If the minister has had discussions, has he communi-
cated the strong and, I think, passionate view of all British
Columbians of all political stripes in favour of protecting
the fishery? Has he communicated that view, and does
he oppose taking specific protection for fish habitat out
of the Fisheries Act?
Hon. T. Lake: Well, as I mentioned, it's critical to en-
sure that we have environmental sustainability in all
decision-making here in British Columbia. These chan-
ges to the Fisheries Act are very recent, as the member
has suggested. We will have opportunities to discuss, with
both the federal Environment Minister and the minis-
ter responsible for fisheries, those changes and how they
impact sustainable environmental commitments here in
British Columbia.
I will say again to the member opposite that this gov-
ernment is committed to environmental sustainability,
to making sure that we develop our resources in a way
that all British Columbians are proud of, and we will con-
tinue to do that.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a fur-
ther supplemental.
A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, the minister will know that
it has been suggested that these changes will be brought
in, in two days, connected with the federal budget, which
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
means that the concern is immediate. I think he would
agree with that. The government in Ottawa has a major-
ity, and they may intend to push through that legisla-
tion rather quickly. Two former Conservative Fisheries
Ministers…. Mr. Fraser, of course, says there's "no justi-
fiable excuse" for these changes, and Mr. Tom Siddon
called these changes "a very serious error."
If, as the minister suggested, the government is com-
mitted to the protection of fish habitat, will he make it
clear today and plain today to the federal government
that the B.C. government does not support changes that
weaken section 34(1) of the Fisheries Act?
Hon. T. Lake: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House
we actually like to base our decisions and our discus-
sions on evidence. At this point the changes that the
member opposite is suggesting have not been made. We
will evaluate any changes that impact the environmental
sustainability of this province and have discussions when
that evidence is presented, rather than jumping to the an-
swer before we have evidence in front of us. This govern-
ment will make decisions based on evidence, and that's
what we will do in this circumstance.
R. Fleming: The problem with what the Minister of
Environment just said about discussions is that nobody
has asked the province of British Columbia about these
proposed changes. We know there was no testimony by
the province to the government's review. B.C. was either
not invited or not interested in what has become a sweep-
ing and hugely controversial change to the Fisheries Act.
My question is to the Minister of Environment. Having
learned that his federal counterparts plan on completely
compromising the requirements to study and review im-
pacts on fish habitat and ecosystems that are part of an
environmental assessment process in British Columbia,
in Canada now, what is his message to the federal gov-
ernment?
[1400]
Does he agree to go along to get along with his federal
counterparts, who seek to turn the clock back four dec-
ades, muzzle scientists and ram through changes that
strip away the integrity of environmental review in our
province, or does he have another view of the matter?
Hon. T. Lake: I rise with some trepidation because it
sounds like "The sky is falling. The sky is falling." We will
await to see what changes are in store federally in an area
in which the federal government has jurisdiction. We will
discuss with our federal counterparts any impact that it
may have on the environmental sustainability of British
Columbia. This government is committed to making
decisions and making policies based on evidence rather
than speculation. We'll continue to do that.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
10333
R. Fleming: We've just heard from the Minister
of Environment that the time to talk about British
Columbia's position is after legislation hits the floor of
the House of Commons. That's what he said is good
enough for him and his government here.
The proposed revisions are out there. They will disable
the pillars of environmental protection in Canada and
make it almost impossible to ever trigger an environ-
mental assessment in B.C. again by the federal statutes.
A former 32-year veteran of DFO, a senior scientist, says
that this will put Canada where we were in the pre-1976
era, when there were no laws to protect fish habitat.
So my question, again, to the minister: has the minister
contemplated how this will burden his own ministry, the
environmental assessment office here in British Columbia
— an agency that the Auditor General slammed for fail-
ing to monitor completed projects, many with sensitive
fish habitat areas? And will he stand here in the House
today and call on the federal government to delay any
changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
until British Columbia has its chance to make its views?
Hon. T. Lake: It is with great interest that I see the
member's new-found enthusiasm for environmental
issues, like perhaps CO2, that he's just finally realized is a
problem in the world today. This side of the House is con-
cerned about environmental sustainability, to make sure
that this province is in fact left in a state that our children
and grandchildren can be proud that they have the same
opportunities for life that we have had. The only way to
do that is to protect the environment. I am committed —
this ministry is committed; this government is commit-
ted — to protecting the environment in British Columbia.
IMPACT OF POWER PROJECT ON
ASHLU CREEK FISH STOCKS
M. Sather: Unfortunately, the sky literally is falling
for the fish in Ashlu Creek. Our recent FOI, freedom-of-
information, requests have shown a real disturbing pat-
tern of fish kills in the Ashlu at the private power project.
My question is to the Minister of Natural Resource
Operations. Can the minister explain what steps this gov-
ernment has taken, in the three years since this project
has been in place, to eliminate the killing of fish? And has
this government increased monitoring at other projects
in light of these revelations?
Hon. T. Lake: In fact, the Ministry of Forests, Lands
and Natural Resource Operations, the compliance work-
ers and employees…. We are working with those propon-
ents. They pointed out the difficulties that were identified
and ensured there were changes that occurred. Hundreds
of thousands, if not millions, of dollars were spent by pro-
ponents to ensure that those problems were looked after.
Again, we are making sure that there is sustainability, that
10334 British Columbia Debates
we develop clean, renewable power in this province in an
environmentally sustainable way.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
[1405]
M. Sather: I don't know how the people of British
Columbia can trust anything that this minister says. The
freedom-of-information material also revealed that there
were six species of fish in the Ashlu River, while the pro-
ponents, when he filed out the environmental assessment,
only identified one species of fish.
Can the minister explain how people in this province
are supposed to believe what the Liberals say about the
environmental impacts of private power projects when
there is such a huge disconnect between fact and fiction
rubber-stamped by this government?
Hon. T. Lake: Let me quote from Chief Bill Cranmer
from the 'Namgis First Nation. "We the 'Namgis expect
our children's children to be fishing and recreating on
the Kokish River, as their ancestors have. We would not
compromise our cultural or environmental values and
ethics for this or any other project."
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are
against every clean and renewable project in this prov-
ince — every single one. We believe that developing our
resources in a sustainable way, in a way that allows First
Nations economic opportunity, that provides clean, green
power to this province is the right thing to do, and that's
what we're going to do.
RELEASE OF MEDIA CORRESPONDENCE
WITH GOVERNMENT TO EMINATA GROUP
M. Mungall: The recent resignation of the former
Minister of State for Multiculturalism concerning a
leaked e-mail to a Liberal Party donor and the events sur-
rounding it have called into question the Liberals' abil-
ity to work in the public interest. I know the Minister of
Advanced Education would like to put this all behind
her, but there are still many, many questions that remain.
On Monday, March 12, the minister told this House
that she did not share an e-mail from a Province news-
paper reporter with Eminata Group. The question is: did
the minister know at that time that her ministerial assist-
ant had leaked a hard-copy printout of the e-mail to the
Minister of State, who of course has no responsibility for
regulating private post-secondary institutions?
Hon. N. Yamamoto: We thoroughly canvassed this
issue the last time we were in the House. My office did
nothing wrong. The member for Burnaby-Lougheed has
apologized. He did the honourable thing, and he resigned
from his position in the cabinet.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
M. Mungall: It's a real shame that the Minister of
Advanced Education is refusing to answer further ques-
tions on this issue. There are many questions, as I said,
so I will continue asking those questions on behalf of the
public and the public's interest.
On Wednesday, March 14, I asked what the minister
had found on the leaked e-mail, and the minister said:
"…there has been no e-mail sent by myself, from my of-
fice or ministry staff to the organization that the member
opposite is referring to."
My question is: did the minister know at that time that
the Minister of State for Multiculturalism had leaked the
e-mail? And if she knew, why did she hide that fact from
the House?
Hon. N. Yamamoto: We have canvassed this issue. I
can repeat for the member opposite exactly what hap-
pened, but all the member opposite has to do is to look
into Hansard. We canvassed this question. Our office did
nothing wrong. I was not aware of any e-mail — until I
read an article in the Province newspaper — that had
been shared with my minister's office and another min-
istry.
J. Horgan: My question is also to the Minister of
Advanced Education. We know now that her minister-
ial assistant took a hard copy of an e-mail to the min-
istry and gave it to the former Minister of State for
Multiculturalism.
Our question is a very simple one. When did the min-
ister know that her ministerial staff had taken confiden-
tial information and transmitted it to a third party, which
ended up in the hands of someone that she regulates?
When did that happen? Be specific.
[1410]
Hon. N. Yamamoto: In fact, I do have my Hansard
transcript here. I just don't have it in front of me. Again,
I would ask the members opposite to look up Hansard.
It's been canvassed in the media as well. I stand by my
statements.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Multiculturalism has
stepped down. He has apologized. He did the honour-
able thing.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
J. Horgan: Again, to the minister: the minister's staff
member, her ministerial assistant, took information —
and gave it to another minister — that ended up in the
hands of a body that's regulated by that ministry. Surely
to goodness, at a minimum, the minister has taken some
steps with that staff member. Perhaps she could elucidate
the House and advise us what she's doing to try and get
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
control over the regulatory responsibilities of her min-
istry.
Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I've already mentioned to the
members opposite and to the media, there are circum-
stances and there are times that ministers share informa-
tion with other ministers. That is not unusual. On this
side of the House we work as a team. We expect confi-
dentiality.
I know it's hard for the members opposite to under-
stand that. They haven't been in government for a while.
We do this sharing of information with the ministries,
and we're expected to do that.
S. Simpson: My question, again, is to the Minister of
Advanced Education. Will the minister tell this House
whether she inquired of her ministerial assistant as to
why he made the decision to provide the e-mail to the
Minister of State for Multiculturalism, and will she tell
this House what the response was?
Hon. N. Yamamoto: We have canvassed this issue in
the House. My statement is in Hansard. My ministerial
assistant…. The office has not done anything wrong. The
only issue was the sharing of this information with some-
body outside of government.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
S. Simpson: The minister is accountable for what goes
on in her office, and her performance today says she
doesn't know what's going on in her office.
The minister has not told this House when she found
out. She has not provided that information. She has not
told this House what the explanation for her ministerial
assistant choosing to give that e-mail to the Minister of
State for Multiculturalism was. Will the minister get up
in this House, provide some disclosure and tell us why
that happened and why the ministerial assistant did what
he did?
Hon. N. Yamamoto: I do have my statement, which I
stand by. This is what I said two weeks ago, I believe, in
the House.
"I want all members in this House to know exactly what hap-
pened. On Monday I became aware of an article that was written
in the Province newspaper. In that article they indicated that a
representative from Eminata was in receipt of a copy of an e-mail
that originated from a reporter that had been sent to my Advanced
Education communications department.
"The reporter had asked for a response to some questions re-
garding a private post-secondary institution. An e-mail was sent
back to the reporter, with a response to those questions for the
article. So just to be clear, that is the e-mail that is in question.
"After finding out about this — and in the newspaper — I did
take steps to find out exactly what had happened. So later that day
I was advised that a printout of the e-mail was passed along to the
office of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. That was done
by my ministerial assistant on February 20, and I was not aware
10335
of that, nor did I direct that.
[1415]
"I have since learned that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism
passed it on to a representative from Eminata. That was wrong.
Yesterday the Minister of State for Multiculturalism acknowledged
his error in judgment. He has apologized for that."
That was what was recorded in Hansard. I think the
issue has been fully canvassed and answered.
JUMBO GLACIER RESORT PROPOSAL
N. Macdonald: Well, let's see if we can do better with
answers than that. Let's go to the minister responsible for
the decision on Jumbo. Every measure of public opinion
in the Columbia Valley for the past 20 years has made
it clear that people who know that project the best have
been against it.
I'll just remind the minister of some of the indications
of that: 91 percent actually against it in the environmental
assessment process; Invermere mayor and council con-
sistently against the project; 79 percent opposed in a ref-
erendum; the Ktunaxa First Nation is strongly opposed.
After all the petitions, all the demonstrations, all the
letters, the minister has chosen to ignore the residents of
the Columbia Valley and instead impose a development.
It's no wonder, I suppose, that the minister hid away as
far as he could from the Columbia Valley when he made
the announcement.
The question I have for the minister is: does the min-
ister seriously think that the people in the Kootenays are
going to quietly sit by while he attempts to impose a de-
velopment in Jumbo Valley?
Hon. S. Thomson: This is a project that has had the
most extensive review process, the most extensive con-
sultation process in history — over 20 years, as the mem-
ber opposite referenced. This is, again, a pattern that
seems to be developing — opposing economic develop-
ment projects that have been through processes, a change
in policy. Again, the member referenced 20 years.
I know they don't like to be reminded of the past, but
let me read a letter of support from former leader — and
former Premier — of the NDP Mike Harcourt to the
proponent of this resort. He says: "I hope that you will
be able to proceed on this project and that one day we
may see this international venture realized." That day is
now 20 years through the process, through a legitimate
process with environmental assessment. It was time that
the decision was made, and we're proud that we've made
that decision.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
N. Macdonald: Well, I mean, these are projects that
are best understood locally. The minister quotes a for-
mer mayor of Vancouver. The fact is that, consistently,
people who have been there have understood the projects.
10336 British Columbia Debates
If you look at Kootenay communities, if you look at the
Ktunaxa, you will consistently have…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
N. Macdonald: …individuals who know these pro-
jects well. They have developed resorts in the area. What
they are doing is they are looking at this. They under-
stand that if you're going to develop a resort, it is im-
portant that it fit in with a long-term plan. This project
does not fit in with a long-term plan. Residents from the
area, who best understand that, have told this minister
that repeatedly.
I have a question for the minister. Is the minister pre-
senting an honest picture to potential investors? Are they
being told about the strong local opposition and the First
Nations' objections, or are B.C. Liberals again mislead-
ing investors?
Hon. S. Thomson: Maybe I'll just correct the member
opposite. That quote was not from the former mayor of
Vancouver. That quote was from the former leader and
the Premier of the province at the time. That is a quote
from an official communication from the Office of the
Premier.
Let's be clear. This project has been through an en-
vironmental assessment process with 195 conditions on
it — an environmental assessment approval following
the interim agreement that was provided in the 1990s.
[1420]
Again, a master resort approval. The proponent in this
case has met every test through the process and complied
with all the conditions and all the agreements. The mas-
ter development agreement ensures that those conditions
are met in the master development agreement — again,
20 years. We're pleased to have made the decision. It was
time for the decision to be made, and we look forward
to the project proceeding.
CATALYST MILL
OPERATIONS AND WORKERS
N. Simons: The livelihoods of hundreds of workers
in Crofton, Port Alberni and Powell River are hanging
in the balance as Catalyst is in bankruptcy protection.
Under the Liberals more than 35,000 jobs have vanished
from the forest industry. These coastal communities have
depended on forestry for their survival for generations,
and this situation could be devastating without the in-
volvement of government.
My question is to the minister responsible. Can he tell
us what steps he has taken to help stabilize this situation?
Hon. P. Bell: As the member opposite knows, Catalyst
Monday, March 26, 2012
is currently in a CCAA protection process. That in-
volves all different groups coming together to work with
Catalyst to try and find an opportunity for that company
to come out of protection and be a viable company again.
The provincial government is playing a role in those dis-
cussions. It's an important one, and we're looking for-
ward to, hopefully, getting a successful outcome in the
Catalyst situation.
C. Trevena: This doesn't just impact the workers who
still have jobs in the forest sector. Catalyst pensioners
across the coast, in Campbell River, Powell River, Alberni
and in the south Island have serious worries about what's
happening. Catalyst's pension plan is underfunded by as
much as $75 million. That means retired workers could
lose nearly half of what they expect to get in their retire-
ment earnings.
So I'd like to ask you, Mr. Speaker: does the minister
have any assurance for those retirees that they're not go-
ing to be the latest victims of this government's failed
forestry policy?
Hon. P. Bell: Perhaps the member opposite isn't aware
of the process that a company under protection goes
through, but that clearly is not an appropriate question
to ask while Catalyst is in that process. The process in-
volves a number of different parties coming to the table.
If the member opposite is thinking that the sole respon-
sibility for the underfunding of the pension should be
borne by the provincial government, I'd suggest she stand
up and say that.
S. Fraser: You would hope that the government and
the minister would do something. Workers are at stake
here. Pensioners are at stake here — their livelihoods.
Communities are at stake here. They've done everything
right. They've worked hard. They paid into their pen-
sion plans, and they believed it would be there when
they needed it.
Now, thanks to circumstances entirely beyond their
control, they're being let down by this government. This
is now the third Forests Minister — the third one in the
last six years — to shrug his shoulders and say: "Sorry,
there's nothing we can do." Not good enough.
Will the minister finally take some action and ensure
that these workers and retirees won't be left behind by
this government's failure in the forestry sector?
Hon. P. Bell: I find it a little bit rich listening to the
member opposite lecture us on forestry when we have
witnessed the biggest single meltdown in the U.S. hous-
ing market ever — ever — in the history of the globe. It's
this government and this leadership that charted new
waters into the Chinese marketplace, into bioenergy, into
new opportunities around tall building construction —
really innovative strategies that have led to thousands
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
and thousands of people going back to work.
What the problem is, is that the member opposite
doesn't believe that anything beyond British Columbia
can possibly impact us here. The difference on this side
of the House is we go out and find the opportunities for
our forest industry.
[1425]
[End of question period.]
J. van Dongen: I rise and ask for the attention of the
House to make a personal statement.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Personal Statement
RESIGNATION FROM CAUCUS
J. van Dongen: For almost 17 years I have risen in
this chamber to represent the best interests of my con-
stituents and the best interests of all British Columbians.
I have done so as a member of the official opposition for
six years, as a member of cabinet for eight years and as a
private member for three years.
Throughout that time I have been keenly aware of the
privilege and the responsibility that comes with being an
elected member of this assembly. I have always tried to
conduct myself in a manner consistent with the expecta-
tions of those who entrusted me with this office. I am by
no means a flawless individual but have strived for per-
sonal and political integrity. I've always taken ownership
of my own shortcomings.
I had hoped that there would have been renewal in
my party and in government, but in the last 12 months I
feel that has not happened. Indeed, every week constitu-
ents question government actions and issues that I am
not able to defend.
What I believe people expect from political leader-
ship are core values that include integrity and a genuine
commitment to public service. Integrity includes honesty,
ethics and personal character. Integrity is non-negotiable.
It is foundational for a strong organization, and most im-
portantly, integrity includes full accountability.
To this day, there are still serious unanswered ques-
tions regarding the writing off of $6 million in legal fees
in the B.C. Rail case, contrary to government policy —
questions I have been asking for a year and a half, and
questions the Auditor General is seeking answers to
through the courts. Most recently, the unexplainable
cancellation of a $35 million naming rights agreement
with TELUS is, in my view, another example of failed
leadership.
There have been other lapses in proper accountability,
and I expect more to come. When more and more de-
cisions are being made for the wrong reasons, then you
10337
have an organization that is heading for failure.
Today I rise because I can no longer carry on with my
duties as a member of government. I have decided to re-
sign as a member of the B.C. Liberal government cau-
cus, and I'm cancelling my membership with the B.C.
Liberal Party.
I believe the people of B.C. deserve a government that
will look in the mirror and honestly contemplate what
it sees, a government that people have trust and confi-
dence in, a government that models true accountability
for its actions.
To my colleagues in the government caucus as well as
those in opposition and those who sit as independent
MLAs: I celebrate each of you and your willingness to
serve the people of British Columbia. This is not an easy
job, so to all of you who continue to strive for excellence,
I applaud your efforts.
To my constituents: in the coming days and weeks I
look forward to speaking with you and further discuss-
ing the decision I have made. Indeed, I do have much
to share and will in the coming weeks make it clear that
while this was not an easy decision, it was the only deci-
sion I could arrive at in good conscience.
To the government caucus staff, constituency assistants
and party staff: it has been a privilege to work with you.
To all those public servants who I have had the honour
of working with: rest assured that my work with you to
accomplish the goals and policies that were right for all
British Columbians has been one of the most meaning-
ful aspects of my time in public office.
To my family and friends: thank you for standing by
me through some difficult times. In particular I wish
to thank Sherri and Lukas for their continued love and
support.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, looking forward, I will do
what I have done for the past 17 years. I will put my time,
energy and talents to serve my constituents and the party
that I believe can best provide British Columbians with a
broadly based, credible, free enterprise option in the next
provincial election. Therefore, I am pleased to announce
that I will now be sitting in this House as a member of
the B.C. Conservative Party.
[1430]
I look forward to continuing to work for all my
constituents in Abbotsford South and for all British
Columbians.
Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you, Members.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Coleman: In Committee A we'll be continu-
ing the estimates for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations
and Reconciliation. Following that, should we get done,
we would move to the Minister of Agriculture. In this
House we will be moving to interim supply. Following
that, we would be moving to municipal auditor general,
10338 British Columbia Debates
if we should get there. So interim supply.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 27 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2012
Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour
the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1),
2012.
Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27 be
introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. K. Falcon: Bill 27 will provide interim supply for
government operating expenses for the first nine weeks
of the 2012-2013 fiscal year. Bill 27 will provide interim
supply for 50 percent of the year's financing requirements
for voted capital expenditures and loans, investments and
other requirements. It also provides supply for 100 per-
cent of the year's requirements for revenues collected for
and transferred to other entities.
By leave, it is the intention of the government to pro-
ceed with all stages of Bill 27 this day.
Leave granted.
Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister. We've had first read-
ing on the bill.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 27 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2012
Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 27 be read a second
time now.
[1435]
Mr. Speaker, existing voted appropriations will expire
on March 31, 2012. Bill 27 will provide interim supply
until the 2012-2013 estimates have been debated and
final supply is voted upon in this assembly. This will en-
sure the continuation of government services until final
supply is in place.
Interim supply for ministry operations and other ap-
propriations is based on the voted expense as presented
in 2012-2013 estimates. The interim supply period for
these appropriations has been set at nine weeks, which
reflects the current legislative calendar for debate of the
2012-2013 estimates. Interim supply for financing trans-
action requirements is based on the voted requirements
set out in schedules C and D of the 2012-2013 estimates.
These disbursements are not evenly distributed
throughout the year. Additional appropriation is re-
quired to accommodate project timing. Therefore, in-
Monday, March 26, 2012
terim supply for these transactions is set at 50 percent of
the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the
estimates. Schedule E of the 2012-2013 estimates outlines
the revenue collected for and transferred to other entities.
As there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or
debt resulting from schedule E financing transactions,
100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought
in this supply bill. These interim appropriations are
based on the accountabilities outlined in the 2012-
2013 estimates. They are not outside of the scrutiny of
Committee of Supply. The final supply bill to be passed
by the Legislature will incorporate these amounts to en-
sure that the estimates currently in committee reflect the
total voted appropriation to be given to government in
2012-2013.
B. Ralston: I rise to speak briefly to the bill. The supply
act will authorize spending for what is described as nine
parts of 52 of the total amount of the votes of the main
estimates. In other words, it would authorize expenditure
according to the main estimates until the first week of
June, by my calculation. As the minister has mentioned,
the House is scheduled to rise in late May, having com-
pleted the budgetary process.
Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules says that: "Interim
supply provides the government with money to meet its
obligations during the time before the main estimates are
approved." It's also clear in Parliamentary Practice that
"approval of interim supply does not authorize spending
by the government on new programs. It only authorizes
spending in accordance with the main estimates."
So the only additional thing I would say is a reference
to the capital spending, which is fully proposed to be
one-half capital expenditures in clause 2(c). Ordinarily,
most of those expenditures are construction. Ordinarily,
construction in British Columbia, given the nature of our
weather and geography, begins in the spring and is usu-
ally completed in the late summer or early fall. So it's im-
portant that those projects get underway and be funded
and that there be no impediment to them.
Obviously, the opposition reserves its right to carry
its questions through the estimates process and reserves
its judgment and its vote on the budget at the end of the
process. But in order to keep the government running
and to pay employees and all the other things that gov-
ernment does in the next nine weeks, we are prepared to
support the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister
of Finance closes debate.
Hon. K. Falcon: I move second reading of Bill 27,
Supply Act (No. 1), 2012.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. We're just being
certain that we passed the first reading. So if you want to
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
put a motion forward on that, we'll move to second read-
ing and then move through.
Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I move that Bill 27 be intro-
duced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Bill 27, Supply Act (No. 1), 2012, introduced, read
a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading
forthwith.
Hon. K. Falcon: I move second reading of Bill 27,
Supply Act (No. 1), 2012.
[1440]
Motion approved.
Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole House for consideration forth-
with.
Bill 27, Supply Act (No. 1), 2012, read a second time
and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole
House for consideration forthwith.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 27 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2012
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on
Bill 27; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 2:42 p.m.
On section 1.
B. Ralston: Can the minister explain how the calcula-
tion was made? I understand that this will carry the ex-
penditure of government to the first week of June, by my
calculation. Firstly, is that correct? Secondly, a brief ex-
planation of how that calculation was made.
Hon. K. Falcon: This represents the voted expenses
appropriation totalling $35,225,725,000 times nine, div-
ided by 52 weeks — so that's the nine weeks of the year
— which gives you the total of just over $6,096,760,000.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
B. Ralston: Section 2 refers to the schedule C in the
main Estimates, and the dependent clause at the end
is: "…being substantially 1/2 of the total of the voted
amounts referred to in those Schedules to the main
10339
Estimates."
Can the minister explain how the figure of one-half
is arrived at?
[1445]
Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised, Member, that the one-
half rule has been standard for the last dozen years. It's
especially important for school districts so they can get
going on their capital programs and not be concerned
about the dollars not being there or having a hiccup.
In terms of how the figure is arrived at, under schedule
C and D you will see the totals there, the voted appropri-
ation totals. Under schedule C, for capital expenditures,
you see a total of $425.827 million, and then under sched-
ule D — under "Voted appropriations," disbursements —
you will see $374.944 million right at the top of the page
there. Those two are added up, and then the 50 percent
rule applies. So when you add those up you get $800.771
million, and 50 percent of that is $400.386 million.
B. Ralston: I'm looking at schedule D. It's referred to in
the main estimates as "Financing Transactions — Loans,
Investments and Other Requirements." Can the minister
explain the purpose of including this in subsection 2(b)?
Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that the reason why these
are included is simply because these are financing re-
quirements for the year that are going to have…. We want
to make sure there's going to be no interruption.
For example, you can see under there that things like
the StudentAid B.C. loan program…. You want to ensure
that there will be no interruption in that whatsoever. My
understanding is that this is standard operating proced-
ure over at least the past 12 years. I'm not as familiar with
it prior to the previous 12 years.
B. Ralston: Looking at the schedule again in schedule
D, the minister has referred to the StudentAid B.C. loan
program. There is a reference to receipts and disburse-
ments. I understand the need to disburse to continue the
program. What are the receipts that are referred to in the
first column?
Hon. K. Falcon: Those would be loan repayments that
are being made by students.
B. Ralston: Similarly, in the "International fuel tax
agreement (Motor Fuel Tax Act)," there is a column for
receipts and there's a column for disbursements. Can
the minister…?
[1450]
The receipts vastly, according to this table, are greater
than the disbursements, yet there's a figure on the right-
hand side, $9.305 million, which doesn't have brackets
around it. I take it that is positive rather than negative,
and no further disbursement is required. Is that correct?
10340 British Columbia Debates
Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that the difference is
largely a timing differential reflecting the cash flows, as
the cash flows are estimated to be coming in as receipts
and going out as disbursements.
This is under the international fuel tax agreement. This
is largely the commercial transport industry. We have tax
agreements with the United States, for example.
It gets quite complicated, but essentially it comes down
to what percentage of the driving you were doing within
a jurisdiction. There's a calculation made, and then you
receipt or disburse based on all of that. There's an import-
ant timing differential that can take place here, and this is
an estimate for the year ending March 31, 2013.
B. Ralston: At the bottom of schedule D, under
the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open
Government, there is a line item entitled "Release of
assets for economic generation — development and sale
of surplus properties and buildings," and disbursements
of $3 million are required. Can the minister explain why
that is included in this section and this schedule, rather
than simply being a part of the main estimates? It doesn't
seem consistent with what has been said so far.
I note at the top of the page that the explanatory note
says…. Just for the sake of clarity, I'll read it:
"The allocation of the total voted disbursements among special
offices, ministries and other appropriations or among categories of
loans, investments and other requirements is shown for informa-
tion and planning purposes only." The money disclosed for special
accounts is "subject to the available spending authority within each
account. Treasury Board may reallocate the total voted disburse-
ments among special offices, ministries and other appropriations.
No reallocation may result in the total voted disbursements set out
in this schedule being exceeded."
[1455]
Perhaps he could clarify why this amount of $3 mil-
lion…. I understand that the minister…. This will be the
subject, perhaps, of some questions when we come to the
minister's estimates, but in the budget speech he did sig-
nal his intention, not in this fiscal year but in next fiscal
year, to reap some anticipated revenue from the sale of
so-called surplus properties. There's a $3 million item of
disbursements and no receipts, so I'm wondering why it's
in this schedule and not in the main estimates.
Hon. K. Falcon: These, Member, are costs that are
normally netted from revenues on the sale of a property,
so they typically are costs that will take place in advance
of the sale of the property. These are the kinds of things,
like site preparation and advance-marketing costs, that
will take effect prior to the sale of the property. Of course,
when the property sells, then those costs will all be net-
ted off against it.
What we're doing here is making sure that we've got an
allocation for some of those costs that may be undertaken
and to ensure we have a voted appropriation for that in
the course of the interim supply.
Monday, March 26, 2012
B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that explana-
tion. Then does this signal the establishment of a spe-
cial account to receive the revenue, depending on what
it is, from the sale of so-called surplus properties and
buildings? Will that separate special account be open to
scrutiny as we go along? I think many people would be
interested in that.
Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is no. There's not a special
account that's being set up. It, of course, will be operat-
ing in…. The Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and
Open Government has been tasked with this effort. This
is just to ensure that they've got the voted appropriation
to have the expenditure of those dollars allowed for the
utilization of things like site preparation, advance mar-
keting, etc.
B. Ralston: Further up the page, under the Ministry of
Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, there's
an item entitled "Crown land administration — develop-
ment of land for sale in future years" and a sum of $5.878
million. Is this also related to the proposed sale of so-
called surplus properties and buildings?
Hon. K. Falcon: No, this is the normal operation of
Crown special accounts sales, so there's nothing unusual
about this at all.
B. Ralston: Similarly, in the same ministry, "Tourism
development — development of land for sale in future
years" and an allocation of $600,000. Is this related to the
final item, the release of assets for so-called economic
generation, or is it another account?
Hon. K. Falcon: No, it is not related. If it was related
at all, we would have it in that category below.
[1500]
B. Ralston: Given what's said in the explanatory note,
does the minister agree — and I think he would have
to — that within this total voted appropriation, when it
passes, money can be reallocated but it can't exceed the
total amount of the allocation? For example, if the de-
velopment of sale of surplus properties was underesti-
mated at $3 million and $5 million was required, could
reallocation be achieved within this voted appropriation?
Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct. In the example the
member just gave, you would have to find it somewhere
else.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
B. Ralston: This clause, section 3, refers to schedule E
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
of the main estimates. Schedule E of the main estimates
refers to financing transactions, revenue collected for and
transferred to other entities. For example, in the Ministry
of Finance, the minister's own ministry, there is for B.C.
Transportation Financing Authority a receipt of $435
million and a disbursement of $435 million. Perhaps the
minister could briefly explain that entry.
Hon. K. Falcon: In this case these are all dedicated
dollars that just flow through. They simply come in, and
we send them back out, so there's no impact whatsoever
on our surplus, on borrowing or on debt. These are dol-
lars that go to post-secondary institutions, for example,
or B.C. Transit or TransLink fuel tax — those kinds of
things. They flow in and flow out.
B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that explanation.
Looking at the entry for the Ministry of Energy and
Mines, there are two line items: northwest transmission
line — a receipt of $60 million and a disbursement of
$60 million; and the Oil and Gas Commission — $31.157
million receipt and disbursement.
I would expect in the Oil and Gas Commission, that
came from fees that the commission would collect. Can
the minister explain the source of the $60 million receipt
that's received for the northwest transmission line?
Hon. K. Falcon: Those are federal dollars that we
flow through to B.C. Hydro for the development of the
northwest transmission line. The other below — I think
the member correctly referred to it. Those are fees that
we administer on behalf of the Oil and Gas Commission.
B. Ralston: I think this may be the final question.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority
— $308.1 million receipt and disbursed. Can the minister
explain the source of that $308.1 million?
Hon. K. Falcon: That would represent fuel taxes that
are collected and then transferred over to TransLink to
finance their operations.
B. Ralston: The British Columbia Transportation
Financing Authority — $435 million receipt and dis-
bursement. Is that money borrowed by the province on
behalf of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority
and then transferred to TransLink?
Hon. K. Falcon: That's the same as TransLink. It's
fuel tax that is generated, collected through the B.C.
Transportation Financing Authority and then disbursed.
[1505]
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
Preamble approved.
10341
Title approved.
Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and
report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:06 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 27 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2012
Bill 27, Supply Act (No. 1), 2012, reported complete
without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. I. Chong: I call committee in this House for Bill
20, Auditor General for Local Government Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 20 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on
Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 3:08 p.m.
On section 1.
Hon. I. Chong: Before we begin, I'd just like to intro-
duce staff who are here. To my right I have Nicola Marotz,
to my left Rena Bindra and Gary Paget.
With that, I'll take questions.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
H. Lali: I want to thank the minister and the staff
who obviously will be answering questions for the next
few hours.
I want to start off by making a bit of a statement before
I ask my question. I want to put it on the record that the
NDP supports accountability. We also support transpar-
ency in terms of what government does and what minis-
ters and ministries and staff do. I just want to point out
that we also believe in consultation. That's also very, very
important.
When I was a member of government, having had the
chance to sit on the opposite side, I was a member of the
government that brought in the Freedom of Information
10342 British Columbia Debates
and Protection of Privacy Act that was the flagship for
any state or province in North America.
[1510]
We also brought in legislation concerning the conflict-
of-interest act for members of this House — some ma-
jor changes and the accountability aspect of it; and also
the new Elections Act, whereby constituency associa-
tions and parties have to register with Elections Canada,
complete with spending limits and a whole lot of other
transparency in terms of reporting. I know the minister
and the government want to be able to do that as well.
Also, I want to point out that currently there is legis-
lation. There are also regulations that exist for the prov-
incial Auditor General and other areas. I made some
comments during second reading that we believe, as op-
position, that this bill actually misses the mark. We will
be able to actually ask some questions on a number of
the sections that are particularly important. We will do
that as the sections come out.
Also, the bill that's before us here at committee stage
puts forward the auditor general for local government,
which is actually different from any of the other prov-
inces that we have in our Confederation. We'll be asking
some of the pertinent questions.
I want to start off on section 2. Section 2 sets out the
appointment of the auditor general and provides that
"on the recommendation of the minister, the Lieutenant
Governor in Council may appoint…a qualified individ-
ual to be Auditor General for Local Government" for a
term of five years.
I want to ask the minister why it is the minister who is
making the recommendation to appoint an auditor gen-
eral for local government and not a select standing com-
mittee of the Legislature.
Hon. I. Chong: The objective here is for the minis-
ter responsible for the auditor general for local govern-
ment to make a recommendation to cabinet, based on a
recommendation from an audit council that will consist
of a body of experts on subjects like accounting, auditing,
local and provincial governments. That will, as I say, en-
able us to use those individuals on the audit council, to
have a wide range of opportunities to interview, to find
the person that they believe is best suited to act as aud-
itor general for local government.
I expect the audit council to then provide that to my-
self. Then on that recommendation I would take it to
cabinet.
H. Lali: The minister hasn't answered my question. I'm
still asking the minister why it is that she felt it would be
the recommendation of the minister. My specific ques-
tion to the minister is: why not put this to a select stand-
ing committee of the Legislature? We have select standing
committees. They are in place to hire the provincial
Auditor General.
Monday, March 26, 2012
This is no small measure, the municipal auditor gen-
eral. You're looking at basically tens of dozens of munici-
palities and regional districts across the province. To be
able to perform a lot of the same duties as the provincial
Auditor General does…. It's not a position, obviously, to
be taken lightly, either.
We have a fair process where members sit on the se-
lect standing committee, comprised of membership from
this Legislature, who are answerable to the people. The
accountability is there through the Legislature, through
all of the debates that we have here. Why is it that the
minister chose a different path — to actually recommend
herself for the appointment as opposed to having the se-
lect standing committee go through a process, as we do
when we hire the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, the
provincial Auditor General and other officers?
[1515]
Traditionally, this Legislature is responsible for putting
out the ad through the select standing committee, taking
in the resumés and CVs and letters of application, going
through a vetting process that is fair, open and account-
able. It is independent from cabinet or government or
from the ministers themselves.
It is a fair process, and it is based on a unanimous
recommendation of the bipartisan committee of this
Legislature. This is not a small position; it's a huge pos-
ition. It's a very important, very significant position
similar to that of the provincial Auditor General with a
lot of duties and responsibilities that we're going to get
into later.
I'm going to ask the minister: why was the similar pro-
cess not chosen or selected by cabinet — that it would be
a select standing committee of the Legislature who would
look after that, rather than the minister herself?
Hon. I. Chong: I'd like to begin my comments by re-
minding the member that this position is not a provincial
statutory officer. While it may have some of the hall-
marks of the same areas of responsibility and account-
ability of how the office will work, it is not a provincial
statutory officer.
The reporting structure for any auditor general does
aim, though, to satisfy independence and accountability,
and that independence is from the entity being audited.
The accountability is ultimately to the citizens.
For the provincial Auditor General — and I just want-
ed to make this clear — independence from the entity
being audited means independence from the provin-
cial government through the Legislature. Accountability
to citizens is also satisfied by reporting through to the
Legislature. That's where the difference is. The provin-
cial Auditor General, as the member has indicated, is re-
porting through the Legislature.
For the auditor general for local government we are
establishing a separate reporting structure — that is, an
audit council. That will ensure the independence from
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
the entities being audited while also reflecting the prin-
ciple that local governments are a separate order of gov-
ernment. They are elected by and directly accountable to
their communities.
Local governments are not accountable to their cit-
izens through the Legislature. It's for that reason that this
is how the structure of the office and how the reporting
requirements and the hallmarks of independence will
be determined.
H. Lali: It doesn't, again, entirely answer my question.
I mean, the minister went into a sidebar kind of conver-
sation about the AGLG not being a statutory officer of
the Legislature.
Municipalities and regional districts are a creation of
the provincial government. Municipalities and regional
districts collect the property taxes on behalf of the prov-
incial government. They are so intimately tied to the
provincial government, with funding flowing back not
only in terms of the property tax transfer but also for
various other projects or grants that they may have —
for instance, building of water and sewer projects within
municipalities and regional districts, the construction of
sidewalks and roads, a number of programs that muni-
cipalities also deliver, and the grant programs that exist
which flow from the community development ministry
and other ministries to the provincial government.
There is that intimate tie between the municipalities
and regional districts, and the province on the other
hand. As I mentioned at the outset of this conversation,
municipalities and regional districts are a creation of the
provincial government. So it's entirely up to the provin-
cial government to decide whether the AGLG would be
a statutory officer of the Legislature or not.
With the two divergent paths, there was a path that
the minister chose, that cabinet chose, which was not to
make the municipal auditor general a statutory officer of
the Legislature. Therein lies my question. Why was that
other path chosen? Why not have the position open and
accountable?
[1520]
I mean, this whole — and we'll get into it later — lobby
that took place…. The now Premier, who was vying for
the leadership of the Liberal Party and hence become the
Premier, had an agreement with a certain lobby group, if
you want to call it, or folks that wanted to support her
leadership — the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce amongst
others who were going to give the Premier support. But
they wanted a municipal auditor general in place. They
cited issues such as accountability and openness as fac-
tors.
So my question to the minister is…. She chose a path
which actually deviates from that whole issue of in-
dependence. It makes it less accountable — makes it ac-
countable to the minister but not to the people that it's
10343
supposed to serve in terms of the municipalities. And a
lot of the funding flowing back from the province to mu-
nicipalities, not being accountable to the provincial tax-
payer…. We're all one taxpayer. But at the end of the day,
$2.6 million is going to be flowing towards the creation
of this office, which gives it that provincial realm.
Why did the minister choose the path of making it less
independent and less accountable — that the minister
is going to make the recommendation and not a select
standing committee of this Legislature?
Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, with respect, the member
has mentioned a couple of times for the record — and I
will try to correct him — that he feels I have not answered
his questions. In fact, I have answered his questions. He
may not like the answer, and I accept that.
What I have said is that local governments are not
accountable to their citizens through the Legislature.
The select standing committees, as we have established
for statutory officers, require that accountability to the
Legislature. Again, local governments are not account-
able to their citizens through the Legislature. It's for that
reason that we need to establish a mechanism to allow
that degree of independence, and that's the reason why
an audit council has been determined as a way to pro-
vide for that.
I will also advise the member, through the discussions
I have had with UBCM, that their policy paper they pro-
vided to me in September asked that the auditor general
for local government report through a separate commit-
tee composed of representatives of the local government
system — those who understand the local government
systems in that case. They did not ask for a committee
comprised of members of the Legislature. Therefore, cit-
izens would not see that as sufficiently separate from lo-
cal governments being audited.
I just want to again make it clear that the auditor gen-
eral is not reporting directly to me. The auditor general
has the autonomy to decide what audits are undertaken,
and then that will provide the accountability to the pub-
lic through the audit council. I trust I've made that mat-
ter clear for the member. I've answered his questions. He
may, as I said, not agree, but that is in fact the answer.
H. Lali: I'm going to try this one more time. The min-
ister is right. I don't like her answer because she's not giv-
ing an answer. That's the reason I don't like the answer.
There are other reasons as well.
The minister may want to say that municipalities and
regional districts are not answerable to the folks they rep-
resent through the Legislature. The fact of the matter is
there's $2.6 million of provincial coffer moneys that are
going to fund the office of the auditor general for local
government, and there ought to be that accountability
through the Legislature. But the minister has taken on
that role.
10344 British Columbia Debates
We don't know what kinds of discussions take place,
and this Legislature doesn't know. Members on the back
bench on the opposite side don't know. They're not in
cabinet or privy to those kinds of discussions. We have no
idea what kinds of discussions are taking place between
the minister and whoever the future auditor general is
going to be, as well as the audit council.
The fact is that $2.6 million of provincial moneys are
going to fund this office. So we have a right to expect that
that accountability would be through this Legislature, not
through the minister.
[1525]
So I'll ask a final time. Will the minister agree with
me that the recommendation to hire a municipal auditor
general ought to be through a select standing committee
of this Legislature and not based on the recommendation
of the minister alone?
Hon. I. Chong: I would like to address the comments
the member made with respect to accountability of the
dollars. I do want to advise and inform him that there
is accountability for the budget, the $2.6 million. That
money is voted through the budget estimates, so there is
the accountability for those dollars spent there.
With respect to the establishment of the auditor gener-
al as well as the audit council, I just want to again inform
the member and this House that this is a relatively new
concept in this province — not necessarily new across the
country. There is no standard mechanism or standard for
establishment of an auditor general.
What I can say is that there are no other provinces in
Canada that have auditor generals for local government
reporting through to the provincial Legislature. It's for
that reason why a select standing committee that reports
to the Legislature would not be a good fit for the way that
the auditor general for local government is established.
B. Ralston: The minister has spoken of the hallmarks
of independence. Does she characterize the following
facts as hallmarks of independence?
On her recommendation in 18(2) the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council "may appoint no fewer than 5
persons to be members of the audit council and must
designate one of the members as chair of the council." So
the minister recommends the appointment of the council,
recommends the appointment of the chair of the audit
council. The audit council then recommends to her a
candidate for auditor general, who she also selects. So
the minister's hand is in this whole process. Is that her
definition of independence?
Hon. I. Chong: Let me just provide to the member,
with respect to the auditor general for local government,
a number of hallmarks of independence, if you will,
which are similar to those provided to the provincial
Auditor General. They're not identical, but there are some
Monday, March 26, 2012
similarities. One of these hallmarks would be a fixed term
of office. We are going to establish a five-year term.
A legislative mandate for the auditor general for local
government which includes the sole discretion to choose
which performance audits to undertake and which lo-
cal governments to audit is yet another hallmark of in-
dependence.
The freedom to publish reports and recommendations
without any required approvals. There will not be a re-
quirement for myself to approve those published reports.
I play no role in the development and publication of any
of the auditor general for local government's reports, and
the audit council has no authority to require that the aud-
itor general for local government change the content of
any of those reports.
Another hallmark of independence would be the pro-
fessional independence, as the auditor general for lo-
cal government must be a qualified auditor. This means
that the auditor general for local government is subject
to the rules and guidelines of the professional audit as-
sociation of which he or she is a member, as well as
the standards put forward by the Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants, the Canadian auditing standards
and general assurance in auditing standards, standards
for assurance engagements other than audits of finan-
cial statements.
Another hallmark of independence is a limit to the
basis for any suspension or removal of the auditor general
for local government. This can only happen for cause or
because of incapacity. We also have a legislated personal
liability protection. Those are some of the hallmarks of
independence which the provincial Auditor General has,
and we have provided for that in this legislation as well.
[1530]
B. Ralston: The minister has spoken of hallmarks of in-
dependence and has given some comments. Doubtlessly,
we will deal with this in later sections. But given that the
debate is arising in section 2 here, one shouldn't let the
opportunity go to bring to the minister's attention the
fact that the audit council appointed by the minister or
by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to cabinet on her
recommendation, in 22(4), "must review the proposed
annual service plan and, subject to subsection (5), may
provide comments and recommend changes to the plan
as the audit council considers appropriate."
Now, given that the audit council works intimate-
ly with the auditor general and is appointed by the
Lieutenant-Governor…. Although the auditor general
will be appointed for five years, obviously he has to re-
spond to the audit council. One can see that it's likely that
if the audit council recommends changes, the auditor
general would be wise to do that. So there's that control
and inhibition of the independence of the auditor general.
Secondly, in section 23, on performance audit reports,
it says in subsection (4): "The audit council may provide
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
comments to the auditor general on the proposed final
performance audit…submitted under subsection (3)."
Not only does the council get to recommend changes
to the plan before it's begun; if they don't like the report,
they can recommend changes to the auditor general be-
fore the report is released.
The minister speaks of the hallmarks of independ-
ence. Does she agree that those are not hallmarks of in-
dependence?
Hon. I. Chong: I just wanted, again, to reassure the
members that one of the hallmarks of independence is to
provide that auditor general for local government the un-
fettered ability to do the job that he or she determines will
allow for him or her to publish reports in a way that will
provide value to the auditee — i.e., the local government.
When the member suggests that the audit council,
under subsections 22(4) and (3) — I know we've hopped
a little further into the act — must review the proposed
annual service plan and is able to provide comments
and recommendations…. There is no requirement that
the auditor general take into consideration those recom-
mendations.
The auditor general is free to hear…. There might be
some very valid recommendations that the audit coun-
cil makes to the auditor general with respect to the ser-
vice plan or to a number of other areas, but there is no
requirement that that auditor general undertake those
recommendations.
In addition to the reports that the auditor general will
be publishing, recommendations can be made. But the
auditor general is permitted to issue those and publish
those as he or she sees fit, as well as, then, after an audit
is conducted, to provide any such report to the local gov-
ernment without any changes that are directly required
of that auditor general for it to be published.
I hope that does provide some clarification to the
member.
B. Ralston: The minister mounts some kind of a de-
fence to this suggestion that the auditor general for local
government will not be independent, but I don't think
it's a very convincing one. My experience on the Public
Accounts Committee, as a member and as the Chair, is
that the Auditor General, who is nominated and select-
ed by an all-party committee, selects his own topics to
be audited.
[1535]
There's a power to make a suggestion, but there's no
formal mechanism by which he's obliged to consult to
put the topics of his audit plan, as opposed to the budget
for it, before the committee.
Secondly, the idea that the Auditor General would
come back to the Public Accounts Committee with a
draft report in camera and receive suggestions about it….
That step doesn't take place. The Auditor General has the
10345
control over the production of his report. It is shared with
the entity being audited but not with the political direc-
tion of the Public Accounts Committee.
Would the minister not agree that this is really a very
poor substitute for genuine independence, in the sense
that an audit council that the minister and the cabinet
appoint will appoint an auditor general for local govern-
ment? The reports will be scrutinized by that same audit
council, based on scrutinizing the plan that the auditor
general sets out. So at every step the independence of
this auditor general will be fettered. Is that not accurate?
Hon. I. Chong: At this point I think we are actually
getting into section 4 of the act. I don't know if the mem-
ber wishes to pass sections 2 and 3 for us to get to section
4, but I will provide the response to his question because
it does refer to section 4, and that is with respect to the
selection of audits and limits on audits.
There does need to be a balance between professional
independence for the auditor general for local govern-
ment and his or her accountability to the public for his
or her performance, and that's why the audit council has
a role in reviewing the service plan. The service plan will
not go into specifics as to which local governments will
be audited, but it will outline annual objectives, goals and
performance measures as well as general criteria for de-
ciding priority themes of audits.
That's not unlike what the provincial Auditor General
is also provided — the opportunity to do that, to prepare
an annual service plan. Yet he has the sole discretion to
select those audits that will be conducted.
There is some similarity with respect to the independ-
ence that is afforded the Auditor General. The service
plan is provided and is allowed to be reviewed — in
the case of the provincial Auditor General by the se-
lect standing committee and in this particular case by
the audit council. Likewise, with the provincial Auditor
General and the auditor general for local government,
the selection of audits will be at that discretion of the
auditor general.
H. Lali: Under subsection (2) it says: "Before making
the recommendation referred to in subsection (1), the
minister must consider the recommendation of the audit
council under section 19 (1) (a)." Could the minister ex-
plain to me why the word "must" is in there?
At the end of the day it's the province of British
Columbia that's putting forward $2.6 million towards
the auditor general's office. But the wording here says,
under subsection (2) under this section, that the min-
ister must consider the recommendation of the audit….
So the audit council goes out and finds somebody,
and they're going to recommend to the minister, but the
minister must consider their recommendation. Are the
minister's hands tied in this? I mean, who has the final
authority? The audit council? Or is it the minister?
10346 British Columbia Debates
Hon. I. Chong: It seems somewhat confusing. At one
point the member suggests that I not be involved with
respect to the appointment of the auditor general and
then, on the other hand, suggests that where it says I
must consider the recommendation of the audit council,
it goes counter to that.
The objective here, of course, is that the audit coun-
cil will have the ability to interview possible candidates
for the position of the auditor general. The audit coun-
cil will then provide those recommendations to me, and
therefore, I must consider that. Otherwise, it would be
indirect, or it would be that I would be ignoring the work
of the audit council.
[1540]
So when the audit council provides those recommen-
dations to myself as minister, I am required to consider
those. That, therefore, allows me to take into considera-
tion those comments, their deliberations, and then make
that recommendation to cabinet. So I must consider what
the audit council's work is.
H. Lali: There's no confusion in my mind. If there's
any confusion, it's in the minister's mind. The minister
has already stated that she's not going to actually have
the whole hiring process be put off to a select standing
committee of the Legislature — that it's going to be the
way it's already put down in the bill.
So we're going onto the next subsections. There's no
confusion there. I'm not trying to play one against the
other. Under this particular subsection it says that the
minister must consider.
The audit council is not a democratic body. The audit
council is a body that is appointed. It's cabinet appointees
on the recommendation of the minister. They're not an
elected body. They're not even a representative body of
various stakeholders within the municipal and regional
district system or the UBCM. They're political appoin-
tees of the minister.
Now you've got political appointees who will make a
recommendation that the minister must consider. Again,
to the minister: where is the accountability? Where is the
independence of the auditor general if a bunch of polit-
ical appointees are making their recommendation that
the minister must consider?
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I want to refer the member to
comments I made earlier with respect to the discussion
that I had with UBCM and the policy paper that they did
present to me in September last year. They felt that the
reporting relationship to a stand-alone board or commit-
tee — in this case we call it an audit council — would be
the most compatible with local government autonomy.
So they have accepted that in order to provide that
independence, a committee or board would be suitable,
which, in case, we are now calling an audit council. Again,
I want to make it clear that the independence of the audit
Monday, March 26, 2012
council members will, in fact, be established by way of a
number of factors that we're putting in place to ensure
that the audit council is a separate arm's-length body.
The legislation does require the minister responsible,
myself, then to undertake certain consultations. We have
consulted with UBCM — that is one of the requirements
— and other organizations that are representative of busi-
ness, taxpayers and local government professionals. We
may also undertake other consultations with other per-
sons or organizations that we believe need to be con-
sulted and, therefore, initiate a process that invites input
from UBCM, LGMA, GFOA and the business commun-
ity. That has been undertaken.
There is also a public process for inviting applicants
to be members of the audit council, through the Board
Resourcing and Development Office. That is also done
as a measure so that members do meet the selection cri-
teria developed in order for them to have knowledge of
the work that is required of an auditor general.
As well, all audit council members will need, as I say, to
meet the qualifications specified in the legislation. That
requires some technical background either in account-
ing, auditing local and regional governance, or provin-
cial governance.
The audit council, I do feel, has the degree of independ-
ence that is required for them to undertake the interview
process, which will conclude with a recommendation
that I would be able to take to cabinet for the eventual
appointment of an auditor general.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
H. Lali: Section 3 is about the purpose and mandate
of the auditor general for local government. It states here
under subsection 3(1): "The purpose of the auditor gen-
eral is to conduct performance audits of the operations of
local governments in order to provide local governments
with objective information and relevant advice that will
assist them in their accountability to their communities
for the stewardship of public assets and the achievement
of value for money in their operations."
[1545]
Well, in the ministry's own document, Municipal
Auditor General: What a MAG Will Do for B.C. — the
pages aren't numbered, but it's on here under "Existing
accountability framework" — here's what the minister's
own document says:
"The current local government accountability framework
is strong. Local government legislation, such as the Local
Government Act and Community Charter, sets out financial
accountability rules for B.C.'s 188 municipalities and regional
districts. These requirements include annual audited financial
statements; five-year financial plans updated annually; electors'
approval of capital borrowing; limits on the amount of borrow-
ing; public reports such as an annual report; requirement for
balanced budgets — no deficit; and the role of the inspector of mu-
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
nicipalities, independent bodies — for example, Ombudsperson,
Information and Privacy Commissioner, the courts — and the
Municipal Finance Authority."
The only thing that's additional here is the value-for-
money audits that the minister talks about in her docu-
ment here as well. The fact is that there's the existing
provincial Auditor General that is in place. We have the
inspector of municipalities, who also has a far-reaching
role as well.
Why could this not have been done through the
existing mechanisms that are in place? I would like the
minister to explain why this government went about
setting up a separate bureaucracy when already we have
various entities that I've mentioned here, not the least of
which are the inspector of municipalities and the prov-
incial Auditor General, whose offices that could have
been utilized?
Hon. I. Chong: The items that the member spoke
about with respect to financial audits that currently are
in place are correct. I have indicated in the past and I
have agreed that yes, there are financial audits that are
required of local governments. They produce those fi-
nancial audited statements, and they do a number of
other reports that are required to provide accountability
to their citizens.
However, what is not in place is the opportunity for
performance audits, value-for-money audits. That is what
this auditor general for local government will be primar-
ily focused on, in terms of its purpose and mandate.
The member also goes on to suggest that the inspector
of municipalities would or could be engaged to do some
of the work that he envisions an auditor general for lo-
cal government would do. I think there has been confu-
sion on that part. I'll take this opportunity to put on the
record and clarify what an inspector of municipalities
is, because it was raised a number of times when second
reading debate was ongoing.
The inspector of municipalities' primary role is to ap-
prove local government long-term capital borrowing and
other financial instruments, such as development cost
charges. It could be a perceived conflict of interest for the
inspector to approve borrowing for a project and then
judge whether the local government has implemented
that project most efficiently and most effectively.
The inspector of municipalities' role is supervisory, and
it is focused on helping ensure the financial stability of a
local government, whereas the auditor general for local
government's role will be advisory, not supervisory. The
auditor general's role will be advisory and focused on
assisting local governments to achieve efficiency and ef-
fectiveness in their operations.
As I said earlier, the auditor general for local govern-
ment would be independent and would report through
the audit council. The inspector of municipalities re-
ports to the minister through the deputy minister of this
10347
ministry.
[1550]
B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate the minister clarifying
her view on the role of the inspector of municipalities.
As she will know, both the Union of B.C. Municipalities
context paper on the municipal auditor general and an
opinion from a lawyer at Young Anderson, the leading
municipal law firm in British Columbia, say that under
section 171(3) of the Community Charter both the in-
spector of municipalities and every municipal council
already have authority to require the municipal auditor
to provide reports in addition to the annual financial
statements.
Under the charter the municipal auditor "has the
power and duty to conduct the examinations necessary"
to prepare all such reports. This includes reports on, to
use the language of the provincial Auditor General Act,
whether the government is operating economically, effi-
ciently and effectively.
Of course, the minister will be aware that just those
words are used in subsection (2)(a)(i): "the operations
are undertaken economically, efficiently and effectively."
It's a little bit of an irony, given that the Union of B.C.
Municipalities…. The minister says she wants to defer
to the knowledge of those at the local government level.
The leading municipal law firm already says that the in-
spector general of municipalities has those powers. Yet
the minister is proposing in this legislation duplication
of that very legislative authority.
I know that the inspector general of municipalities is
an important position. It was vacant. I understand that
there has been a recent appointment to that position, so
it obviously has ongoing utility in the ministry and is not
a mere appendage or frill.
My question relates to subsection (5). It says: "In carry-
ing out the powers and duties under this Act, the auditor
general must not call into question the merits of policy
decisions or objectives of a local government." I want the
minister, if she can and if she will, to define what "policy
decisions" means in this context. Does it mean that if the
municipality or the city on its own decides, as a part of
their tax policy, to raise a tax or to charge a fee, that can-
not be the subject of a performance audit? Is that what
that section is saying?
Hon. I. Chong: I want to again reiterate what the in-
spector of municipalities' role is. The inspector reports
to the ministry by virtue of reporting to the deputy min-
ister through to the ministry, so that does not provide
the degree of independence. Again, the inspector role
is supervisory as opposed to advisory. I want to put that
on the record and really make the distinction, because
the inspector of municipalities could not be the auditor
general for local government in that regard.
With respect to what the auditor general for local gov-
10348 British Columbia Debates
ernment is permitted to do, what perhaps will be easier to
explain is what the auditor general for local government
will not do. They will not question the merits of local gov-
ernment policy choices or objectives, will not question
tax rates or practices, will not make binding recommen-
dations or impose requirements and will not duplicate
or displace current financial accountability requirements.
B. Ralston: So in answer to my question, then…. I
want to summarize this, so I make very clear that I under-
stand and so it's on the record, because I know many mu-
nicipalities may be interested in this answer.
The minister is saying this subsection (5), the refer-
ence to "the auditor general must not call into question
the merits of policy decisions" — not "choices" but "de-
cisions" is the language of the section — "or objectives of
a local government…." That's the section as it's written.
By that the minister means that the auditor general will
not, in a report, question a decision made by a munici-
pality or city to raise its taxes or to charge a particular
fee. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Chong: What this means is that the auditor
general is not allowed to call into question the merits of
policy decisions or objectives of the local governments.
For example, the audits will not review whether a muni-
cipality decision to establish a particular recreation ser-
vice to its citizens was a good idea or not. However, the
audit could examine how that service is being delivered,
whether that method of service delivery is efficient and
effective and whether the service is achieving the results
that council wanted to achieve when it chose to establish
that service in the first place.
[1555]
That's just an example of a policy decision that is made
by a local government. The auditor general would not be
permitted to call that into question but would take a look
at that decision in determining the outcomes, whether it
achieved the outcomes that the decision was established
for it to achieve.
B. Ralston: The minister didn't answer my question.
It's an important one, and I want to ask her again. The
interpretation of this subsection (5) — does it mean that
the auditor general for local government, if the statute is
passed and the office is created, will not be able to call
into question the decision of a city or a municipality to
raise its taxes?
The reason I ask this is important, because some of the
lobby groups, some of the other groups out there seem
to think that this office will create a mechanism to attack
or question generally the level of taxation in any city or
municipality in the province, depending on where they
are. There's a sense among some…. These are legitimate
questions. I just want to make sure that this is not going
to be addressed by this office — the level of business taxa-
Monday, March 26, 2012
tion relative to residential taxation.
Those would seem, to me, to be important policy ques-
tions for the elected council to decide, and I just want to
be clear. I'm sure members of city councils across the
province will be interested in the minister's answer, so
I ask her to please direct her comments to my question.
Does this mean that the auditor general for municipal-
ities will not be permitted to examine a decision by a city
council or municipal council to raise its taxes?
Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the objective and the
purpose and mandate of this office is to provide value-
for-money audits, not to do financial comprehensive
audits, not to do other duties that are performed by, for
example, the inspector of municipalities. This subsection
(5) is very clear in that it does say that "the auditor general
must not call into question the merits of policy decisions
or objectives of the local government."
In providing the policy paper that we put forward last
fall we did also indicate there, for the benefit of local gov-
ernments that were concerned, that the auditor general
would not make or overrule policy decisions of elected
officials such as taxation, structure or land use.
Again, I've indicated in my earlier response that the
auditor general for local government will not question
the merits of the local government decisions, question
tax rates or practices. The objective here is to take a look
at the decision that has been made and then take a look
at whether the particular decision has been delivered ef-
ficiently and effectively, and whether or not it achieved
the desired outcomes for that decision.
B. Ralston: I think I understand the minister's an-
swer. She's agreeing with me that the auditor general
for local government will not be able to question tax
policy. So when a group like the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, which lobbied — and that's their
prerogative — for this legislation, complains about resi-
dential taxation and taxation for categories 4 and 5, busi-
ness taxation….
When they complain that they don't agree with the
ratios, the minister is saying that that complaint, how-
ever legitimate it may be, is a legitimate area for polit-
ical discussion but that going to this new office with that
complaint will not yield anything. The municipal auditor
general will not be able to act on that complaint, because
it's ruled out by virtue of subsection (5) that we're talking
about here. Is that right?
Hon. I. Chong: That's correct.
[1600]
H. Lali: Under this subsection 3(2)(a), and I'll go back
a bit to read it into the record, it says:
"A performance audit conducted under this Act by the auditor
general consists of (a) a review of the operations of a local govern-
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
ment, as the operations relate to a matter or subject specified by
the auditor general, to evaluate the extent to which (i) the oper-
ations are undertaken economically, efficiently and effectively, (ii)
financial, human and other resources are used in relation to the
operations with due regard to economy and efficiency."
Would the minister like to explain what that means?
Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of subsection 3(2) and
all the other subsections below it specifically establishes
what a performance audit consists of. It's a review that
focuses on key elements of economy, efficiency and ef-
fectiveness. These provisions aim to provide a clear
framework within which the auditor general can conduct
performance audits.
So, as I say, it is dealing with the elements of economy,
efficiency and effectiveness.
H. Lali: This whole idea of a municipal auditor gener-
al came because of the lobby of the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business. Their biggest beef was about
taxes on behalf of their membership. They were saying
the taxes were going too high.
The Premier at the time had stated that it's a two-way
responsibility — that the provincial government had
been off-loading onto municipalities and regional dis-
tricts for the decade that the Liberals have been in office,
that there's a two-way responsibility there, and that the
off-loading ought not to occur either. That was implicit
in her remarks, as to one of the reasons why the CFIB
would have felt that their property taxes were going up
on behalf of their membership constituents.
So there's been a concerted, wholesale attack on muni-
cipalities and regional districts by the CFIB over the last
18 months or so — specifically during the leadership de-
bate of the B.C. Liberal Party, during that whole debate.
Part of it was the attack by the CFIB on the people — the
workforce that works for municipalities and regional dis-
tricts, who tends to the water, the sewers, the garbage, the
roads, the sidewalks and the parks and all of the other re-
sponsibilities under municipalities and regional districts.
Specifically, they've been attacking the wages and the
benefits as something that is way out of whack. But when
you look at it across all provinces, British Columbia is in
the middle of the pack in terms of the municipalities and
regional districts.
There was this wholesale, concerted attack against
not only trying to bring down the public sector wages
in the municipalities but also to try to get a better deal
on taxation. It was for that reason that the Premier, who
was the leadership candidate, struck this backroom deal
with the CFIB.
So when I see this section 3(2)(a)(ii), which actual-
ly talks about "financial, human and other resources
are used in relation to the operations with due regard
to economy and efficiency," that raises red flags for
me. If this isn't the section under which the minister
and this Liberal government are trying to reward their
10349
friends in the CFIB because of the backroom deal that
the Premier made with the CFIB and the B.C. Chamber
of Commerce…. If this isn't a way to try to look at that
whole issue of property taxation and then try to actually
have an attack on the workforce that works for regional
districts and municipalities….
[1605]
Would the minister like to categorically say that this is
not what is going to happen?
Hon. I. Chong: Subsection 3(2) is here to articu-
late the hallmarks or the requirements of the value-for-
money audit. Perhaps I can try to explain it in this way
for the benefit of the member. Value-for-money audits
generally involve one or more of the following: audit of
controls and practices to ensure due regard for economy,
efficiency and effectiveness; the audit of resource man-
agement, with due regard for economy and efficiency; as
well as the audit of effectiveness of programs, operations
and activities.
[D. Black in the chair.]
Those three words that I've used — economy, efficiency
and effectiveness — are throughout this definition. With
respect to economy, that generally refers to spending
management, to the acquisition and allocation of appro-
priate quality and quantity of resources at the appropri-
ate time and optimal cost.
With respect to efficiency, oftentimes people will refer
to that as the best bang for the buck. That's just the ter-
minology that is being used. It refers to the use of re-
source inputs to optimize service outputs.
With regard to effectiveness, it's about doing the right
thing. It refers to the achievement of broad social object-
ives and outcomes.
So as I say, this subsection does provide information
that tries to clarify what we are looking at in terms of a
performance audit — i.e., a value-for-money audit.
B. Ralston: Just again so we're clear, I'm looking at
subsection (5). I appreciate that the minister has given
an outline of what a performance audit is.
I suppose that one should mention parenthetically that
the office of the provincial Auditor General is regarded
across the country as a leader in performance audits. So
it is regrettable, indeed, that the decision was made to set
up a separate office rather than locate it with the prov-
incial Auditor General, given the expertise on perform-
ance audits that resides there. But that's a decision that
has clearly been made.
Now, I just want to be clear, and I want the minister to
set this out clearly. By a policy decision…. The decision
of a municipality to engage into a collective bargaining
relationship with a union and the rates of compensation
that are set by that collective agreement, and any of the
10350 British Columbia Debates
provisions of that collective agreement such as call-out
provisions or overtime or statutory holidays….
Would the minister agree that the intention of section
(5) is to rule any inquiry into that off limits to this muni-
cipal auditor general, as being what would be called the
merits of a policy decision?
Hon. I. Chong: Again I want to advise the member
that the decisions that a local government makes as
policy decisions are those policy decisions and choices a
local government makes.
[1610]
That is not what the auditor general for local govern-
ment will be calling into question. The choice to enter
into an agreement, the choice to set tax rates, the choice
to have recreation services — those are choices that lo-
cal governments can and will make. What the auditor
general will be able to do is to examine the operations
of local government in particular. The "operations" have
been defined in section 1, and that means "the design or
implementation of the programs, services, policies or sys-
tems of a local government and related procedures." So
that is to take a look at the operations of that choice but
not the choice itself.
B. Ralston: Well, I think we're close to an answer. The
minister referred to agreements. By "agreements," I have
a very specific term that I'm using, and I want to make
sure the minister and I understand each other on this
and that the record reflects this. I'm talking about col-
lective agreements.
So is the minister saying that collective agreements
— the provisions, the wage scale inside those collective
agreements that are negotiated as a matter of policy by
the municipality or city with its employees who perhaps
have chosen to be represented by a union — are not the
subject and cannot be the subject of an audit, a perform-
ance audit, by the auditor for local government?
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I think the member has very
specifically articulated. The examples that he's given do
relate to a matter of policy, a matter of choice that the
elected officials make, and I agree with him.
Those are those matters that the local government, the
elected officials, are able to make. Those are not what
would be called into question by the auditor general.
However, what can be questioned by an auditor general
is the operations of that and whether or not those policy
decisions meet the expectations of those choices.
H. Lali: So in the same vein, could the minister, then,
categorically state that under this section, this entire
section, the bill does not in any way allow for a revision
or opening up of taxation policies of local government?
Hon. I. Chong: I did answer that previously.
Monday, March 26, 2012
H. Lali: I had asked that question previously, before
my hon. colleague from Surrey started asking. My col-
league asked about collective agreements — right? So
I'm asking about the actual property tax rates that are
set, the mill rates that are set by regional districts and
by municipalities. So my question is different from my
hon. colleague's. He talked about collective agreements.
I'm talking about the overall taxation policy that muni-
cipalities and regional districts are responsible for at the
local level.
So I just want the minister to say it. Does this section
allow those policies to come under review and to be
opened up — yes or no?
Hon. I. Chong: A few questions ago I did answer that,
not just the most recent question. So for the record I
will again state that an auditor general would not make
or overrule policy decisions of elected officials, such as,
which I said earlier, taxation structure or land use.
K. Corrigan: I just want to follow up on the same line
of questioning because I still don't understand. I don't
fully understand what exactly would be and wouldn't be
within the purview of the municipal auditor general. The
minister said that, no, the auditor general will not be able
to question policy decisions, but then the minister went
on to say, I think, that the auditor general could comment
on whether or not this was an effective use of tax dollars.
[1615]
So just being really specific, could the minister expect
that the auditor general may not question the policy but,
nevertheless, in a report make the comment or the sug-
gestion that perhaps a municipality would do better to,
for example, contract out services?
Hon. I. Chong: What I think is important for clarifica-
tion is, in fact, that the auditor general for local govern-
ment will have independence with respect to what he or
she decides to audit and where he or she decides to con-
duct those audits — i.e., which local governments, which
regional districts — and that the report the auditor gen-
eral produces will be one that will provide for comments
and recommendations but not a requirement that local
governments necessarily adhere to them, not unlike what
happens currently with our provincial Auditor General.
So I cannot speculate as to the range of comments that
an auditor general may make or what range of recom-
mendations that an auditor general may make as a re-
sult of an audit. That is the purview of an auditor general.
But again, what I will state for the record, what the
member may not have heard previously when I answered
one of her colleague's questions, is the auditor general not
being able to call into question the merits of a policy deci-
sion or objectives of a local government but that the aud-
its would, for example, review how that particular choice,
that particular decision, of that service is being delivered.
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
The example I gave earlier was an example of the
policy decision being made by local government to es-
tablish, for example, a recreational service. The auditor
general would not be able to call into question that the
local government decided to enter into a recreational
service agreement but can take a look at how that ser-
vice is delivered, whether that method of service was ef-
ficient, whether it was effective and whether the service
once established is in fact achieving the results that that
local government wanted to achieve when it chose to es-
tablish the service. That's an example I'm hoping that for
the member provides some clarification.
K. Corrigan: I wasn't suggesting that anybody can
direct an auditor, and they are to be independent in de-
ciding what kind of work they do. I hope that is the case
here as well.
I asked that specific question because I want to under-
stand where the edges of the mandate are. Given that no-
body is going to direct where an auditor general is going
to go, would it be within or would it not be within the
mandate of the auditor general…?
If the auditor general chose to go there, would it or
would it not be within the mandate of the auditor gen-
eral to make a recommendation that it would be more
efficient, more effective to contract out a service as op-
posed to keeping it in-house?
Hon. I. Chong: Again, as I indicated, we have no abil-
ity to fetter the range of comments that the auditor gener-
al would like to provide. So if the auditor general wished
to make comment in that area or provide recommenda-
tions, as the member has suggested, that auditor general
may do so. As is happening currently with our provincial
Auditor General, a range of recommendations sometimes
do come forward. It's up to the government, then, to de-
cide how we deal with those recommendations.
K. Corrigan: Well, I'm glad to hear, because I think
it's important for us to understand at this point exactly
what the mandate is or isn't. The minister has very clear-
ly said that it would be within the mandate of the aud-
itor general, if the auditor general so chose, to make a
recommendation to a local government that it would be
better to deliver services by contracting out as opposed
to keeping those services in-house — not commenting
on the process, not commenting on the policy, but sim-
ply saying that it was more effective. I believe that's what
the minister just said.
[1620]
So in the same vein, I'm wondering if…. I would as-
sume, if the auditor general chose, that the auditor gen-
eral could also, in looking at the operations of a local
government, make a recommendation that it would be
better for a local government to go by way of what is
known as a public-private partnership as opposed to
10351
keeping a service in-house?
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I just want to clarify for the
member that section 3, the purpose and mandate, does
set out what the purpose of the auditor general is. That
is, to conduct performance audits of operations of local
governments or to provide those local governments with
objective information and relevant advice. That is what
it is — advisory.
That's also what I tried to clarify earlier when we had
the discussion about an inspector of municipalities ver-
sus the auditor general. The inspector of municipalities
provides an advisory role, whereas the auditor general
provides advisory…. That is what the recommendations
would be in terms of advice.
I don't want to leave the comments that the member
has made wide open as to what an auditor general is go-
ing to, I guess, dictate what a local government is able to
do. Again, the policy decisions that the local government
decides to make are those by the local government. The
auditor general is able to make recommendations in re-
lation to a particular service or operation that the aud-
itor general — he or she — has just audited. So it's not
about the entire operations of a local government. That is
not the purpose and the mandate of the auditor general.
It is to take a look at value-for-money audits. It is to
take a look at a specific program or a particular service
that a decision has been made on by the local government
and then be able to report out on that for the objectives
of efficiency, effectiveness and economy.
K. Corrigan: Well, I understand what the minister
says — that this is not looking at the whole of the oper-
ations, although whether it's the whole of the operations
or an individual portion of the operations of a municipal-
ity…. I'm not sure that it makes much difference.
Let's take another very specific example. Let's say the
auditor general chose to look at the water operations of a
municipality. I just want to be clear, consistent with what
I believe the minister has already said, that the auditor
general could potentially — and we're not speculating as
to what a recommendation would be or what areas the
auditor general is going to go into…. The auditor general
could potentially, as part of the auditor general's recom-
mendations, for example, in looking at the water oper-
ations of a municipality that are perhaps in-house…. It
would be within the mandate to make a recommendation
that the water operation should be operated, for example,
by way of a public-private partnership.
Hon. I. Chong: Again, it is speculating whether that
auditor general would make those kinds of recommenda-
tions. I don't know. The auditor general obviously would
want to report out on the economy, efficiency and effect-
iveness of that particular service and, in so doing, may
choose to use language or words that are direct recom-
10352 British Columbia Debates
mendations. He or she could decide to report out on
those kinds of findings that would lead to conclusions
that the local government could decide upon.
The objective of a performance audit, value-for-money
audit, again, is to take a look at a particular service and,
for the matter or subject that the auditor general has de-
cided to audit, to evaluate it to the extent to which he
or she is able to provide a report that provides informa-
tion on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness. So I
can't speculate on what an auditor general may or may
not report.
K. Corrigan: So I'm wondering…. Let's use the ex-
ample that we've just talked about, which is looking at
the in-house water operations for a community. I just
would like to really tie down what the auditor general
would not be able to comment on. In the case of, say,
water operations — and the minister has confirmed that
it's possible…. You don't want to speculate what the aud-
itor general might do, but it is possible that the auditor
general may choose to make a recommendation. It would
be within the mandate to make a recommendation that,
for example, a P3 might be a better way to go.
[1625]
What in that particular example could the auditor gen-
eral not comment on, or in what way could the auditor
general not comment because it would fall within the
aegis of being a policy decision, the merits of a policy
decision?
Hon. I. Chong: I just want to assure the member with
respect to recommendations, that the auditor general
for local government would or could be making…. In
fact, any recommendations made by the auditor general
for local government would be in relation to, again, the
economy, the efficiency and the effectiveness of a local
government's operations as a result of a specific perform-
ance audit.
I want to be very clear that the proposed auditor
general for local government only has the authority to
make recommendations which are not binding recom-
mendations. Communities will have the freedom to de-
cide whether they want to act on those auditor general's
recommendations.
The auditor general's mandate would also include the
ability to develop and publish best practices arising from
specific performance audits for other local governments
as appropriate and useful and, therefore, the auditor gen-
eral could provide best practices on issues like joint ser-
vice delivery or other kinds of services if those topics
were initially the subject of the auditor general for those
specific audits.
Again, I want to be clear that the auditor general is not
able to call into question whether or not the local govern-
ment chose to have a service delivered in-house, whether
a local government chose to use a P3 option. Those de-
Monday, March 26, 2012
cisions are decisions that a local government is empow-
ered, is able, to make.
Once they have made their choice, however, an auditor
general, if he or she chooses to take a look at that deci-
sion, then takes a look at the objectives that were set for
that particular decision, and the auditor general would
see whether or not the decision or that choice is meeting
those objectives that that decision relied upon.
K. Corrigan: I certainly appreciate what the minister
says. But what could happen, I would presume, is that
this auditor general, who is being appointed by govern-
ment and not by municipalities, though, who are being
audited, could make a recommendation or create best
practices that say, for example, that it's a good idea —
this could be what the auditor general decides — to pri-
vatize services or to have them be P3s, a different form
of privatization.
Then, of course, if the minister could just confirm, if
those were the best practices that the auditor general
happened to recommend, it would be within the ambit,
within the purview, of the provincial government to then
enact legislation or regulation that would require that
that's the way that municipalities would proceed.
I know that is not part of this act, but if the minister
could just confirm that would certainly be within the
aegis of the government to do that.
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I want to reiterate that the
recommendations that an auditor general for local gov-
ernment provides as a result of the audit of a particular
service will be able to be published in a report. They are
recommendations that will go to that local government.
Those recommendations are not binding, and those
recommendations are not to the provincial government.
[1630]
H. Lali: Subsection (4) states: "The auditor general, if
permitted by regulation, may, on request of a local gov-
ernment and in accordance with the regulations, enter
into an agreement to conduct a performance audit of the
operations of the local government that relate to a matter
or subject that is specified in the agreement."
I'd like to propose a scenario here, for instance. I won't
mention any names of any communities, but the minister
will be familiar. Under this section can this mechanism
be put into action via a complaint or complaints coming
from members within a community?
Often, you know — the minister will be familiar; she's
been Minister for Municipal Affairs for a long time —
you'll find some constituents making allegations against
the mayor and council or regional district reps about
misappropriation of funds or other complaints such as
that. Is this the mechanism under which if a municipality
or regional district wanted to clear its name or that of an
elected official, they could then ask the auditor general
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
for a review or investigate that complaint that is against
them? Whether it's founded or not is irrelevant, but folks
who are elected at the local level want to have the oppor-
tunity to clear their names and ask the auditor general
to be able to do that.
Hon. I. Chong: I think it's important to note that this
section does state that "the auditor general, if permitted
by regulation," and by regulation…. We would have to
take a look at subsection 27(1)(g), which refers to the
regulation-making powers. This is about providing the
ability, on the request of the local government…. As a
result of the regulation, that would be allowing them to
enter an agreement.
This is not about a complaint-driven process. This is a
specific agreement that local government would be able
to enter into if the regulation permits that to take place.
H. Lali: If an audit takes place as a result of a request
by a local government and it's permitted by regulation,
then who pays for the actual costs of that audit?
Hon. I. Chong: I think perhaps it's fairest to say that
that would need to be determined at the time the regu-
lation is put in place. I think it's fair to say that with this
position that is being created, it is about providing the
auditor general with the ability to determine what audits
he or she decides to undertake and what entities — mu-
nicipalities, regional district — he or she decides to take
a look at. So the objective is for that auditor general to
make those decisions on his or her own accord.
Where this does provide that…. If an agreement is
made, and therefore if a local government is specifically
requesting a performance audit, it's not unlikely, then,
that the local government would be required to pay for
that, as if that local government were to go outside and
ask for an audit firm to come in and pay for that.
[1635]
The objective of the auditor general office is for him or
her to make the decision on what audits he or she wish-
es to perform. But when a local government requests it
and there's a specific request that is made, then clearly
the local government is requiring something on its own
and, therefore, would have to take a look at possibly con-
sidering those costs.
B. Ralston: My question is about the retrospective ap-
plication of this act. If the act passes — and I assume that
it will at some point in this session — will the appointed
municipal auditor general be authorized to examine, say,
previous land transactions under this section 3, look-
ing at their economy, their efficiency and their effective-
ness? How far back is it proposed that the auditor general
would be able to look?
Hon. I. Chong: When an audit is conducted, gener-
10353
ally it will have been as a result, as I say, of a decision
that has been made and, I guess, retrospectively. Perhaps
that's what the member is referring to. Once a decision
has been made, you'll then take a look at that service and
conduct the audit, but it is not designed to go back and
look at particular services that are no longer in existence.
By virtue of the definitions in section 1, what the aud-
itor general is looking at is operations, and "'operations'
means the design or implementation of the programs,
services, policies or systems of a local government and
related procedures." And that would generally refer to
those that are currently in place. If a decision had been
made six years ago but that particular service is still in
operation now, yes, the auditor general would be able to
take a look at that operation. If a decision was made six
years ago and that operation no longer exists, then it is
highly unlikely that an auditor general would be consid-
ering reviewing that, because that service is no longer in
existence.
B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that answer,
but just to be clear, there is nothing, no specific language
in the act that I can find that limits the retrospective ap-
plication of the auditor general's powers. In other words,
if a city, for example, had a program of land sales, as many
cities do, and it was ongoing, then — given what the min-
ister has said — the auditor general would have the scope
to look at sales of land in the city or municipality going
back, I suppose, to the origin of the program, in theory.
Is that correct?
Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for his clarifica-
tion. I would agree that if in fact there is a policy or a
choice, a decision that has been made that is ongoing, yes,
the auditor general may choose, if that is the area of audit
he or she chooses to make, to take a look at that ongoing
practice and make a determination going back to what-
ever period that allows for him or her to take a look at
the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of that program.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
B. Ralston: The important qualification here is in sub-
section 4(1). Can the minister explain how that section
will work? The annual service plan and the choices set out
in the annual service plan are subject to a review by the
audit council, and they can make suggestions. Does the
minister agree, notwithstanding the language "…in his or
her sole discretion…," that there's an effective limitation
by the role of the audit council that's set out in section 19?
[1640]
Hon. I. Chong: I think what's important to clarify
here is that the auditor general must provide a service
10354 British Columbia Debates
plan, and that service plan will establish the general
goals and objectives of where the auditor general wishes
to go. There is no limitation in terms of those goals and
objectives.
The audit council is able to make recommendations.
The audit council is able to review and provide input, but
the audit council is not able to then dictate to the auditor
general as to the changes or make binding any of those
recommendations that the audit council has for the aud-
itor general.
The objective here is to ensure there is a service plan
that is available and published for all to see and then for
the auditor general's office to be able to adhere to the ob-
jectives of that service plan.
B. Ralston: Well, I'm just looking at subsection 22(6):
"The auditor general must" — and that's obligatory —
"consider the comments and recommendations provided
by the audit council…." So it would seem that in the or-
dinary course of business, given that the auditor general
is going to be hired by the audit council — or, at least, on
the recommendation of the audit council — that a rea-
sonable auditor general…. If the audit council who hired
her or him doesn't wish to proceed in a certain way in the
service plan, he or she would be wise to pay attention to
that and revise their plan accordingly.
Now, I appreciate the minister says that theoretically
the auditor general has the final word. But as a matter
of practicality, doesn't the minister agree that what will
happen is that the audit council will prevail in terms of
setting the objectives?
Hon. I. Chong: No, I don't agree that the audit council
will prevail. The objective that the member has referred
to, as he's jumped to subsection 22(6), is that the auditor
general must consider. Again, they're not binding on the
auditor general.
The idea is to ensure that when the service plan is de-
veloped, if there are recommendations that the audit
council feels should be looked at and considered, they
are at least provided to the auditor general, and he or
she, therefore, must consider them. But the service plan
will still be one that is designed and developed by the
auditor general.
K. Corrigan: I'm just following up on my colleague's
questions. In choosing the audits, could the auditor gen-
eral choose audits of the Municipal Finance Authority?
Would that be under the mandate under this section?
Hon. I. Chong: No.
K. Corrigan: So that doesn't fall within the…. I know
we're back to the definition, but I'm thinking of the aud-
its that could potentially be taken.
[1645]
Monday, March 26, 2012
Then just for confirmation, as well: could that selection
of audits include an audit of the operations, through lo-
cal government, of TransLink?
Hon. I. Chong: In section 1, the definitions, we have
explained what local governments are. They mean "(a) a
municipality, (b) a regional district, (c) a greater board,
(d) a board, a commission, a corporation or another or-
ganization that, under generally accepted accounting
principles, is considered to be controlled by one or more
municipalities, regional districts or greater boards, and
(e) another local body prescribed by regulation." Those
are the subject areas the auditor general would be con-
sidering.
K. Corrigan: I just want to follow up on what my col-
league also talked about in referring to both section 4
and section 22 — the fact that the auditor general "must
consider the comments and recommendations provided
by the audit council…."
I would again ask the minister whether or not the min-
ister has any concern about the fact that the auditor gen-
eral, in choosing the audits under section 4, might feel
some influence. Given that it is my understanding — and
maybe the minister can correct me on this if I'm wrong
— that the five-year term that the auditor general is ap-
pointed for…. The auditor general can be fired — is that
not correct? — differently than what we have with the
provincial Auditor General, where it is impossible to do
that. I'm asking that in the context of the decisions that
are being made under section 4.
Hon. I. Chong: I just want to again provide, for the
benefit of the member, clarification with respect to the
annual service plan that the auditor general would be
producing. It is a high-level document that provides
overall direction for the auditor general for local gov-
ernment's operations in its upcoming year. The audit
council, as I say, may make comments or recommend
changes, which is consistent with their role in reviewing
and monitoring performance of the auditor general for
local government.
As well, the audit council, because they are made up
of knowledgable experts, may have useful input for the
auditor general for local government in preparing his or
her service plan. That's why we feel it is important that
the auditor general must consider those comments or
recommendations that the audit council puts forward.
The legislation does provide sole discretion to the aud-
itor general for local government to select the perform-
ance audits that will be conducted, and again, the audit
council comments on the service plans are non-binding.
With respect to the comments the member has made,
whether the auditor general can be fired or not, that goes
further on to section 6 of the act, where that can occur for
cause or because of incapacity, which is not unlike what is
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
currently the case for the provincial Auditor General. The
provincial Auditor General can also be let go for cause or
for incapacity, and that is how we have similarly drafted
this for the auditor general for local government.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
The Chair: The member for Fraser-Nicola on section 6.
H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Chair. I know you're very
tempted to say Yale-Lillooet. I was the member for so
long under that name.
Section 6 deals with suspension, removal or resigna-
tion of the auditor general, and 6(1) says: "On the recom-
mendation of the minister, the Lieutenant Governor in
Council may, for cause or because of incapacity, order
that the auditor general be suspended with or without
remuneration or be removed."
I just want to ask the minister: what is their recourse
for appeal if the auditor feels that they've been unjustly
suspended or removed? What is the process that they
use to fight that?
[1650]
Hon. I. Chong: Again I want to reiterate that this sec-
tion is virtually identical to what is provided for the prov-
incial Auditor General. We believe that what is in place
with the provincial Auditor General can be used in this
same form.
You know, again, without speculating, I think it's fair to
say that anytime someone feels they're let go unjustifiably,
there's always a legal recourse that they have. But it does
state here that as minister I would not just perform this
task unilaterally. It would be on the recommendation of
the audit council as well — that they feel there could be
cause or reason of incapacity. So I would take that into
consideration before any such removal would be con-
sidered. But as I say, it is virtually identical to what the
provincial Auditor General section is.
H. Lali: Subsection (2) says: "Before making the
recommendation referred to in subsection (1), the min-
ister must consider" — there's that word again — "the
recommendation of the audit council under section 19
(1) (c)." Again, it just leads me to ask the question to the
minister: isn't this a bit about the tail wagging the dog?
I mean, really, who's in charge here at the end of the
day? Is it the minister, or is it the audit council? Because
there's a whole lot of authority or responsibilities as-
signed to the audit council that the minister must con-
sider in terms of recommendations, and it's going to
come up again and again. So who's in charge here? Is it
the audit council, or is it the minister?
10355
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would state, perhaps for clar-
ity, that the auditor general for local government actually
is accountable to the citizens through the audit council.
In looking at…. Jumping to subsection 19(1), the role
of the audit council is to really review and monitor "the
performance of the auditor general, including, without
limitation, the performance of the auditor general in re-
spect of the annual service plan."
So there is a role for this audit council to ensure that
when they make the selection and they provide recom-
mendations for the service plan, they have a role, because
again, it is the auditor general who is required to be ac-
countable to the citizens — but through this mechanism
of an independent audit council. So that is why, in many
cases, the member will see that where the audit council
provides information to myself as minister, or whoever
the minister responsible will be, I must at least consider
those kinds of comments and recommendations.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
B. Ralston: In the budget that's proposed the minis-
ter will know that $2.6 million has been set aside for the
operation of this office. Can the minister tell the House
how much it's proposed that the new auditor general for
local government will be paid?
[1655]
Hon. I. Chong: The auditor general for local govern-
ment would receive a salary comparable to those with
similar roles in the B.C. government and to municipal
auditors general in other provinces. We have not set that
level specifically yet. As I say, we are taking a look at sal-
aries that are comparable to other municipal auditors
general across the country.
B. Ralston: Well, as the minister will know, the in-
dependent statutory officers of the Legislature are paid
the same rate as a Provincial Court judge, which is about
$250,000 a year, plus expenses. Is that the range that we're
looking at here to pay this person?
Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I could provide this. In terms
of specific comparisons, B.C.'s assistant Auditors General
make approximately $144,000. Ottawa's municipal aud-
itor general salary is $182,000, Toronto's earns $212,000,
and Oshawa's earns $169,000. So there is quite a range
of auditors general salaries, providing similar functions.
The auditor general for local government is very im-
portant, but I would state that the auditor general for lo-
cal government has a narrower mandate. It is looking at
performance audits only and not at financial audits. So
as I say, we will take a look at the comparisons that are
available and then provide that salary level that I think
10356 British Columbia Debates
fits within that range.
B. Ralston: I know that the positions of member of
the audit council were advertised some time ago, in ad-
vance of the legislation being tabled in the House. So pre-
sumably, that process of recruiting members of the audit
council is already underway. I know in a later provision
there's an ability for the audit council to set its own pay
for their job and their expenses.
Is the minister saying that it's somewhere in a range
between $130,000 and $212,000 and that the minister
just doesn't have an idea how much that person is going
to be paid? I find that hard to accept.
Hon. I. Chong: I want to just correct the member, with
due respect. He mentioned that he believed that the audit
council remuneration was not set. In fact, the audit coun-
cil remuneration is not set by the members themselves.
It is set by regulation.
Again, with respect to the auditor general for local gov-
ernment, as I've indicated, there is a range of salaries that
we have looked at. Ultimately, the auditor general for lo-
cal government's salary will be determined based on the
number of skill sets. As well, it will be determined taking
a look at the range of salaries across the country. It will
be determined based on the salaries that similar roles
have within the provincial government. So when that de-
termination is made and the offer is made to the auditor
general, that amount then would be set.
[1700]
B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if a search firm
has already been engaged to conduct the search to find
the municipal auditor general?
Hon. I. Chong: I'm happy to advise the member that,
in fact, certainly there has been a posting that has been
made through the PSA, the Public Service Agency, web-
site. There has been advertising that has, as well, taken
place, so that it has been a national public service process
underway. The posting, my understanding is, closes on
March 28, which would be this Wednesday.
B. Ralston: That certainly expresses the government's
confidence in getting the legislation passed, obviously.
Can the minister, then, if there are ads that are out
across the country…? Ordinarily, one of the things that
people inquire about when they apply for a job is what
they are going to get paid. Can the minister tell the House
what the salary range is — if it is a range, or the dollar
amount, if it is a precise amount — that's specified in the
ads that have already gone out?
Hon. I. Chong: I think, perhaps, it's best to again refer
the member to the Public Service Agency website. In the
posting that was placed, it does call for an auditor gen-
Monday, March 26, 2012
eral for local government. It says it's a critical role calling
for exceptional leadership, dedication and strategic man-
agement. It provides a descriptor for the auditor general
for local government. It provides a bit of information as
to how a team of individuals will be required, but the ad
does not indicate the salary amount.
B. Ralston: Well, it seems a bit surprising, if you are
asking people to apply for a job and you're not setting out
what you are going to pay them, even a range. That does
seem a little strange. Does it say that the salary will be
negotiated or something like that? I haven't seen the ad-
vertisement. I wasn't aware…. I didn't think, given that
the legislation hadn't passed, that the position would al-
ready be advertised, but there we are.
So is the minister then saying that…? There is a pre-
liminary budget, I know, because some money has been
allocated, $2.6 million. Is the minister saying there is no
notional amount, there is no amount pencilled in, for
the salary and benefits and the pension of the municipal
auditor general? Is that what she's saying?
[1705]
Hon. I. Chong: So the notional amount — I guess, the
best way to describe it — is in the range of the examples
that I have already provided. Again, it will be based on
the individual who is selected. It can be based on, as I say,
expertise and the skill sets they bring. But that range is
based on the examples I have provided earlier.
B. Ralston: I'm not sure that's a very full answer, but I
suppose that is the answer.
I just want to close on this point and then summar-
ize what I understand from the discussion — that the
salary proposed for the municipal auditor general will
be in a range between $140,000 and $212,000 a year. I
believe that is what the salary was for the Toronto mu-
nicipal auditor.
On top of that, there'll be pension rights, which gener-
ally account for about 25 percent on top of the salary, and
travel expenses. That's set out in section 8(2). So we're
looking at the low end, something approaching $180,000
or $185,000, and at the high end, about $250,000. That's
fair. I'm sure the public will be interested in the economy
and efficiency of this office.
Hon. I. Chong: Again, the range that I did provide the
member earlier…. Yes, if he wants to make those calcula-
tions, he can. Again, I am not able to say for certain what
the amount will be, because those will be what is negoti-
ated. These are approximate range amounts that we'd be
looking at, based on what we have seen across the coun-
try and with respect to the skill set levels that will be re-
quired for this position.
K. Corrigan: In talking about the ads for a prospective
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
auditor general, I am interested in the fact that there was
an ad. I hadn't seen that. I'm just wondering: was there a
starting date or an approximate starting date in the ad?
Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised there was not a starting
date placed in the ad.
H. Lali: I understand that the closing date for this pos-
ition is in two days, and here we are debating this bill in
the House at committee stage today. It's sort of letting the
horses out of the barn and then closing the door. I mean,
is this a way to run a government? Does the minister
think that this is the right way to do things — to put out
an ad, and we haven't even passed the bill?
The minister doesn't even know if members of her own
caucus are going to support this bill. An ad goes out, and
the closing date is in two days. Does the minister think
this is the right way to run government?
Hon. I. Chong: Well, we did introduce the bill last fall.
It's been known for quite some time that we were going
to be establishing an office of the auditor general for local
government. I do believe that it was responsible to place
an ad out there, to find out those who are interested in
this position.
Yes, the closing date is coming up, but that's not to say
that the applicants who are going to be looked at will be
chosen in the next few days. The audit council will still be
required to take a look and provide a short list and do the
interviewing. The office is a matter that has been talked
about for over a year now. We brought in the legislation
in the fall. So it's no surprise to members opposite that
we are going to be establishing an office of the auditor
general for local government.
[1710]
H. Lali: Well, the minister says, you know, that we
made the announcements. The bill was introduced in the
House. We put out an ad already, and the bill hasn't even
passed. The bill hasn't even passed in this House, and the
minister doesn't even know the outcome — whether the
bill is going to be passed or not, whether all the mem-
bers of her team are even on board and are not going to
be jumping ship left, right and centre as they've been do-
ing today already.
The minister thinks that it's okay to be able to spend
money already, before it is even approved? Mind you,
this really is the typical way of how Liberals have been
running this government for the last 11 years. It's just to
shovel that money out from the back of a pickup. No re-
spect for due process.
You bring a bill forward into the House. You debate
it and see if it's passed. Once it's passed, you say: "Okay.
Now we're going to actually put out an ad." No.
"We made the announcement. We introduced the bill,"
the hon. minister says. "We've done those kinds of things,
10357
and everybody in the world knows about it."
But it hasn't been passed. It hasn't passed in this House.
We're still debating it, and the closing date is in two days.
What is it, the 26th today? It's closing in two days. We
could be sitting here debating this bill for the next three
days because we've got a lot of questions on this side of
the House.
I know that the members opposite are all sitting mum.
They're not asking questions. They're not standing up for
their constituents. But we are. We're asking the pertinent
questions, and this could drag on for the next three days.
I mean, what is the minister going to do? The bill
doesn't pass by the time the closing date ends. What is
the minister then prepared to do? Is the minister go-
ing to pull the ad? Is the minister going to inform all of
those people that applied: "I'm sorry. We put the cart be-
fore the horse. The bill didn't pass, and we've got a clos-
ing date already"? Is the minister then going to pull the
ad and tell all those folks: "I'm sorry, but we don't have
a job right now"?
Hon. I. Chong: As I have indicated, this office of the
auditor general for local government has been discussed
for some time. Legislation was introduced last fall in an-
ticipation of the fact the office will be established. It is
not uncommon for preparatory steps to be taken in an-
ticipation of legislation being passed. It is not out of the
ordinary.
Yes, the closing date will be in two days, but that's not
to say that the individual will be selected within two days.
Obviously, an audit council will need to take a look at
the applicants and make a determination about which
of those they wish to interview. If there isn't a suitable
candidate, then there's still a possibility that we would
continue to post for a successful candidate to fill the pos-
ition. We are taking preparatory steps in anticipation of
the legislation passing.
H. Lali: Let me ask about a preparatory step that's
a part of this whole process, then. It's the audit coun-
cil. That's another one of the preparatory steps, because
the audit council has to be in place in order for the audit
council to make the recommendation, which the minister
must consider. That's also there in the act: "…the minis-
ter must consider…."
So will the minister tell us, inform us: has the mem-
bership of the audit council all been selected, and is the
audit council up and running and functioning already?
Hon. I. Chong: No.
The Chair: The member for Fraser-Nicola, on sec-
tion 8.
H. Lali: Well, this section is pertinent because we are
talking about remuneration and expenses of the auditor
10358 British Columbia Debates
general, and of course, the audit council is a part of that
whole AGLG.
The audit council has not been selected, and the clos-
ing date is in two days. If the audit council is going to
be going through the resumes and doing the interviews
and then coming down with a recommendation, how is
this supposed to work when the minister has already put
out an ad requesting applications and part of the prep-
aratory work is to set up an audit council which has not
been set up yet?
Hon. I. Chong: The processes are underway, as well,
to select the audit council members.
[1715]
H. Lali: Can the minister tell me: when did the Liberals
put out the ad? When did the government put out, first-
ly, the ad for the auditor general's position and, secondly,
the ad requesting the membership for the audit council?
The Chair: Member, it's not part of section 8. Section
8 is dealing with remuneration and expenses of the aud-
itor general.
H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll rephrase my ques-
tion. Could the minister tell me: when was the ad put out
for the auditor general, and how much is the cost of the
ad? And when was the ad put out for the audit council,
and what is the cost of that ad?
The Chair: You're still out of order, Member. If you
just take a moment to look at section 8, it's dealing with
the remuneration and expenses of the auditor general.
H. Lali: Well, thank you. Then, maybe the minister can
clarify for me whether the ad that has gone out for the
auditor general comprises a part of section 8?
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
H. Lali: This is the budget then. Under this issue….
Actually, before I get into the monetary end, I'll ask that
question, because this will be the pertinent section then.
Obviously, the answers from the minister have got to
come under this section.
This is $2.6 million of taxpayers' moneys that this gov-
ernment is spending to set up a separate bureaucracy,
when we know that the office of the provincial Auditor
General already exists. So my question to the minis-
ter is: why did the minister not consider putting the re-
sponsibilities of the AGLG under the wing of the existing
provincial Auditor General?
Hon. I. Chong: While that comment does not relate
Monday, March 26, 2012
specifically to the remuneration and expenses of the aud-
itor general under section 9, which is what we are spe-
cifically referencing, what I can say with respect to the
decision to have the auditor general for local government
separate and apart from the provincial Auditor General
is what I had stated earlier.
The provincial Auditor General is focused on the ac-
tivities of the provincial government and the entities that
it controls — and reports to the Legislature. The provin-
cial Auditor General reports to the Legislature. The aud-
itor general for local government, however, is focused on
the operations of local governments, which are a separ-
ate order of government, and they do not report to the
Legislature.
It was important to establish a separate office that re-
flects the principle that local governments, as a separate
order of government, are elected by and directly account-
able to their communities, rather than being accountable
through the Legislature.
H. Lali: In last year's estimates, in the spring of last
year, this minister is on record for categorically stating
that the new municipal auditor general would be under
the wing of the provincial Auditor General. She also is
on record, in that particular dialogue that we had, stat-
ing that the Premier is also envisaging that that is what
would happen.
So would the minister please let us know: why was
the AGLG's office set up as a separate bureaucracy? Why
wasn't it set up under the provincial Auditor General
where we could have saved $2.6 million that could have
been used in health care or Children and Families or
some other ministry?
[1720]
Hon. I. Chong: First, I want to also make a clarifica-
tion, lest it be assumed here in these debates now, that….
The establishment of the office of the auditor general for
local government is a separate office, and the costs asso-
ciated with it will require the hiring of auditors to per-
form the work.
The office of the provincial Auditor General, had it
been used, would not have stayed at the same staffing
level as is currently in place. They likely, as well, would
have had to hire additional auditors to take on the work. I
don't want members to think that the work of the auditor
general for local government would all have been done by
the work of the office of the provincial Auditor General.
As well, I want to say that when the decision to take a
look at establishing an auditor general for local govern-
ment…. I do believe that there was a belief that it could
be housed within the office of the provincial Auditor
General. However, after some discussion and in work-
ing with UBCM and the policy paper they presented,
they also made it very clear that a reporting relation-
ship to a stand-alone board or a committee could be
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
the most compatible with the local governments' level
of autonomy.
That is why reporting through the Legislature was
identified as most detrimental to the local autonomy of
those local governments. So that is one of the reasons
why it was decided that the office of the auditor gener-
al for local government needed to have that separation.
H. Lali: The minister is now saying that the reason —
basically, this is what the minister is saying; I'm trying to
paraphrase — they changed their mind on not putting
the AGLG under the provincial Auditor General was be-
cause the UBCM had a different idea in mind. They want-
ed to set it up differently, not under the provincial AG.
Well, if the minister and this government honestly
wanted to listen to the concerns of the UBCM, then they
should have talked to UBCM before the Premier did her
ready-fire-aim approach or writing policy on the back of
an envelope — a secret deal that she made with the CFIB
— and said they were going to set up a municipal auditor
general and then promised it would be under the prov-
incial AG. The minister stated such in estimates last year
in the springtime.
All of a sudden, they change their mind, and now
they're going to listen to the UBCM, which they didn't
even consult. The Premier didn't even consult before
thinking of this idea of setting up the AGLG. Now the
minister is saying that they've changed their mind be-
cause the UBCM wanted to set up something different.
We learn now that the UBCM does not even have any
representation on the audit council — no elected mayor
or official or anybody, as such. Rather, it's going to be all
business interests that are going to be on there.
Again, I would say to the minister…. Why did the min-
ister state last year that it was going to be under the prov-
incial AG and now set it up as a separate bureaucracy and
spend $2.6 million that could have been used elsewhere?
Why did the minister change her mind?
Certainly, it wasn't on the advice of the UBCM, which
they basically short-shrifted all along this whole pro-
cess, and now are trying to say: "We did it because of
the UBCM."
Hon. I. Chong: First, I do want to say that audit coun-
cil members have not yet been selected. So I want to make
it clear that when the members make comments that
there's no representative from UBCM, it's about having
representatives who understand local government. Again,
the audit council members have not been selected.
[1725]
I want to read in, for the record…. The member made
comments now on a number of occasions that indicated
I had made very specific comments with respect to the
auditor general's placement — I guess that's the best way
to describe it — and my recollection was that I had ad-
vised that the possibility for it to be with the provincial
10359
Auditor General certainly was there. But I had not said
so definitively, yet the member has indicated that. I think
it's important to make it clear for the record, and this is
what I did say last year. I will read it as verbatim.
"I can tell the member that I had a meeting with our Auditor
General, not specifically for this but on another issue."
I discussed the issue of a municipal auditor general, and
he indicated to me that while there are some municipal
auditors general that exist, there is not one set of rules
that they all adhere to and that it can be a complex issue.
"We don't make a determination at the outset as to what that
auditor should be doing versus what is already in place.
"As the member will know, the financial statements of all munici-
pal councils currently are either comprehensively reviewed or aud-
ited, I believe, by independent auditors, so that already takes place.
"We don't want to duplicate those kinds of things, so we will
have to proceed very carefully, working in collaboration, as I say,
with the Office of the Auditor General, if that is to be the case, and
working with UBCM to understand their expectations of what is
required, because they do represent local governments, but at the
same time taking a look at what is taking place in other jurisdic-
tions to find if we can get the best out of all those best practices
that exist and then incorporate them here in British Columbia and
have a solution for what we want and that I think everybody will
accept and appreciate."
What I said last year, or last fall in the estimates, was
that I would be taking a look at what existed across the
country, what was possible, and that I would work in
collaboration and speak with the Office of the Auditor
General, our provincial Auditor General, and that I
would also work with UBCM. Clearly, that's what I have
done.
H. Lali: Maybe the minister can then tell us, in terms
of members of the audit council: are they going to be paid,
and what is their rate of pay envisaged to be? Could the
minister also tell us: will there be regular weekly, biweekly,
monthly or quarterly meetings? What kind of travel and
other expenses are also envisaged?
Hon. I. Chong: If the member wants us to hop over
to section 21, I can, but that is where all the details with
respect to the business meetings of the audit council will
be. But I'll just briefly state that the audit council must
meet at least three times each fiscal year.
K. Corrigan: Section 9 talks about the auditor gener-
al presenting for approval to the chair of Treasury Board
"an estimate, in a form acceptable to the chair" of the
Treasury Board, "of the resources that will be required
during the upcoming fiscal year" to exercise the audit-
or's powers.
We have a number — I believe it's around $2.6 million
— that's the estimated cost of this new municipal auditor
general. But I'm wondering if the minister could con-
firm…. The auditor general presenting to the Treasury
Board is not going to be required, I would assume, to
come up with a budget of around $2.6 million. When
it says "in a form acceptable to the chair," my reading
10360 British Columbia Debates
of that section is not talking about a form as being the
amount but rather a form as the way that the estimate is
put together.
I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that.
Is the auditor general going to be independent in decid-
ing how much the office is going to cost to operate?
[1730]
Hon. I. Chong: It's fair to state that the auditor general
for local government will need to put forth an estimate
that he or she believes will be required to allow him or
her to perform the functions of the office. That's not un-
like what all ministries do. All ministries go to Treasury
Board and put forward an estimate as to what they be-
lieve is required for their operations.
That's what the auditor general for local government
would be required to do. The comments about "in a form
acceptable to the chair" are standard in that that is in a
format that the Treasury Board is able to receive.
K. Corrigan: We have a bit of an unusual situation
that doesn't happen all the time. We have a budget in the
range of $2.6 million, a tentative budget. But we have an
auditor that is coming in, who is said to be independent,
to have the independence of the office. Presumably, that
auditor would be the individual that would take a look at
the mandate that the auditor general for municipalities
is going to have and make a decision about the resources
that will be required to fulfil that mandate.
What I would like to find out is: is there going to be
an expectation that in fact that auditor general is some-
what limited and perhaps not independent because the
expectation will be that the budget will be in the range
of $2.6 million a year? Or will the auditor general have
the ability to simply say: "These are the resources that are
required during the upcoming fiscal year to exercise my
powers and also to remunerate and reimburse members
of the audit council"?
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, the auditor general
for local government will be required to put forth an
estimate that he or she feels is appropriate in order to
perform the duties he or she is required to and to fulfil
the mandate of that office. That is not unlike, as I say, all
ministries.
That is not unlike what the current provincial Auditor
General is also required to do — set forth what he feels
is required to run his office. He does not get to have un-
limited resources to operate his office. So it is handled in a
similar manner. The auditor general for local government
will be able to take a look at the estimate of the resources
that are needed in a form that's suitable for inclusion in
the estimates, and that is the process that is underway.
Monday, March 26, 2012
K. Corrigan: There has been an ad that has gone out
to seek interested parties. Would it be expected that part
of the interview process and the vetting, the screening, of
the potential auditor general would be to say: "Are you
happy with a budget of $2.6 million?" Or would it be ex-
pected that this auditor general is going to be truly in-
dependent and is going to be able to come up with at least
an initial estimate of what resources are going to be need-
ed, and if that's $8 million a year, that's $8 million a year?
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would say to the member that
the provincial Auditor General, too, is not able to set his
budget according to what his desires and wishes are. He
is required to submit what he believes to his best ability
is what he requires to conduct audits, and he is viewed
as independent.
[1735]
So we have modelled it under the same fashion.
However, in this first year we did set aside an amount of
$2.6 million as an indication of what government is pre-
pared to resource this particular office.
Going forward in the future, the auditor general for
local government absolutely will be required to, again,
provide information that he or she feels is necessary to
fulfil his or her mandate as the auditor general for local
government, not unlike what all ministries will be re-
quired to do and not unlike what the provincial Auditor
General is required to do. That is, as I say, a process that
is the standard procedure.
K. Corrigan: Is the minister suggesting that in the in-
itial setup of the office, the first estimate and potential
budget for this office of the auditor general will not follow
the format that is going to be in following years, which is
that the auditor general will present for approval an es-
timate of how much it is going to cost to have the office?
Hon. I. Chong: As the member knows, there is not
currently an auditor general. So I did put forward an
estimated amount that I believed was an appropriate
amount to allow for the office to be established in this
initial year, because we don't have an auditor general. As
I said, going forward, the auditor general will need to
provide information with respect to what he or she feels
is required — the resources required — to perform the
services that he or she needs to for the role and the man-
date of the legislation.
As well, it's not to suggest that the auditor general
will have an ability to set his or her own budget. Like
the provincial Auditor General, there is a requirement
to provide that estimation of what dollars they feel they
need and make that presentation to Treasury Board,
which will then decide whether that is an amount that
can be funded.
K. Corrigan: I just would like to have clarification that
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates 10361

the minister is saying that the first budget for the first year Les Stilwell Hayer
is going to be set by the government and not by the aud- Cantelon Pimm Hogg
itor general, when that auditor general is selected. Howard Thornthwaite Stewart
Foster Horne Slater
Hon. I. Chong: Currently that is what is in the esti-
mates. NAYS — 28

K. Corrigan: But this is the first year, so what you're James S. Simpson Corrigan
saying is that the auditor general is going to come into Horgan Dix Farnworth
this position, setting up this organization…. Essentially, Ralston Kwan Fleming
the minister is saying that it is not going to be up to the Lali Austin Conroy
newly appointed independent auditor general to at least Donaldson Huntington Trevena
have an opportunity to make the case to government that Elmore Bains Mungall
this is how much it is going to take in order to operate Krog Simons Chouhan
this organization. Is that correct? Popham Fraser B. Routley
Macdonald Coons Black
Hon. I. Chong: As the member has indicated, this Gentner
is the first year, and so it would be difficult to speculate [1750]
whether in fact the entire amount is even required. We
made a determination as to what amount seemed rea- On section 10.
sonable, which should be set aside in the estimates. We
had to ask for that amount to be included in our budget
H. Lali: Under section 10(2) — this is about the audit
estimates, and that's the amount we've chosen. Going
of financial statements of the auditor general — it states:
forward, the auditor general can make a determination
"The minister must appoint an independent auditor who
whether or not those dollars are sufficient or whether
is authorized to be an auditor of a company under sec-
the amount is too much and then make that request to
tion 205 of the Business Corporations Act to audit the
Treasury Board.
financial statements referred to in subsection (1) for each
V. Huntington: Assuming that the audit council has fiscal year."
been appointed by the minister and then assuming that Hon. Chair, would the minister please explain why she
the audit council has spent a certain amount of time has not asked the provincial Auditor General to actually
interviewing the candidates for auditor general, who is audit the report of the AGLG?
then setting the reimbursements and remuneration for
the audit council? Is that to be done through regulation, Hon. I. Chong: This is a similar requirement that
or is the auditor general going to be expected to set the exists with the provincial Auditor General under section
remuneration? 23 of the Auditor General Act.
[1740]
H. Lali: Can the minister please explain…? Under sub
Hon. I. Chong: The member is correct. The members (3), when the audit is completed in each fiscal year, the
of the audit council will be remunerated in accordance auditor actually appointed under subsection (2) has to
with the rates set by regulation. That is in section 18(7). submit the results of the audit to the auditor general and
[1745] to the minister. What is the rationale for that, and why
not submit the audit to the Legislature?
Section 9 approved on the following division:
Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the best way to describe it, as I
YEAS — 39 said earlier, is that this position is not reporting to mem-
Rustad McIntyre Thomson
bers of the Legislature.
Lekstrom Bloy Yamamoto
H. Lali: I was wondering if the minister could tell
Chong Lake MacDiarmid
me…. When the independent auditor does the audit for
McRae Yap Letnick
the auditor general, the AGLG, and it goes to the minis-
Lee Sultan Dalton
ter and also goes to the auditor general himself or herself,
Hawes Coell Krueger
could the minister tell me if a copy is also going to the
Heed Cadieux Polak
audit council at the same time?
Bell Coleman Falcon
Bond de Jong Hansen Hon. I. Chong: The answer is that the audit report is
10362 British Columbia Debates
not provided directly to the audit council, but because it
is included in the annual report through that, in essence,
the audit council will have received the audit report.
H. Lali: I was wondering if the minister can clarify that.
The minister says, not directly but indirectly, yes. Will the
audit council be receiving the report at the same time that
the minister is receiving the report?
[1755]
Hon. I. Chong: The information with respect to the
annual report is under section 25. In essence, subsection
25(2) says: "The annual report must include the audited
financial statements referred to in section 10." That's
why I made reference to the fact that the audited finan-
cial statements will be part of the annual report, which
is provided.
It is, I guess, a standard practice that when there are
audited financial statements that ministries receive for
inclusion in annual reports, they are provided directly
to the minister for inclusion in an annual report. But be-
cause the audited financial statement will likely be at the
end of the year and the annual report will likely be at the
end of the year, it is very likely that both will be made
available around the same time.
H. Lali: But not necessarily — correct?
Hon. I. Chong: Correct.
H. Lali: So in effect, there could be an instance where
both the minister and the audit council get the report at
the same time, and there could be instances when the
minister gets it first. But when it's included in the annual
report, then the audit council gets it.
Hon. I. Chong: That's correct.
H. Lali: I just want to go back to subsection 10(2)
under the same section. It's a follow-up question to the
one I asked originally, when I asked the minister why the
independent auditor could not be the provincial Auditor
General, who would actually do the report at the fiscal
year. The minister says it was done in the same way as
the provincial Auditor, where the independent auditor
is assigned.
Again, it doesn't answer my question. If the minister
can explain it to me: what's the difference between the
provincial Auditor General and somebody that is hired
outside of that to actually do the audit of the auditor gen-
eral's report?
Hon. I. Chong: I just want to say that what this section
merely does is allow for an independent auditor to review
the fiscal performance of the office of the auditor general
for local government. What it does is ensure that the fi-
Monday, March 26, 2012
nancial statements of the office of the auditor general for
local government are reviewed independently every year.
H. Lali: The provincial Auditor General is an in-
dependent officer of the Crown. It's independent of
government, the cabinet, the government caucus and
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and reports directly to
all members of this House, all 85 of us in this chamber.
That's where the independence of the provincial Auditor
truly comes into nature.
My question to the minister is: why would the minis-
ter not actually assign the provincial Auditor General to
be that independent auditor that is required under this
section?
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would just like to say that this
position, this auditor general for local government, does
not report to the Legislature. However, there is a require-
ment under this section that the financial statements of
this office are, in fact, audited. The government is fund-
ing this office, and like other agencies and commissions
as such that are funded by government, they all can have
independent auditors review and audit their financial
situations or their operations for the year.
[1800]
That's what's going to happen in this particular case.
An independent auditor will in fact audit the financial
statements, status and operations of the office of the aud-
itor general for local government.
H. Lali: Subsection 10(2), according to my reading,
does not preclude the provincial Auditor General to be
that independent auditor. Am I correct, or does the min-
ister have a different reading than this?
Hon. I. Chong: Again, subsection 10(2) just requires
that the audit of the financial statements of the auditor
general be conducted independently for each fiscal year.
H. Lali: It's a simple question. Either it does preclude
the provincial Auditor General or it doesn't — yes or no?
Hon. I. Chong: I didn't say that it precluded. I just said
that the audit will be done by an independent auditor. It
could possibly be, but it doesn't have to be, the provin-
cial Auditor General.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
H. Lali: Under section 11 the auditor general actually
can "retain persons in capacities other than as employees
who the auditor general considers necessary for the exer-
cise of the powers and the performance of the duties of
the auditor general," and may set the remuneration and
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
terms and conditions of employment for that individual.
Is the minister referring to contracts in this section?
Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of this section is to pro-
vide authority for the auditor general to appoint and en-
gage persons necessary for the exercise of the powers and
performance of the duties of the auditor general. This
includes the authority to appoint "in accordance with
the Public Service Act, a deputy auditor general and the
other employees necessary for the exercise of the pow-
ers and the performance of the duties of the auditor gen-
eral," as stated.
It also provides or includes the authority to engage
"persons in capacities other than as employees" — for
example, contractors — and to set that remuneration.
It ensures that the auditor general has the authority, in
fact, to hire staff and other persons to perform his or her
mandate. These provisions are similar to section 8 of the
Auditor General Act.
H. Lali: I want to thank the minister for that answer.
My next question is: will these contracts be tendered or
will they be direct-award?
Hon. I. Chong: We expect that this would be subject to
the same procurement policies that the other independ-
ent officers currently utilize.
H. Lali: I take it to mean that some will be tendered
and some will not be tendered, depending on the amount
of the contract. Could the minister give me some ex-
amples or some benchmarks above which they will be
tendered and below which they would not be, some ex-
amples under the existing policy that is there, for my
clarification?
[1805]
Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, these provisions are
similar to section 8 of the Auditor General Act. I guess
for general purposes I can advise that for amounts under
$25,000, the procurement policy provides that they
may be direct-award or sole-sourced. For amounts over
$25,000, those generally do require following the pro-
cedure of the procurement policy, which does require
requests for proposals.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
H. Lali: Section 12, the powers of delegation. It pro-
vides that the auditor general may delegate, actually in
writing, the powers or duties of the auditor general except
for the power to delegate, the power to prepare and sub-
mit a proposed annual service plan to the audit council
and the power to make a report.
10363
This is actually fairly far-reaching here. I was wonder-
ing why that power actually does not lie with the cab-
inet itself rather than with the auditor general himself
or herself.
Hon. I. Chong: The powers that are being provided are
not as far-reaching, I think, as the member…. He chose
that word. What this provides for is it enhances the ef-
ficiency by enabling the auditor general to delegate cer-
tain powers and duties while maintaining an appropriate
level of accountability.
The objective here is so that…. The auditor general,
to conduct certain work or powers and duties of his or
her role, cannot always be expected to do every single
function. Therefore, when he or she has staff or other
members under his or her authority, he or she can dele-
gate that to those members to carry on the work that an
auditor general might otherwise be doing directly him-
self or herself.
H. Lali: I was wondering if the minister can clarify,
because this section is not worded as succinctly as it
perhaps could be. This section provides that the auditor
general "may delegate, in writing," the powers or the dut-
ies of the auditor general, with some exceptions.
Is the power being delegated to the audit council? Or
is it just that a comma is missing in here — the power to
prepare and "submit a proposed annual service plan to
the audit council"? It's a little confusing whether it's just
the power of submitting a proposed annual service plan
to audit council, or is the delegation of the power, in writ-
ten form, given to the audit council as opposed to some
outside individual?
[1810]
Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps it's best to share with the
member that this section mirrors the ability that the
Representative for Children and Youth also has, in that
the representative is able to delegate to her staff certain
duties that she might otherwise undertake.
This is not about delegating away reporting or require-
ments. This is about delegating authority to staff to con-
duct the work that the auditor general might generally be
required to do in the conduct of the audit that generally
takes place. So the section is similar to that which the
representative currently has, where she needs to delegate
to her staff to conduct some of the work that is required.
H. Lali: So basically, the power to delegate is to the
staff and not to the audit council — correct. I thank the
minister for that.
The other subsection here — actually, one of the sub-
sections under 12 — provides that if the auditor general
ceases to hold office, a delegation of power will continue
to have effect for as long as the delegate's appointment
or retainer continues unless it is revoked by a succeeding
10364 British Columbia Debates
auditor general.
Any timelines? Is that because this is fairly open-
ended? How long could this possibly go on? It may take
months to find a succeeding auditor general, for whatever
reasons. There's no timeline attached here. Really, then,
the delegation of power rests in the hands of the staff for
an indefinite period. I'm wondering if the minister agrees
that there ought to be an end date or a duration put in
here, as opposed to making it open-ended?
Hon. I. Chong: This is not a delegation that is indefin-
ite. What it provides for, though, is that when a delegation
has been made to staff or an auditor to go out and inves-
tigate and conduct its work, that delegation can remain
in place even if the auditor general decides, for some un-
known reason, to tender his or her resignation. You can't
have that delegation stopped right in the middle of the
work that's being done by the auditor.
But again, I want to provide some comfort to the mem-
ber. Under section 7, if an auditor general does, in fact,
resign, there will be an acting auditor general who would
therefore be able to continue with ensuring that delega-
tion of authority is limited to the actions and the work
required of that particular staff member or that auditor.
H. Lali: The minister used the word "acting" auditor
general. There's the auditor general, but is there a provi-
sion for a deputy auditor general under this act? Is it rea-
sonable to assume that the delegation's powers would go
to that deputy auditor general, who would then become,
obviously, the acting auditor general?
Hon. I. Chong: Yes, that could be the case.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
H. Lali: Under section 13. This is the section "Access
to records, information and things." For this section,
"participant" means a municipality or treaty First Nation
whose geographic area or treaty lands "form all or part of
an area in which a service is provided by or on behalf of
a regional district." Could the minister give us an idea of
what kind of due diligence was done with First Nations
in drafting this section?
[1815]
Hon. I. Chong: The auditor general for local govern-
ment's mandate is, as I said, to audit local governments.
The auditor general for local government doesn't have
authority to audit other organizations. However, as part
of the audit of a local government, the auditor general
for local government may need to get access to records
and information that are in the hands of other persons
or organizations involved in the operation of a service or
Monday, March 26, 2012
activity of the local government.
Examples might include a private partner operating
a service under contract with the local government, a
non-profit to whom the local government gave a grant
of money or a municipality or treaty First Nation that
participates in the regional district service that is being
audited. It would be treaty First Nations that are partici-
pating in a regional district, so not First Nations, blanket.
H. Lali: Does this section allow the AG to have access
to records of treaty First Nations?
Hon. I. Chong: This is only with respect to those who
are members of a regional district. Currently there is only
one, and that would be Tsawwassen First Nation.
H. Lali: Still on section 13, this section also provides
for additional persons or organizations that may be re-
quired to provide access to records, information and
things, facilities and works and explanations necessary
for the performance audits. Could the minister tell me
how the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection
Act applies under this section?
Hon. I. Chong: Under section 13, I want to make it
clear that the FOI rules apply to the records of local gov-
ernments. When the records are taken by the local gov-
ernment auditor general, then the rules for the use of
those records fall under section 16, so in a further sec-
tion. How those records, once they are taken, are to be
used will fall under section 16.
[1820]
K. Corrigan: These seem to be fairly wide-sweeping
subsections. The section and subsections seem to be
fairly wide-sweeping in terms of the access that the aud-
itor will have.
One of the examples that the minister actually men-
tioned was in the case where a municipality contracted
with a private operator. Let's say in the case of a P3. Well,
my understanding is that in the past it would be difficult
to access those records and, in fact, that some of those re-
cords are protected under the agreements, that they will
not be available to others.
I'm wondering if the minister has thought about po-
tential consequences of what seems to me to be a more
wide-ranging access to records than previously would
have existed. Perhaps the minister can let me know —
whether, in fact, my assumption that the access to rec-
ords are more detailed and more wide-ranging than what
would presently be available to an auditor who is auditing
the municipalities' books. I'm just trying to get the sense
of how wide-sweeping this power is, because it seems to
me it's pretty wide.
Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I want to say, through you
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
to the member, that it's not as wide-sweeping and open-
ended, I think, as she believes it appears to be. This is
about access to records in relation to the audit, so not
access to every single document. It's only in relation to
the audit. This is similar to the scope that is provided to
the provincial Auditor General in looking at information.
However, as I've indicated, by virtue of section 16, the re-
strictions on use of that information is there in particular
issues with respect to confidentiality.
Hon. Chair, noting the hour, I move that the commit-
tee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported
progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported
resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10
a.m. tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D.
Horne in the chair.
The committee met at 2:39 p.m.
On Vote 11: ministry operations, $34,753,000 (con-
tinued).
The Chair: We're currently considering the budget
estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and
Reconciliation.
10365
Hon. M. Polak: If you recall, when we last met, there
were a number of issues that my staff and myself agreed
to follow up on — a couple of questions that were asked
by members.
The first issue is in response to the member for Alberni–
Pacific Rim's question regarding the terrible car accident
that occurred just north of Hope along Highway 1. The
issue raised was on behalf of the Spuzzum First Nation
about the remains of the accident that are currently
wrapped around the abutment of the bridge.
[1440]
I had staff look into the issue, and we're quite satis-
fied that the concerns around the diesel leaking, at the
very least, have been taken care of. We've been advised
that the diesel has now all been drained from the vehicle
tanks. All the debris except for the remains of the trailer
that is wrapped around the supports of the bridge has
been removed.
Provincial staff have been working with ICBC to get
the trailer removed. ICBC hired a contractor just before
Christmas to remove the trailer, but then CP Rail had
concerns about how the work could potentially impact
the bridge structure which currently supports rail traffic.
The work to remove the trailer is currently on hold
while ICBC and CP Rail come up with a plan that is go-
ing to address those concerns. We'd be happy to arrange
for a further briefing or meeting between CP Rail, ICBC,
the province, Spuzzum just to explain the situation and
plans going forward and allow the member to ask any
further questions. But that's the information we were
able to find out for the member.
Then, for the member for Cowichan Valley, the second
question was raised by the member on behalf of the Coast
Salish Employment and Training Society. I've been ad-
vised that the aboriginal skills and employment training
strategy agreement holders are funded to deliver em-
ployment programs and services by the government of
Canada. Their funding agreements are administered by
Service Canada, and the province, as such, has no au-
thority in relation to the funding levels of the ASETS
agreement holder.
Apparently, since February of '09 B.C. has received
federal funding under the LMDA, the labour market de-
velopment agreement, for the delivery of EI, part 2, em-
ployment programs and services. And the devolution
of LMDA programs to B.C. did not include the ASETS
programming. So again, there's additional information
we'd be happy to provide to the member if he wishes
more detail.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for providing that in
such a timely way. I appreciate the fact that she's doing
this on the record here and waiting for response. It some-
times can be a lengthy process, or sometimes it doesn't
happen at all. I'm not faulting the minister on that. It's
just the way it works. I appreciate that.
10366 British Columbia Debates
I'll go in reverse order, and I'll forward this informa-
tion on, and I'll refer our member to Hansard on the
Cowichan issue and the Coast Salish skills and training
program.
On the other issue, just a correction, not a criticism. It
actually was my understanding that it was two big semis,
and there was a truck involved also. So it wasn't a car
crash — just a technicality.
Hon. M. Polak: A vehicle accident, instead of a car
accident.
S. Fraser: Yeah. I guess I need a little bit of clarifica-
tion on a couple of things. First of all, the Spuzzum First
Nation wasn't able to get a clear answer on who was doing
what. The Ministry of Highways wasn't quite sure, and
ICBC wasn't quite sure. The Ministry of Environment
had some role to play, so I'll touch on that first.
Certainly the spill, as it happened, has…. You know,
there's no sign of it, certainly not in the water. That diesel
spill was cleaned up. What there are signs of are the
booms that they used to contain the fuel leaks. I mean,
there are still piles of them there, sort of in various stages
of…. Near where the old highway is, where the old over-
pass used to be, there's still that stuff that's sitting there.
Actually, I have some knowledge of this. I worked in
the oil refining business for many years, and we did use
these types of booms. But the intention is that you re-
move them. Otherwise, they will continue to leach be-
cause with rain and such they will continue to exude the
oil, and that will continue to come down. No one seems
to have taken responsibility for that, and the Spuzzum
have tried to contact everyone. So I guess I need a follow-
up on that first. I'll just leave it with you, with that.
Hon. M. Polak: As it's not particularly within our
ministry, I've provided the information I was able to get.
But as I said in my response, we're quite happy to make
arrangements with the member to arrange for a further
briefing or in fact put together a meeting with the par-
ties who are involved so that there's clarity as to what's
taking place right now.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I actually
will take the minister up on that. That was one of the
hopes that the Spuzzum First Nation representatives and
chief councillors had said because they didn't feel they
were getting adequately addressed.
[1445]
For the record, I'd just like to comment. There's still
garbage from this wreck all down below the embankment
where the trailer continues to be hung up. I was asked to
zoom in, using binoculars, on the actual wreckage that's
still hung up there. The minister is right. It's right against
the abutment that's holding up the trestle. There appears
to be some damage to that trestle, so certainly, that's of
Monday, March 26, 2012
concern to the Spuzzum also.
Is there a problem? Is anyone addressing it? Is there
a risk? This meeting, hopefully, could bring the parties
together for that. Then I guess if it's not the Ministry of
Environment, I'd rely on the minister to inform us as to
who would be responsible for the cleanup of the stuff.
There is metal right adjacent to the pool — right, ac-
tually, at the pool where traditionally everyone has learn-
ed how to swim for generations, if not millennia — and
actually a risk, a rebar-type piece, in an area that people
would normally dive into.
I'd just ask the minister…. I'm saying, just to inform
her, that there may be more than just the usual suspects
that we want in this discussion, if we have such a meeting.
Hopefully, my comments will help inform her with that.
I'll sit down for a moment just to get a response.
Hon. M. Polak: We're more than happy to help put
together a meeting with all the parties. Hopefully, that
brings some clarity to the area of who's responsible for
what aspects of cleanup or mitigation of any serious
issues that have occurred. That can be, certainly, covered
at the time when we have that meeting.
The Chair: While there seems to be a fairly collabora-
tive feeling in the room, I'd hope that we can get back to
the budget estimates for the ministry. Thank you.
S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was going to speak
at length on the trestle, but I won't. I'm just kidding.
I thank the minister, though. I think this is good news,
and it is…. I mean, we are allowed to discuss some of the
larger issues around, you know, policies and such, and
the Spuzzum asked that these things be put on the table.
They weren't getting adequate answers from others, so at
least this is a step in the right direction. I thank the min-
ister for that.
I'll move on. Has the minister had any…? There's noth-
ing in the budget per se that I can see on issues of justice.
The ministry spans many, many ministries, actually —
Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.
There has been the federal crime bill that has come
down, and I'm sure the minister has heard concerns from
aboriginal people, aboriginal leaders, around this and
how it might affect aboriginal people in British Columbia
who are overrepresented in the system. There are great
fears, and they have been spoken of well in the press, too,
by aboriginal leaders — Chief Stewart Phillip and others.
I'm just asking: has the minister or her staff had any
discussions around what effects the changes to the fed-
eral crime bill may have?
Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, it's a matter of gener-
al concern for all Canadians and, indeed, for British
Columbians — the overrepresentation of aboriginal
people, First Nations people, in our justice system. But
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
this is an area that the member would need to canvass
with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
S. Fraser: I'll take the minister up on that advice. But
I guess the question is: is there any role for the Ministry
of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation? The minis-
ter is nodding no.
Issues have been raised about the court precedents that
stand right now. Quoting Justice LeBel right now:
"Courts have at times been hesitant to take judicial notice of the
systemic and background factors affecting aboriginal people in
Canadian society.
"To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as
the history of colonialism, displacement and residential schools
and how that history continues to translate into lower educational
attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of
substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incar-
ceration for aboriginal peoples."
[1450]
I mean, the minister has certainly had to deal with a
number of these issues. As a ministry, the issues around
education have come forward. The minister has spoken
of those and has taken part in some of the issues around
that. Certainly, we've already canvassed, to some extent,
the issues around residential schools — some of the
underlying factors that come into play definitely affecting
the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.
Is the minister not concerned if she's not being con-
sulted on these issues and on the effect of C-10, which
would have a disproportional effect on aboriginal peoples
in the province and in the country?
Hon. M. Polak: Again, we're all concerned — all
Canadians are concerned; all British Columbians are
concerned — with the issues that the member raises: the
gaps in education achievement, the overrepresentation
in the child welfare system, any number of those things.
With respect to the question around the crime bill, that
is something that the member needs to canvass with the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. Our role as a
ministry is to negotiate agreements with First Nations
and to advise across government with respect to the
implementation of the relationships with First Nations
and also, of course, specific agreements. But we are not a
catch-all ministry for all things aboriginal.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.
I realize the specificity the minister is talking about
as far as the role of the ministry. However, again, maybe
it's a misnomer…. The ministry is Aboriginal Relations
and Reconciliation. I've been the critic for a long time. I
know from past estimates that when I go to other min-
istries, they often point back: "Oh, you should ask the
Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on
these issues. It's an aboriginal issue. They're the lead on
this." I get that all the time. Then it's too late, and the
next year comes by.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I am frustrated by
10367
that, so I'd like that on the record. This is a key issue.
There's a crime bill here which would definitely affect
the ministry's ability to effect aboriginal relations and
reconciliation. This could, I would suggest, put a crimp
in the relation and relationship, such as it is. You know,
I would hope that the minister in her role as Minister of
Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation would also play
some sort of an advocacy role if she sees, for instance, an
injustice happening in a bill that's coming down from an-
other jurisdiction.
We have canvassed issues around Jordan's principle
previously. That's around the disconnect between the
federal and provincial governments, specifically in deal-
ing with children on reserve. That is a role for…. The
minister has discussed these issues with me. So have
other ministers.
I believe that these issues, while not specifically related
to a line item on the budget, are germane and certainly
in keeping with the decisions and the report made by
the Auditor General on the role of estimates — which
includes, I might comment: "Opposition members in the
Legislative Assembly may question cabinet ministers on
all matters related to policy, fiscal plans, revenue, spend-
ing proposals and underlying assumptions."
It's a fairly broad range of questions that I can ask.
Does the minister not see her role, as Minister of
Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, as advocate for
First Nations in this province if she and they see an in-
justice being foisted upon us?
[1455]
Hon. M. Polak: It's unfortunate if the member has
not been able to get satisfaction with respect to answers
to questions of other ministries, where it's appropriate.
Our role, insofar as First Nations who are experiencing
issues or concerns or matters that they wish to address
that are the responsibility of other ministries…. We ab-
solutely take those forward to those ministries, but then
that is the end of our role within that. It is to facilitate the
discussions across government. But it is the responsibil-
ity of those individual ministries to carry out their work,
as they are responsible for not only First Nations people
in the province but also for non–First Nations people in
the province.
Ministry of Health is responsible for health, so
Education, so Justice, and you could go on down the line.
The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
does not have any responsibility in those areas. With re-
spect to advocacy, our role, as with any minister in gov-
ernment, is not to be an advocate. Our role is to fulfil
that of a minister, which is to fulfil my responsibilities
not as I see them but as I am given them through order-
in-council in my ministry.
I do want to express my concern that there seems to
be an underlying assumption that somehow our ministry
has a general responsibility for First Nations and aborig-
10368 British Columbia Debates
inal people across the province. That's just not the case.
Each individual ministry that provides different pro-
gramming and services has that responsibility.
I will commit to the member that if he's concerned that
individual ministers have not been providing sufficient
information, I would be happy to assist the member with
that. But it is impossible for me as Minister of Aboriginal
Relations and Reconciliation to respond to questions, be
they budget or policy matters, that are the responsibility
of other ministries.
S. Fraser: I'm going to just cede my position here for
a few minutes for a few questions from a colleague next
to me.
B. Simpson: I would like to follow up on a conversa-
tion we had here on March 15 with respect to the eco-
nomic and community development agreement between
the government and the Williams Lake Indian Band. Just
for the record, I had asked the minister about the status
of an economic and community development agree-
ment with Williams Lake Indian Band with respect to
the Mount Polley expansion.
The minister at that time, and I'm quoting from
Hansard, indicated that she had the letter in her hand
and stated: "We're absolutely committed to sharing rev-
enue with them" — that's the Williams Lake band — "and
we advised them in the letter that we will be pursuing a
mandate for that very quickly. It's all a matter of timing
in terms of getting in front of Treasury Board, but we ex-
pect to be able to do that very soon."
The letter was brought to my attention by the Williams
Lake Indian Band because I went and gave them a heads-
up that the letter was on the way. The Williams Lake
Indian Band is reacting quite strongly, negatively, to this
letter. The letter, and again I quote, states:
"The Ministry of Energy and Mines, in conjunc-
tion with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and
Reconciliation, is currently compiling the next package
of projects to be assessed for their suitability. I can now
confirm we have added the Mount Polley expansion to
our list of projects that will be assessed for mandate con-
sideration this fall."
So there's a difference, as far as the Williams Lake
Indian Band is concerned, in terms of the minister's state-
ment in Hansard — "that we will be pursuing a mandate
for that very quickly" — and the letter which said that it
will be considered for a mandate. I wonder if the min-
ister could clarify on the record the difference between
those two statements.
[1500]
Hon. M. Polak: There is no difference. It's simply
a matter of semantics. The wording used in the letter,
where we say it would be for consideration of a man-
date, doesn't mean anything with respect to our intent
Monday, March 26, 2012
to share revenue. The mandate has to do with getting a
specific amount or range within which we could negoti-
ate. But it doesn't change at all our commitment in what
I said in Hansard versus what we said in the letter. We al-
ways hope we can get before Treasury Board even sooner.
There's no inconsistency between the two.
B. Simpson: So again, for clarification, part of what's
going on here is that the Williams Lake Indian Band
would like to know when negotiations begin with them.
They've been promised negotiations around this issue
for some time. They were expecting a letter that actually
outlined the negotiations process. Then the letter they get
seems to suggest that what's happening with the Williams
Lake Indian Band will be lumped in. As the letter states:
"currently compiling the next package of projects to be
assessed for their suitability."
If they're suitable, then they would be assessed for
mandate, whereas the sense that the First Nations — in
this case the Williams Lake Indian Band — got from the
minister's response was that the ministry is actually ask-
ing for a mandate for that project. The letter intimates
that the Williams Lake band's project with Mount Polley
is simply going in the lump and will be considered for a
mandate.
They want clarification on that, but they also want to
know when the First Nations negotiation begins, because
they've been working on this since last year. Everybody
keeps saying the negotiations team will be put together,
we'll start negotiating with you, and yet no negotiations
have occurred. And now they find out that the govern-
ment is going for some sort of set fund without actually
talking to the First Nations about what their desires are
to see revenue flow from that project.
Hon. M. Polak: We have already been having scoping
discussions. This is a matter of seeking a specific finan-
cial mandate. We regularly put forward mandate requests
when they are of a similar nature in one package simply
because it's more efficient to go to Treasury Board once
with a number of different mandate requests than it is to
come back separately on different occasions.
That is simply a matter of the more efficient logistics of
Treasury Board. It's not uncommon. It's our usual prac-
tice. But we fully intend to be negotiating a specific finan-
cial mandate with them as quickly as we have that from
Treasury Board. There's no difference in the position that
we've taken all the way along. This is simply the language
used to describe what we ordinarily do when we go to
Treasury Board to seek that mandate.
B. Simpson: I wonder if the minister could explain,
again, for the Williams Lake Indian Band, who'll be look-
ing at the notes from this…. When they met with the
minister on January 17, at that meeting the ADM indi-
cated to the Williams Lake Indian Band that a mandate
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
should be coming, that "we should commence negotia-
tions immediately."
The Williams Lake Indian Band representatives asked
what "immediately" meant, and the ADM said — and it's
a quote from them — he would put together his team
right away and have them get in touch with the Williams
Lake Indian Band. That was on January 17. To date, there
has been no connection with the Williams Lake Indian
Band around negotiating with them as to what mandate
or what amount would actually be asked for in a mandate
with the Treasury Board.
What the Williams Lake Indian Band feels is happen-
ing is that the government has been able to prevent the
Williams Lake Indian Band from doing a judicial review
of issuing permits for the expansion in advance of any
agreement being signed with the Williams Lake Indian
Band.
The permits have already been approved, and there's
been this sort of "cheque is in the mail" discussion with
them since last summer. Again, the minister is nod-
ding her head no. But the reality is I'm expressing what
Williams Lake Indian Band is expressing to me by way of
e-mail and a number of conversations with them.
[1505]
They explicitly expressed to me that what they feel is
that they are being strung in order to prevent them from
going the judicial path to challenge the Mount Polley
expansion.
With the promise that there would be negotiations
beginning on the development agreement, they did not
do a judicial request. They were able, through my office
and MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin's office and others —
the minister's office — to get an agreement with Mount
Polley that the government took great pride in having a
number of ministers sign.
Now the Williams Lake Indian Band is indicating
again that they feel that that was a front to put them in
an awkward position, and in the meantime the govern-
ment is not negotiating in good faith.
The question I'd ask the minister just now, to cut
through all of that, is: while the minister believes that
there's clear language on the mandate issue, could the
minister make a clear statement about when the first
actual discussion will occur on the nature of this agree-
ment and the Williams Lake Indian Band's version of
what that agreement needs to be like will be heard dir-
ectly from them? When will the first table be convened
to begin negotiations on whatever this mandate is that's
going to be asked for?
Hon. M. Polak: From the outset I want to say that if
there has been misunderstanding with respect to the lan-
guage and the communications, we're happy to make a
special trip out to have our folks sit down with Williams
Lake and make sure that there's no misunderstanding
with respect to our actions or activities.
10369
We have been in discussions with them around the
framework of the agreement. That's very high-level.
As soon as we have a specific financial mandate from
Treasury Board, we will enter into those more specific
negotiations with them.
That is our ordinary practice. It is no different than we
have done with any other First Nation with whom we've
developed an ECDA. It is our usual practice. There's
nothing different going on here, but we're happy to clari-
fy that with the Williams Lake Indian Band if that's ne-
cessary.
B. Simpson: I thank the minister for that offer.
Again, so that the minister is clear that I'm not mis-
representing the band's frustration with this, this is an
e-mail to me. It says:
"The government has managed to bask in the success of the
participation agreement between Mount Polley and the Williams
Lake Indian Band. We feel that we have been strung along, with
the intention of inducing us to give up the fight with the Crown
on the issuance of the Mount Polley permits."
Continuing the quote from the e-mail:
"As I told you, Mount Polley will be seeking additional permits
for underground exploration and will quite soon be seeking an
amendment to their mine plan to further extend the mine life.
If the issue of the ECDA is not resolved by the time that comes
around, we will once again find ourselves in a position of conflict
with the Crown.
"Our relationship with Mount Polley could be jeopardized, the
progress we have made on building a relationship could be lost,
and people's jobs could hang in the balance."
So the minister is clear that I'm not reflecting my own
opinion of that, I wanted to put that on the record.
I just have a quick follow-up on this. For clarity, what
I've heard the minister indicate — and I think it would
be worthwhile to do — is that a table of some kind, a
meeting of some kind, could be convened to walk the
Williams Lake Indian Band through how the government
understands this process and to hear from them directly,
but the mandate in the discussions around the substan-
tive nature of the ECDA won't occur until the Treasury
Board actually signs off.
That probably won't occur until the fall, so if I could
just get clarification that it would be that kind of a step-
wise process.
[1510]
Hon. M. Polak: We will certainly endeavour to have
our staff who are connected with the Williams Lake dis-
cussions ensure that there is all the clarification given to
them so that they know what to expect.
We do hope and we believe we will be able to achieve
a mandate from Treasury Board much sooner than the
fall, but fall would be the outside limit in terms of when
we would achieve that. As soon as we have that specific fi-
nancial mandate, we will be in discussions with Williams
Lake Indian Band to finalize that ECDA.
10370 British Columbia Debates
B. Simpson: I thank the minister for that clarifica-
tion. We'll get this information back to the Williams
Lake Indian Band and leave it to them to work with your
staff and FLNRO to have some kind of meeting to clarify
their concerns.
Now, just a final question around this. Soda Creek
Chief Bev Sellars was copied on the letter that went out
with regard to the mandate. I'm sure the minister is
aware that Soda Creek is also involved in Mount Polley.
I'm meeting with the Chief this weekend. One of the
questions there is that Gibraltar is also expecting to go
through a significant expansion — much more signifi-
cant, in many regards, than Polley.
The question is: in terms of compiling a package of pro-
jects that was named in the letter, is Mount Polley one of
those projects that will also be seeking a mandate to be
able to sit down with Soda Creek and others involved in
that project? Is the Gibraltar project part of the package
that's going to Treasury Board?
Hon. M. Polak: Yes, it is.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for answering the
questions of my colleague.
I want to finish off just where I was. I was touching on
some of the changes that might affect British Columbia
and aboriginal people in British Columbia dealing with
the new crime bill that has been brought down from
Ottawa. I know that the minister was uncomfortable
with the line of questioning and was suggesting that it
was maybe inappropriate for me to follow that.
I'm going to refer — and I'm not trying to lecture here
— to the service plan. This is the budget service plan. It
says specifically: "Objective 1 — To establish respectful
relationships with aboriginal peoples as a model for all
British Columbians." The first bullet is: "Work with other
provinces, territories, the federal government and na-
tional aboriginal organizations to initiate and coordinate
efforts to address issues of mutual interest."
I mean, that's fairly broad. Certainly, mutual inter-
ests…. We've heard from Shawn Atleo. A-in-chut is his
Ahousaht name. He has certainly raised alarm bells about
the potential for the crime bill to inordinately affect ab-
original people. He is speaking from a perspective of
British Columbia. That's where he is from.
Has the minister not received any correspondence,
any concerns from aboriginal people, aboriginal leaders
in the province of British Columbia or from the nation-
al chief? Has she not seen these write-ups, the concerns
about what might happen and the effect it might have?
Already a disproportionate number of aboriginal
people are caught up in the system. This would actually
potentially take away the discretion of judges to actually
affect what they have been ordered to do by the courts
— again, a big problem. The socioeconomic impact on
aboriginal peoples in this province would also be a big
Monday, March 26, 2012
problem for the province of British Columbia.
Will the minister be engaging in any discussions on
this? Has she not had any concerns raised? Has she not
seen the concerns raised publicly by leaders both prov-
incially and nationally?
[1515]
Hon. M. Polak: As I've said previously, of course
these kinds of things concern all Canadians, all British
Columbians. But as the member rightly read out from
our service plan, our role as a ministry is to initiate and
coordinate. So to the extent that we hear concerns, we
direct them to the ministry that is appropriate for deal-
ing with those.
The Ministry of Justice and Attorney General has the
expertise within its ministry to evaluate such a piece of
legislation and determine its impact on British Columbia
for both First Nations and non–First Nations individuals.
That is not expertise that we have within our ministry,
and it's not the role that our ministry plays.
S. Fraser: The Chair has apprised me that I was asking
for some speculation there. I apologize for that. That is
not appropriate. I'll try not to do that again. I'm sure the
Chair will tell me if that happens again.
Just a direct question then. Has the minister done
that? Has the minister referred these issues to Justice and
Attorney General, the concerns that have been raised very
loudly, very publicly by aboriginal leaders in the prov-
ince — or by the national leader, for that matter? Since
the minister has been made aware of those, in the press
or personally, which leaders have been referred to the
appropriate ministry, if this is not the appropriate min-
istry to deal with?
Hon. M. Polak: Without getting too far into the oper-
ations of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General,
my understanding is that they have formed an officials
working group for review of C-10. We have through that
group referred the concerns of the national chief to them.
We have also…. As concerns have arisen and come
through correspondence, whether electronic or other-
wise, they have been put forward to that body as part of
their consideration and review. I would have no specif-
ic knowledge of that, because if it was not related to my
ministry, it would go directly to the ministry that it was
concerned with.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, and I'm re-
spectful that she doesn't have further information on that.
Is there any requirement for that working group to re-
port out? Is the minister aware if this is going to either
be made public, or will the minister and the ministry be
made aware of the results of that working group? If so,
do we have a timeline on that?
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
Hon. M. Polak: My understanding is it's simply an
operational construct for the purposes of the officials
being able to work together smoothly. I don't believe
it's in any way an official type of review with a report at
the end. It's simply a matter of our organizing ourselves
operationally.
Again, that would be better inquired of the Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General.
S. Fraser: Thanks for that. I guess if I could go to a
specific issue — the Ktunaxa people. As we've canvassed
somewhat in question period — I don't want to reiter-
ate any of that — a decision was made on the Jumbo
Glacier resort.
[1520]
The concern coming out of Ktunaxa is that they of-
fered a great deal of evidence to the decision-makers on
the cultural value of the area, which Ktunaxa certainly
have an interest in. They made it very clear that any de-
velopment of the area would cause serious and irrevers-
ible harm to the Ktunaxa Nation, to their culture. They've
mentioned grizzly habitat, obviously not the purview of
this ministry.
The minister is well aware that other concerns were
raised.
I would note that in objective 2 of the service plan for
this ministry, it says "to seek opportunities for early en-
gagement of aboriginal peoples in initiatives that affect
their families and communities." That includes the ne-
gotiation and implementation of agreements with First
Nations. So we have an agreement that's not an agree-
ment. This flies in the face of many years, actually dec-
ades, of the Ktunaxa making a very compelling argument.
Obviously, this is breeding some ill will, shall I say.
There was an expectation that their submissions would
be taken and dealt with in good faith and seriously. This
is a surprise to the Ktunaxa. They did not believe this was
going to occur. Has the minister had discussions with the
leadership? If so, how will she get around this major, ma-
jor roadblock to relationship-building?
Hon. M. Polak: I want to say at the outset that I know
this was a difficult decision for the minister responsible,
and I'm quite confident that he weighed very carefully
the information from the Ktunaxa people. Although he
reached a different conclusion than what they would have
been pleased with, I know it is something he considered
very carefully. Of course, there have been extensive dis-
cussions and consultations over the years.
I also want to acknowledge that the Ktunaxa have had
a very good working relationship with the province of
British Columbia. In anticipation of this decision I did
meet with Kathryn Teneese, the Ktunaxa Nation Council
chief. We spoke then of our interest in ensuring that the
good relationship with the province and the Ktunaxa
would remain, regardless of what the decision was.
10371
Shortly after the decision was announced, I also spoke
with Kathryn Teneese again and reiterated our desire to
maintain that relationship.
We have plans to meet very shortly to talk together
about maintaining that relationship, and it is a very solid
one. The Ktunaxa are currently in advanced agreement-
in-principle discussions. They've accepted the land and
cash offer. We have a strategic engagement agreement
with Ktunaxa. There are various revenue-sharing agree-
ments with respect to forestry, resorts, mining, as well as
the Flathead agreement.
We certainly have an interest in maintaining those
strong relationships. I know the Ktunaxa do, as well, in
spite of the fact that they do have, of course, their own
decisions to make with respect to how they will protect
their own values on that part of the land base.
S. Fraser: I appreciate the fact that you met with
Kathryn Teneese. I think she's the nation chair. Ktunaxa
Nation chair is her title.
Was there discussion about the Qat'muk declaration
and the stewardship principles they've been developing
for quite a few years? This is a problem as far as the
Jumbo Glacier resort goes. Were there discussions with
the chair, Kathryn Teneese, regarding those principles,
that declaration?
It seems to me, from my discussions and from what
I've been able to glean from reading the information, that
this will be a significant roadblock to moving ahead in
any process. Was that declaration discussed? If so, was
there agreement to get beyond that?
[1525]
Hon. M. Polak: Yes, on a number of occasions I have
had that information presented to me. I am quite con-
fident that Minister Thomson considered that informa-
tion and those presentations quite seriously in making
his decision. I do know that Minister Thomson is looking
to…. I shouldn't say that. Since we're in the small House,
I'm forgetting that the rules apply as in the big chamber.
Mr. Chair, I will withdraw any comments I made
with respect to the minister's name and simply say this.
The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations intends to respect, insofar as it is possible,
the concerns that the Ktunaxa have put forward and to
work with them to design plans such that they can be as
respectful as possible. Of course, one would have to can-
vass that with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural
Resource Operations.
S. Fraser: I'll put in a shameless plug for the Ktunaxa.
Their declaration, the Qat'muk declaration, and their
stewardship plan, their principles, the Shaffer report and
a really, really good short documentary are available at
www.beforejumbo.com. I'll just do that.
Just a clarification then, the negotiations that will
10372 British Columbia Debates
follow…. The minister will know, of course, that the
Ktunaxa have never ceded the territory. There was
never an extinguishment of rights. We've seen from the
Tsilhqot'in decision and others that rights do exist and
that the government and ministry certainly have a role
to play there. In this ministry the second objective of the
service plan would certainly capture that.
With that in mind, the government does have a legal
obligation to consult — obviously, the minister has dealt
with that to some extent — but also to accommodate.
That's what the courts have said — accommodating im-
pacts. This isn't directly treaty. I mean, it's a side agree-
ment that has not been agreed upon. The Premier and
the ministry talk in the service plan about agreements
being made — resource agreements being made — as
an alternative in some cases to treaty. This is an agree-
ment that was made, which has not been agreed upon
by the Ktunaxa.
How does the ministry or the minister wrestle with
that? There is a treaty process happening, and it's fairly
far advanced. There's been a disagreement agreement,
a resource agreement happening in land that has never
been extinguished. How will the minister deal with an ac-
commodation of this nature? Will that accommodation
have to be made for the Ktunaxa in the treaty process?
This is sort of new ground for me. This is a different kind
of negotiation. So can the minister explain what kind of
accommodation will be embarked upon inside or paral-
lel to the treaty process per se?
[1530]
[P. Pimm in the chair.]
Hon. M. Polak: This is not a treaty matter. It would
be a matter of accommodation for a specific project. As
such, it would be up to the Ministry of Forests, Lands
and Natural Resource Operations to address accom-
modations. My understanding is that there has been
revenue-sharing offered and that there has also been
money for a wildlife management plan offered. That will
be the subject of the discussions between that ministry
and the Ktunaxa. You could find out more specifics from
the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations.
S. Fraser: But just for clarification, the service plan
refers to "meaningful engagement processes with First
Nations, non-treaty agreements focus on ensuring First
Nations benefit from and participate in development op-
portunities, identify areas of common interest" — that
sort of thing. So is this not a non-treaty agreement?
Would this fit into that category, or is it some other type
of agreement?
Hon. M. Polak: For clarification, while we have re-
sponsibility for many non-treaty agreements, we are not
Monday, March 26, 2012
the sole ministry responsible for non-treaty agreements.
There are non-treaty agreements that are finalized and
concluded with other ministries, not with the Ministry
of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.
S. Fraser: Will this have no impact on the treaty ne-
gotiations or land settlement? Will that change now? Do
things get affected by the imposition, in this case, of a
very major resort development that has been opposed
from the beginning?
I want to comment that the Ktunaxa are not opposed
to development. The minister knows that; I know she's
nodding.
But this one is a problem. There are spiritual issues;
they're well established. The grizzly bear is…. This is a
very important habitat. It's a very important part of the
Ktunaxa history and culture, and it has spiritual impli-
cations.
[1535]
How do the treaty negotiators deal with this? What is
the instruction from the ministry as they want to move
further down the road towards a reconciliation through
treaty when these kinds of things happen? This is a very
significant one. For me, it would be telling on how the
ministry has handled this when it comes to continuing
with negotiations.
Hon. M. Polak: I want to begin by saying that we're
absolutely committed to the treaty process with the
Ktunaxa. Our discussions to date have been very, very
positive. We recognize that this is a significant area of
concern for the Ktunaxa. That's one of the reasons I have
made sure to maintain contact with Kathryn Teneese
with the Ktunaxa Nation Council.
We certainly will be ready to supply and support our
own advice where it is helpful to the Ministry of Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations. We're hopeful
that they will be able to sufficiently address some of the
concerns of the Ktunaxa. I'm hopeful that as we attempt
to maintain our good relationships, we will be able to
continue the progress that we have experienced thus far
with our treaty discussions.
We recognize that it is a very serious issue for the
Ktunaxa and that they will have to make their own deci-
sions with respect to how they go about to protect their
own values on the land base.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I don't mean
to belabour this. I probably haven't been very specific
on this. This particular agreement…. The Ktunaxa have
been very clear, as part of their land-planning process….
The Qat'muk process has been in place for 20 years, and
it's been a "no" to this resort. Now something changed. I
mean, government suddenly said yes after 20 years. This
spans many governments, so something changed. Even
though there has been significant progress in the treaty
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
process with the Ktunaxa — I acknowledge that — some-
thing changed there.
Will this not come across the table of the treaty nego-
tiators? I guess what I want to know is: if there are ac-
commodations necessary to be made — I would suggest
legally made, because there was no extinguishment, in
this case, of this traditional territory — and if there are
concessions made, is there an allowance for that in the
treaty process? Is there discretion for the negotiators to
try to address accommodating for this?
If there is an accommodation, which there should be,
because of this resort being imposed on the Ktunaxa, will
it come out of treaty settlement money or lands? Will it
be a separate thing? Have there been discussions around
this? Do the negotiators have the ability to have discre-
tion to try to make accommodations here? I'm sorry if
I'm not wording this correctly, but it is an interesting case.
I'd sure like to know how this will play out at the treaty
table, if at all.
Now, if the negotiators have been given no instruc-
tions to make accommodations for this sudden decision
made by government…. I realize 20 years isn't sudden,
but the decision came against all odds certainly as far as
the Ktunaxa were concerned. If I could get an answer to
that convoluted question, I'd really appreciate it.
[1540]
Hon. M. Polak: I don't want to prejudge in any way
the manner in which Ktunaxa will choose to approach
their relationships with the provincial government. We
certainly hope we will be able to maintain the very good
and productive working relationship that we have had
for many, many years.
Our negotiators at the table are fully mandated to ne-
gotiate with respect to all matters within the territory.
They are fully aware of this issue, so they don't need any
additional instruction from us to deal with any matters
that may arise at the table.
Currently, though, the state of affairs is such that it is
the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and
Natural Resource Operations to discuss with the Ktunaxa
opportunities for accommodation. As I've said, as a min-
istry we'll be happy to assist them and support them in
any way we can.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. For clarifica-
tion, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations…. That will be a separate thing outside of the
treaty table per se. Am I correct in that?
Hon. M. Polak: The negotiations around treaty, of
course, are tripartite. These discussions that would be
taking place with Ktunaxa and the Ministry of Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations would not in-
volve the federal government. They would, if they were
successful, come to a resolution that would — we would
10373
hope — fit nicely alongside an eventual treaty. But at this
stage it is a bilateral discussion between Ktunaxa and
the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations.
[1545]
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The answer
was obvious, and I feel embarrassed by that. I should
have realized.
Minister, of course it's a bilateral agreement when it's
from a provincial ministry. That's obvious to me now. I
got carried away.
Then, finishing off this line of questioning, I guess I
have to ask: is the treaty table active? Are they meeting
regularly? When is the next meeting? I'm curious: who
are the…? I don't know if she has the information on
who the provincial and, actually, the federal negotiators
in this case are.
Hon. M. Polak: That treaty table is very, very active,
as I said in a previous answer. They are very close to an
agreement-in-principle and have accepted the land and
cash offer.
The negotiator from the provincial government is Tom
Ethier. He, of course, has a team with him. Canada has
Brian Smith. Again, Brian brings a team with him.
Yes, that table is very active. I don't have here with me
the next meeting date, but if the member is interested, we
can find that out for him.
S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer. I would very
much appreciate…. I'd like to know that for my own
knowledge and my own future discussions on this.
I'm going to leave the Ktunaxa and the Jumbo Glacier
resort for these estimates. I'd say we're probably running
a little bit short on time, so I'm going to jump a bit here.
The Canadian Minister of Natural Resources made
comments recently — Joe Oliver. The minister has prob-
ably heard this. Her staff have probably heard it. It has
been an affront to aboriginal leaders and aboriginal
people in the province. Anything can get taken out of
context. But the minister was addressing the Vancouver
Board of Trade, and he actually used the term that aborig-
inal communities are socially dysfunctional, in his zeal
for promoting a resource development — the Enbridge
pipeline.
Now, we all have opinions about the Enbridge pipe-
line. I side with the northern and coastal First Nations
Fraser River declaration, Save the Fraser — 50-plus First
Nations there also — which we've discussed earlier.
When a federal minister of the Crown embarks on, es-
sentially, a stereotypical negative connotation and then
tries to use it to defend, in this case, fast-tracking a pro-
ject, how do we respond as a province there? There's no
other ministry I can think of that might be able to take
that on. We don't have a corresponding…. I guess we
10374 British Columbia Debates
could say Natural Resource Operations.
This is an affront, and I guess I'll just leave it there for
now. I just want to know if the minister…. She certainly
has indicated she's heard the comments. Though they're
regrettable, they are left to stand. That is a problem, I
think, for British Columbians and for aboriginal people
in British Columbia too.
[1550]
Hon. M. Polak: While I am aware of the media re-
ports with respect to the minister's comments, I certainly
wasn't there and didn't witness them. I have to say that
while I understand the member's passion for his topic, I
really think that asking for comments on a federal min-
ister's statements in the media is unrelated to what we're
discussing here with estimates.
S. Fraser: Fair enough, I suppose. I mean, I was tempt-
ed to come out as critic and say something, because I
find the federal minister's — Joe Oliver — comments re-
lating to British Columbian communities, First Nations
communities, to be offensive. I believe they are offensive
not just to First Nations communities but also to British
Columbians.
Is there nobody in government, in the provincial gov-
ernment, that can take a position to say that's not right?
This is part of systemic stereotyping that was talked about
in the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
It's a problem. And you know what? If we're not part of
the solution, if we don't stand up to that stuff, then we're
part of the problem.
I could certainly do it as an opposition critic, and I
guess I am, because this is on record. However, wouldn't
it be an official position to take on behalf of the province
of British Columbia? Is that a role for the Premier? Is it
a role for the minister? How do we effect some kind of
comment officially that the pattern of stereotypical, dis-
criminatory statements is offensive, and they're not ac-
ceptable? Just because it's a federal minister doesn't mean
he should be able to get away with it.
I mean, I need to know how the leadership council and
how people in the province can know that this is not ac-
ceptable if we can't get any kind of official statement from
either the minister or the Premier. Maybe the minister
could explain to me how that can be done.
Hon. M. Polak: The member will be aware that on
very many occasions, I have spoken publicly with respect
to my views about First Nations, their place in our soci-
ety and indeed the very tragic history that we have as a
Canadian society with First Nations. I'm simply saying
that while I understand the member's zeal and passion
for this, I just think we're well outside the scope of an es-
timates debate.
S. Fraser: It's got nothing to do with zeal and passion.
Monday, March 26, 2012
This is about justice. These are statements that are part
of the perpetuating of a stereotypical, derogatory pat-
tern that has been formally identified by government, by
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. That was
16 years ago.
If it's allowed to continue officially, because we're not
supposed to say anything, then we're part of the prob-
lem. There must be an avenue for official response here.
If the minister doesn't think so, fine. She can say so. If
it's not her, fine. Who? Who in government will make
sure that, officially, British Columbia does not appreci-
ate such comments and does not condone them as be-
ing appropriate?
[1555]
Hon. M. Polak: Again, our approach in British
Columbia is one of respect, reconciliation and relation-
ship building. It's something I've spoken about many
times publicly. There's no question with respect to my
position or our government's. I'm simply saying that the
venue to discuss the concerns that the member has is not
in estimates debate.
The Chair: Member, can I bring you back to the esti-
mates debate, please.
S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. I know you weren't
here when I read this, but I've got the Auditor General's
report on the role of the Legislative Assembly — that it's
a duty to hold government to account. "The role of the
opposition parties to extract accountability from govern-
ment during the budget debate is obvious."
I'm trying to get that accountability here. We have a
leadership council. We have strong statements from all
involved. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union
of B.C. Indian Chiefs says: "It goes beyond paternalism.
There's definitely a colour of racism in a lot of his remarks
towards indigenous or aboriginal or First Nations people.
We certainly don't appreciate those incredibly ignorant
public declarations. It serves no purpose but to intensify
an already volatile situation. It's not helpful. Regardless of
his excuses, his intent is very clear — shamelessly cheer-
leading the corporate agenda as it pertains to these large-
scale resource development projects."
We've had similar comments from all leaders in the
province, as the minister knows. What we haven't heard
is anything from the province of British Columbia.
We're supposed to be working closely with the lead-
ers of the leadership council. That's part of The New
Relationship. I've got it here, so I'll pull that up and do
quotes from that too. "To remain silent in the face of this
injustice is being part of that injustice." These statements
were appalling, and they were offensive not just to aborig-
inal people in the province.
So the question was never answered. If the minister
is not the one to take a stand with the leadership coun-
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
cil to oppose these kinds of attitudes in the province
of British Columbia, especially from a federal minister,
then who is?
Hon. M. Polak: I want to remind the member that in
my time as Minister of Children and Family Development
— indeed, going back to my time as Minister of Healthy
Living and Sport, when I had responsibility for aborig-
inal public health and wellness — and now as Minister
of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, I have been
one of the most passionate speakers in favour of the ad-
vancement of aboriginal rights across Canada, in British
Columbia. I have done that at the federal level. I have
done that in communities, and I will continue to do that.
There's no question that that's my passion and my com-
mitment.
However, with all due respect to the Auditor General,
he does not set the rules of the House, and this is well
outside of the scope of debate in estimates.
S. Fraser: All right. Can the minister inform who
would be…? What is the venue for me as the Aboriginal
Relations and Reconciliation critic to effect a statement
from the government of British Columbia? Who would
I go to? Who would the leadership go to, to get such a
statement? If not here, fair enough. Where? Would it be
estimates with the Premier? Is there some other avenue
that I could maybe embark on to get a statement to ac-
knowledge that this is inappropriate? That would be an
understatement.
[1600]
Hon. M. Polak: We're here to discuss the estimates for
the budget of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and
Reconciliation. We're not here to discuss what would be
the appropriate government response to the comments
of a minister from the federal level.
The Chair: Member, I want to let you know that I think
we've canvassed this long enough and far enough, so
please direct your comments back to estimates questions.
S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. I don't believe we
have, but I certainly do agree that we're not getting an
answer, so we probably are wasting time here.
Has the minister had any discussions with the
Tsilhqot'in regarding any of their plans for the region
that do not include a mine — in this case the Taseko
mine? There have been plans afoot….
Interjection.
S. Fraser: That don't include, yeah — not unlike the
Ktunaxa. There have been plans underway for quite a
long time — land use planning, for lack of a better term,
I guess — around traditional territories. I'm just won-
10375
dering if the minister has had any discussions and if she
can…. Well, that would be a good place to start.
Hon. M. Polak: We are in discussions to renew the
Tsilhqot'in framework agreement. It is an agreement that
allows for discussions of all manner of issues that are tak-
ing place on the land base. By agreement, it does exclude
the Prosperity project. I would say, as with the Ktunaxa,
we generally, as a province, have a very good working re-
lationship with the Tsilhqot'in.
S. Fraser: Can the minister explain — I'm not trying
to catch her on anything here — if the framework agree-
ment is a…? What is this described as? It's not a treaty
agreement. So is this a resource agreement? What form
does this take? What definition does it take?
Hon. M. Polak: This is a non-treaty bilateral agree-
ment. It amounts to a strategic engagement agreement,
and that includes things like government-to-government
relationships, shared decision-making, conflict resolu-
tion and general land use issues.
[1605]
S. Fraser: We've canvassed the issue of the mine and
the controversy around that, and there's an environment-
al assessment process, such as it is, underway. But there
are some parallels here with the Ktunaxa. There is a de-
velopment, if you will, within the traditional territory
that was never ceded, that was never extinguished. In the
one case we have a treaty process. In the other case, this
case with the Tsilhqot'in, we do not have a treaty process
as such. Are there parallels here? How will these discus-
sions differ about controversial…?
Let's do a hypothetical here. I guess I can't ask the min-
ister to speculate, but we have two different First Nations
groups in the province that are both opposing a develop-
ment within their traditional territories.
With the Ktunaxa, it is the Jumbo Glacier resort.
They're in the treaty process parallel to this. With the
Tsilhqot'in, it is the Prosperity mine, phase 2 or phase
zero. I don't know what you want to call it. It's sort of
the earlier one. The spectre of it coming forward is what
the Tsilhqot'in are facing, but they do not have a treaty
process.
How will these two processes, which are very similar in
many ways, proceed? One has a treaty process occurring
that's significant, and the other one does not. And they
both have in common a resource use that is considered
unacceptable by the First Nations.
Hon. M. Polak: We have a number of different tools
that we can use as a ministry on behalf of government
to build relationships with First Nations. These are rela-
tionships. Whether it's Ktunaxa or Tsilhqot'in, we have
ongoing, fairly strong relationships between their gov-
10376 British Columbia Debates
ernment and the province as a whole. As in any rela-
tionship, there are from time to time matters where the
parties disagree, but the idea of building a relationship
of this nature is that the relationship can survive beyond
the individual areas of disagreement.
Now, it's somewhat different between the two because,
of course, Ktunaxa is seeking reconciliation with the gov-
ernments of Canada and British Columbia through treaty.
Tsilhqot'in, though, has other opportunities with govern-
ment through non-treaty agreements.
[1610]
One can use any number of tools as the kinds of build-
ing blocks that bring us toward more fulsome reconcilia-
tion. We will continue to do that, both with Tsilhqot'in
and with Ktunaxa, as we seek to find more and better
ways that we can work together on the land base.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. A fairly broad an-
swer, but I realize I wasn't too specific in my question.
You've got, for instance, members of the B.C. Summit
and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. One route is treaty;
the other is not.
I guess one question. Both the Summit members
and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs members — and, I
guess, the Assembly of First Nations — which make up
the leadership council…. Would they all be stakeholders
that you meet to try to deal with their issues in different
ways because they have different perspectives about how
to get reconciliation?
Both the union and the Summit would be considered
legitimate stakeholders in your deliberations on how to
proceed with reconciliation — maybe by a different route.
Am I right in saying that?
Hon. M. Polak: First off, we don't consider them
stakeholders. We consider them governments. They
are governments with which we have a government-to-
government relationship.
Insofar as the members of the leadership council, the
First Nations Summit is the official representative to
the treaty principals. The UBCIC and the Assembly of
First Nations have a role to play on the leadership coun-
cil. We certainly work with them as we develop our ap-
proaches to First Nations. The very many tools that we
utilize through non-treaty means were, many of them,
developed in conjunction with the work we do with the
leadership council.
S. Fraser: I'm assuming that there are meetings…. We
discussed some of the budget problems — what I saw as
budget reductions — in meeting time, in meeting re-
sources with both the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and,
actually, the Summit and the Assembly. I assume that
the budgeted amount of money for meeting time there
was split three ways. It's not just treaty and agreements.
There's a whole range of discussions, I'm sure, that occur
Monday, March 26, 2012
with the leadership council.
So as government-to-government relationships go,
has the minister or any of her staff…? When the Missing
Women Inquiry was being brought about, were there dis-
cussions through you or your ministry and the leader-
ship council?
[1615]
Hon. M. Polak: Through my officials, as concerns have
been raised, they have then been brought to the attention
of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.
Clarification, though. In the budget there was $350,000
set aside for the leadership council, for meetings, for re-
sourcing those discussions. Was there a formal discus-
sion or were there meetings where formal discussions
happened regarding the creation of the Missing Women
Inquiry? Is that something that was budgeted for through
that $350,000?
Hon. M. Polak: I hope I haven't misunderstood the
member's question. The $350,000 is general support that
we provide to the leadership council. It changes from
year to year, typically based on the type of activity that is
undertaken. Very often it's attached specifically to vari-
ous tasks.
For example, the single largest year of funding for the
leadership council was when they had undertaken to de-
velop the reconciliation legislation that, of course, sub-
sequently failed. Then in the following year, when they
were still seeking a renewed mandate from their chiefs,
there was very, very little funding because there was very
little activity without a mandate that they had. So it tends
to flow that way.
There haven't been any specific discussions around the
Missing Women Inquiry. I'm not aware of any that took
place prior to establishing the Missing Women Inquiry,
although I have only been minister for just a little over
a year.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Could she
confirm that no discussions happened with the Ministry
of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation prior to her
being the minister? Can staff confirm that there were
no…? Staff would be…. Well, staff would change too.
I'd like to know…. Previous to the inception of the
Missing Women Inquiry, was there any discussion with
the leadership council, for instance — with any of the
three membership groups: the Assembly, the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs or the B.C. Summit?
Hon. M. Polak: I'm advised that the Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General did directly engage with
the leadership council. It may be somewhat difficult to
determine if those discussions ever took place formally
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
in my ministry prior to my time as the deputy. Many of
the senior staff have changed, and of course, I'm not there
as well. But we do know that there have been formal dis-
cussions with the leadership council and the Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General.
S. Fraser: So since you've been minister, there have
been no discussions with the members of the leader-
ship council — the Union of the B.C. Indian Chiefs, the
Summit, the Assembly of First Nations — or the federal
Assembly of First Nations regarding the Missing Women
Inquiry? Has there been no correspondence, no discus-
sions at all with the ministry?
Hon. M. Polak: As I said previously, to the extent that
those issues have been raised, they have been brought
to the attention of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney
General. I have not had any formal discussions.
[1620]
I'm casting my mind back. It's possible that the issue
has been mentioned in passing, but it hasn't been the
subject of a formal meeting that we've had. Nevertheless,
as concerns have been raised at a staff level, those have
been passed along to the Ministry of Justice and Attorney
General.
S. Fraser: So in the role as Ministry of Aboriginal
Relations and Reconciliation, the only role played in ad-
dressing the issues of the Missing Women Inquiry has
been as a conduit to another ministry? There has been
no consultative role — nothing like that?
Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct. The consul-
tations with regard to this are the responsibility of the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. Again, we are
quite happy to facilitate if there are times when issues are
raised to us, but the member is correct that beyond that
we don't play a role in this. It would be the responsibility
of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.
S. Fraser: Obviously, recently we lost the appointed
attorney, Gervais, and one of the pro bono lawyers. That
certainly raised a lot of concern amongst…. Well, we lost
the last of the leadership council, the Summit.
Was there no correspondence with the minister or the
ministry regarding the loss of Ms. Gervais and the loss of
the B.C. Summit, the last of the aboriginal groups repre-
sented at the inquiry?
Hon. M. Polak: These are justice matters, so in the
event that correspondence did come to our ministry, it
would be directed to the Ministry of Justice and Attorney
General.
S. Fraser: Have there been any discussions through
the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
10377
with any of the groups withstanding, outside of the
leadership council?
I know the Summit stayed in, but there were 13 ab-
original women's groups and community groups that
were involved, that actually were given standing, as rec-
ommended by the commissioner. Were there no discus-
sions with the aboriginal groups outside of the leadership
council with yourself or your ministry?
Hon. M. Polak: Again, any time concerns have been
raised to us, they have been brought to the attention of
the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. It is not
something that we have been involved with because it's
not part of our ministry responsibilities.
S. Fraser: Okay. There were recent appointments
made to replace Ms. Gervais and the pro bono lawyer
to represent all of the aboriginal groups withstanding.
Was there no discussion from Justice to the Minister of
Aboriginal Relations on appointing lawyers to represent
aboriginal groups in probably the largest investigation,
commission, of its kind in the province?
I am finding this hard to believe. No discussion hap-
pened with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and
Reconciliation from the Ministry of Justice to appoint
counsel for the aboriginal groups withstanding?
Hon. M. Polak: Well, again, these are justice mat-
ters. They are matters solely within the purview of the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. I would not
expect them to consult with us, just as I would not ex-
pect the Ministry of Health to consult us with respect to
health matters or the Minister of Education to consult us
with respect to education matters.
[1625]
As to the manner in which these lawyers were chosen,
that would have to be canvassed with the Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General. I know that the member
wishes to find out more information about this. We have
now canvassed this for a little while, and I think the mem-
ber can sense that the answers he's receiving from me are
fairly similar, one to another.
I would just suggest that, really, there is not much, if
anything, to pursue with our ministry with respect to
the Missing Women Inquiry. There is nothing within
our jurisdiction.
S. Fraser: I don't agree with a couple of the state-
ments. I mean, the minister referred to issues of health
and issues of education and, certainly, issues dealing
with aboriginal health. And there are significant ones
happening right now — and, certainly, through the fed-
eral process and that devolution that's happening. There
are issues around aboriginal education that have always
come forward to…. Is there no role for the ministry to
deal with anything?
10378 British Columbia Debates
It says here, in the goal in your service plan: "Recon-
ciliation with aboriginal people in British Columbia."
This is the goal. "Reconciliation is an ongoing process and
rarely straightforward. It requires trust and commitment
to overcome stumbling blocks along the way and a will-
ingness to learn from each other at all stages. Relation-
ships built on mutual respect and recognition are key to
making reconciliation possible."
So reconciliation is a very big, broad topic. It certainly
would include and could never could exclude things like
education, health care, justice. In this case justice is what
I have been probing.
If the ministry has had no role, no correspondence….
No one has picked up the phone and called the ministry
before, during and after the commission being created.
Through all the controversy that's hit the press, there
is no role for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and
Reconciliation, when in the government-to-government
relationship — not stakeholders, as the minister referred
to — the leadership council has been very vocal. As a matter
of fact, the Summit had just left that process because it
was considered to be illegitimate and non-representative
and unfair.
Does the minister not see that this seems incred-
ible — that the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and
Reconciliation would not have any role to play in a very
serious issue involving aboriginal women?
Can the minister confirm, again, that in her discus-
sions with leadership council representatives — with
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, with Grand Chief Ed John,
with Jody Raybould, with Shawn Atleo — there has been
no discussion? The issue has never been raised about
what was considered to be a travesty of justice — that
they're not getting through the Ministry of Justice.
Hon. M. Polak: To correct the record, I did not say
there had been no correspondence. I said that where
there had been, if there had been — and there may
well have been…. If there had been correspondence
directed to our ministry that was related to the Missing
Women Inquiry, that would have been passed along to
the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, because
that is their responsibility.
Indeed, we would have done the same with any con-
cerns that had been raised. As I have advised, as we have
been made aware of concerns, we have passed those
along to the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.
I need to remind the member of something that I stat-
ed earlier on in the estimates. The title of our ministry,
that being Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, does
not mean that whenever something has to do with First
Nations or aboriginal people, our ministry is responsible
for that service or program area. Far from it. Our role
is to negotiate agreements with First Nations, establish
those relationships across government and facilitate that
when it comes to different ministries.
Monday, March 26, 2012
The member used the example of education or of
health. No, I would not expect the Ministry of Health to
consult us on a health matter. They have the expertise in
health matters. I would not expect them to consult us on
an education matter. They have the expertise in educa-
tion matters.
In fact, what the member has described in terms of the
agreement that has been made between the federal gov-
ernment and the new First Nations Health Authority is
something that was not negotiated through the Ministry
of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.
[1630]
[D. Hayer in the chair.]
Again, individual ministries are responsible for their
service area. We negotiate agreements. We advise and as-
sist with implementing those and where ministries seek
out our assistance and advice with respect to our area of
expertise, which is knowledge of First Nations. But this
matter is a matter of justice.
The Ministry of Justice and Attorney General has the
expertise with respect to that, not our ministry. There
would not have been much that we could offer them in
terms of advice, as they are the experts on matters relat-
ed to justice. The member, I think, should understand
that we do not have a program and service responsibility.
J. Kwan: I'd like to just ask the minister some questions
in this area as well. The minister had acknowledged that
many of the aboriginal organizations are critical to the
work of the ministry, and it does relate to the goals and
objectives, if you will, of the ministry in achieving some
of the outcomes that I think we all desire on behalf of all
British Columbians.
Related to that, on the Missing Women Inquiry issue,
the First Nations Summit, which I know the ministry
works quite intimately with on aboriginal-related issues.
I'm wondering if the minister has ever seen the sub-
mission that the First Nations Summit had released on
March 6 around their withdrawal from participation in
the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. I wonder if
that's been brought to the minister's attention.
Hon. M. Polak: I am aware of it, and I have seen it. I
don't believe I received it in an official piece of corres-
pondence. I can't recall if I received it electronically from
someone or if it was passed along to me. But I am aware
of it, and I have seen it.
J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister for that answer.
In the press release that comes with the document dat-
ed March 6, 2012…. The press release reads as follows:
"First Nations Summit Withdraws from Participation in Missing
Women Commission of Inquiry. An Open Letter to Wally Oppal,
QC, Commissioner.
"Coast Salish territory, Vancouver. The First Nations Summit
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
today released the attached open letter to Wally Oppal, commis-
sioner of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.
"The letter concluded that given recent developments, including
the withdrawal of the independent legal counsel for aboriginal
interests and the overall conduct of the inquiry, the voices of the
families of the missing and murdered aboriginal women and
aboriginal communities are clearly not being heard or respected.
Therefore, given the realization that the inquiry will clearly not
be able to fulfil a critical part of its mandate, the First Nations
Summit has indicated it has no choice but to withdraw as an active
participant in the inquiry."
Then it lists the contact people for this press advisory.
I'd like to ask the minister this question. What are her
views of this press release that has been issued by the First
Nations Summit as it relates to the work that she needs to
do on behalf of her government in aboriginal relations?
Hon. M. Polak: I apologize if the member wasn't here
for some of the earlier discussion. As I pointed out with
the previous member's questions, these answers will be-
come more and more similar, because this is an area that
is well outside my responsibilities, and as such, those
types of questions need to be directed to the Ministry of
Justice and Attorney General.
[1635]
J. Kwan: No, I was here to listen to all the questions
and answers related to this matter. Why I ask this — I
think that there is a relationship — is this. I'm not ask-
ing the minister to make a decision. I fully recognize that
those decisions, as they relate to the Missing Women
Inquiry, rest with the Attorney General's ministry. I fully
recognize that.
In the context of the work that the minister has to do
as she works to build relations with the aboriginal com-
munity, knowing the history that British Columbia has
with the aboriginal community and given that this press
release has now been issued and is on the public record….
Clearly, it has an impact and implication for aboriginal
relations in British Columbia.
As the minister in her ministry and that work…. I'm
wondering whether or not the minister has thought
about that and what implication it might have for her
work in her ministry in striving towards building those
kinds of relationships that we all want to see in moving
forward with the aboriginal community, especially in ad-
dressing historical injustices.
Hon. M. Polak: Both collectively and individually, the
actions of every ministry of government, as they relate
to First Nations, have a potential impact on our relation-
ships. It's impossible for me to speculate about or respond
to questions as they relate to the actions of other minis-
tries and how they might relate to the relationships with
First Nations overall.
We could spend years discussing all the different inter-
actions, but let's remember that while we have common
goals across government with respect to our relationships
10379
with First Nations, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations
and Reconciliation has a specific role in achieving that.
Other ministries have their roles. This is outside the
bounds of the responsibilities of my ministry, and it is
not possible for me to continue to comment on it.
J. Kwan: Let me just go on to the statement that's been
issued by the First Nations Summit in this matter. If the
minister…. She says she's seen the document. It reads:
"Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, First Nations
Summit statement, October 12, 2011."
It begins with a quote, and I think it's a significant
quote. It says: "The world was supposed to have learned
three indelible lessons from the concentration camps of
Europe: (a) indifference is injustice's incubator; (b) it's
not what you stand for; it's what you stand up against;
(c) we must never forget how the world looks to those
who are vulnerable."
This comes from "International Law and Human
Rights: The Power and the Pity," Hon. Rosalie Silberman
Abella, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, 2010.
I think it sets the stage in terms of what the First
Nations Summit is leading into. It goes on to talk about,
under different headings…. They have a variety of dif-
ferent headings in the submission — "Acknowledgment,"
"Introduction."
The introduction portion, under section 7, reads:
"The specific issue involving 'violence and indigenous women'
is not just a local issue to this province. It is an issue that has
gained national and international prominence, including at the
United Nations.
"First Nations individuals and organizations have for years called
for an independent examination and inquiry into the missing and,
we now know, murdered aboriginal women. Such an inquiry, we
hoped, would shed some light into the dark corners of such vio-
lence, their roots, extent and impacts, and including such issues
as systemic racism and lateral violence.
"Viable solutions built on genuine, actionable political will and
the necessary financial resources are desperately needed to find
a way forward. We have repeatedly called on Canada and British
Columbia to understand these issues and to deal with them as
important public policy priorities."
There's much information in the submission as well.
Under "Participants," paragraph 10, it states as follows:
"While some participants will appear before the commission,
most have, for a number of very legitimate reasons, withdrawn.
Many of these reasons have been submitted to the commission in
writing and are well known publicly.
"These have highlighted the credibility of the commissioner and
the inquiry, including the conduct of the inquiry itself and that
of the provincial government, which has from the outset tied the
hands of the commission by its extremely limited terms of refer-
ence and by refusing to provide desperately needed financial sup-
port to those participants who have very limited or no resources.
"Given the incredible importance of the issues before this inquiry,
the position of the B.C. government to not fund these participants
is nothing short of astounding."
[1640]
Let me just pause here for a moment. Given the con-
text in which the First Nations Summit has laid out the
Missing Women Inquiry as it relates to the important
10380 British Columbia Debates
work of the aboriginal community and the future of the
aboriginal community and their relationship with the
Crown, with governments and with British Columbians
on the whole, I would argue, the minister suggests that
it's not her role to represent these issues as the Minister
of Aboriginal Relations.
Surely, though, the minister must agree that it is with-
in her scope as the minister whose interest is to ensure
across government that policies and decisions are made
in such a way that it does not operate in a silo but rather
with a broad scope in viewing what those implications
are with those individual decisions from different min-
istries as they relate to other ministries.
Surely, the minister would agree then — given the
grave concerns that the First Nations Summit has brought
to the government's attention, to the minister's attention,
to the ministry's attention — that the minister will find
it important and within her scope as the minister to ad-
vocate on behalf of the aboriginal community with her
colleagues in ensuring in this work, though it was not her
decision but the Attorney General's decision, that those
decisions best reflect the views of the aboriginal com-
munity and what they're trying to achieve.
Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, no one who has grown up
in British Columbia or indeed has been around British
Columbia for any length of time could be unaware of
the great tragedy that exists in the history we have with
First Nations, and the incidents that have prompted the
Missing Women Inquiry are no less tragic. In fact, they
overlay on a tragic history and make it even more hor-
rible for those who observe it.
Having said that, though, the same could be said in
areas of health. If one travels around the province and
takes a look — and indeed across Canada — at the health
status of First Nations and some of the terrible living con-
ditions that are present, if one looks at the gaps in educa-
tion, there is tragedy upon tragedy that has been visited
on First Nations.
The fact of the matter is that with respect to an es-
timates debate, Education is responsible for the issues
with respect to First Nations around education. Health
is responsible for the issues with respect to First Nations
around health. Housing is responsible for the issues with
respect to First Nations around housing. So, too, is the
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General responsible for
the issues of justice as they relate to First Nations.
Mr. Chair, I do think we have strayed well outside the
scope of the debate around the estimates for the Ministry
of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.
[1645]
The Chair: Member, I just want to remind you that you
are going beyond the scope of this ministry. Maybe you
can focus back to the estimates for this ministry's budget
that we are talking about right now. Thank you.
Monday, March 26, 2012
J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be happy to because,
actually, the submission from the First Nations Summit
lays out quite clearly for us how it relates to this min-
istry. In that submission, under the heading of "Context
for Understanding First Nations–Crown Relations," it
speaks to the issue of systemic issues and patterns of
Crown conduct.
Let me just put this on the record — how it relates to
this ministry — because it talks about the history of ab-
original people and why this history is so important in
the understanding of our conduct today on virtually all
matters related to aboriginal people, whether it be on the
treaty process or on the Missing Women Inquiry. It reads
as follows, paragraph 29:
"We firmly believe that to know our history and that of our his-
toric dealings with successive Crown governments will help you
understand the nature of existing relations and that of our place in
contemporary British Columbia. We do not want to oversimplify
a complex history of relationships, but there are certain recur-
ring elements of past and contemporary conduct on behalf of the
Crown which cannot be ignored."
Paragraph 30: "There is an atmosphere in the conduct
of Crown affairs that is difficult for First Nations people
to accept or even understand."
Paragraph 31:
"At the very core of this is the continued denial by the Crown,
on behalf of B.C. and Canada, of the very existence of aboriginal
peoples or their rights, unless and until these are proven in a court.
Even to this day we continue to see this in the pleadings filed by
Crown lawyers and in the written and oral arguments they submit
when matters relating to the rights of aboriginal peoples end up
in a court."
It goes on:
"The United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous
peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly, in its preamble says
it best. 'Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices
based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on
the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural
differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally
condemnable and socially unjust.'"
In December 2010, Canada endorsed this declaration,
this being the declaration of the UN on the rights of in-
digenous peoples.
The submission goes on to say, in paragraph 32: "Since
its interception as a colony, and then as a province when
it joined Confederation in 1871, B.C. and Canada have
acted with impunity regarding the land, cultural and
political rights of indigenous people." It goes on to talk
about the issue around apology, the issue of inferior and
unequal treatment of the aboriginal people.
In paragraph 35 it talks about the discrimination that
took place against aboriginal people and the Chinese
people in their prohibition from owning Crown lands,
not being allowed to vote and how Indian students of
school age were not allowed in public schools until the
1950s. So there's much history that leads to a context of
racial discrimination and what the aboriginal commun-
ity leaders are saying is a pattern of systemic discrimina-
tion. In fact, in paragraph 36, it reads:
"Again the underlying point in all of this is that the conduct and
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
acts, including laws and policies of the Crown, reflect a systemic
pattern of discrimination. If the Crown in its official capacity is
able to discriminate systemically, how then are its citizens and
institutions to think or act towards aboriginal peoples and the
substantive issues they raise? These prevailing attitudes do not
exist in silos. They permeate and impact on all aspects of First
Nations lives."
Let me just stop there. This last section, section 36, is
particularly important because it is exactly what they're
calling for — for the minister and this ministry to go and
advocate on their behalf to change the course of history
today forward, to make a difference, to say that systemic
discrimination is no longer acceptable and that if you see
practices within government, even if it's in other minis-
tries, it is incumbent on all of us to stand up and say this
is not acceptable.
[1650]
In light of what's come forward with the Missing
Women Inquiry…. The First Nations Summit and the
aboriginal leaders across the board are now saying that
there is an issue of systemic discrimination — that his-
tory in this strange way, I suppose, is repeating itself at
this point in time within the Missing Women Inquiry.
My question to the minister is this. As the minister
who's trying to rebuild the bridge here, who's trying to
address some of these historical injustices of the past,
does she not see fit that it's part of her responsibility, as
well, to talk to her colleagues around these concerns,
to advocate on behalf of the aboriginal community?
Does she not see at all that her role as the Minister of
Aboriginal Relations would have something to do with
that advocacy at the cabinet table with her colleagues?
Hon. M. Polak: Again, I can certainly appreciate the
passion the member brings to the very many tragic cir-
cumstances that have been visited upon First Nations
people. But as I have said, the matters related to the
Missing Women Inquiry are for the Ministry of Justice
and Attorney General. They are well outside the bounds
of debate with respect to the estimates of the Ministry of
Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.
The Chair: Member, I will remind you again that these
are important and good questions you have, but these are
beyond the estimates we are discussing right now. You
have asked those questions of an inappropriate ministry
that is here presenting their budget estimates.
If you have other questions, other than what you have
repeated the last few times….
J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can tell you this. I
certainly will be canvassing these questions with differ-
ent ministers in this process. But I do find it astound-
ing, though, that what we've heard in the last — what?
— hour or so from the minister is that she's denied re-
sponsibility to be the advocate on behalf of aboriginal
people at the cabinet table. These matters actually relate
10381
to Aboriginal Relations, Mr. Chair. They relate to her re-
sponsibility in her capacity as minister responsible for
Aboriginal Relations.
I do find that astounding — disappointing too. I real-
ly was hoping, even at whatever minimal level she might
see her role to be, that she might say: "Yes, I'll bring those
concerns forward to the minister. Yes, I will reflect those
concerns. Yes, I agree with the First Nations Summit
around these concerns." But she made no such state-
ment all along.
Hon. M. Polak: Yes, I did, actually, to your member
previously.
J. Kwan: Okay. The minister said she did. I would love
to hear that.
Will she then tell me: does she agree with the First
Nation Summit's issues and concerns that they brought
up in their submission? Maybe just let me know that.
Hon. M. Polak: I agree wholeheartedly with the his-
toric concerns that the First Nations have outlined, both
in this submission and in many others. I made it very
clear, actually, in a number of answers that whenever con-
cerns are brought to us — whether it's correspondence or
whether it's conversation — we have brought those to the
attention of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.
Mr. Chair, I have, I think, been very patient as the
members have attempted to attach their view as to the
construction of government and response of government
to First Nations. I want to express what concerns me here,
and that is that the idea….
First, let's go back. The different historic wrongs that
have been outlined — and, indeed, very eloquently out-
lined — in the submission of the First Nations…. The
vast majority of those result from an instrument, and
that instrument is called the Indian Act. The Indian Act
results from the concept that all Indians should be dealt
with through one key government area. It's not the re-
sponsibility of the rest of the Canadian government to
deal with aboriginal people; it's the responsibility of the
Indian Act. That's where that notion comes from.
The idea that all things aboriginal in British Columbia
should therefore fall under the Ministry of Aboriginal
Relations and Reconciliation, rather than the individual
line ministries, I find fundamentally patronizing. It hark-
ens back to that very instrument, the Indian Act.
[1655]
We have made it clear that we have passed on any and
all concerns that were raised to us. But I reject the no-
tion wholeheartedly that aboriginal people, First Nations
people, in British Columbia, on all matters that relate to
them — be they health, justice, education or housing
— should somehow be told, just like they were with the
Indian Act, that they should go to this one place because
that's where aboriginal people are dealt with. Aboriginal
10382 British Columbia Debates
people have a right to expect far more than that from gov-
ernment. If we're going to change history, then let's make
sure that every single ministry recognizes that they have
an equal responsibility to First Nations people as they do
to non–First Nations people.
The Chair: Member, do you have questions on Vote
11?
J. Kwan: I do. And that's exactly the point, in response
to the minister, that I'm trying to make. It is not just an
Attorney General's ministry issue. It goes across gov-
ernment. The minister herself is actually trying to deny
that very notion, simply trying to say this issue falls only
under the Attorney General's ministry, and it is not true.
It goes across government and across all ministries as it
impacts the aboriginal community.
Of course, as the minister responsible for Aboriginal
Relations, there is actually a core piece for the minister
to take up that advocacy role as well. I'm not saying she
should be the only person who should take up the forces
on this issue, but rather that she's amongst them. But
right now she's actually not taking that responsibility and
saying that it is someone else's responsibility.
The minister did say, though — and I'll give her cred-
it…. She acknowledges the historical injustices that were
raised in the submission. That includes the injustice as
it exists today on the Missing Women Inquiry. I think
I heard the minister say that she agrees with the First
Nations Summit to say that the Missing Women Inquiry
now has a systemic discrimination issue and a pattern of
systemic discrimination issues. Would the minister ad-
vise if she agrees with that or not?
Hon. M. Polak: I'd appreciate it if the member would
refer to Hansard rather than characterizing my com-
ments on her own. I advised the member that I agree
wholeheartedly with their assessment of the historic in-
justices that have taken place to First Nations, many of
which continue today. But we are far outside the bounds
of the estimates debate for the Ministry of Aboriginal
Relations and Reconciliation. I understand the member
would like to get a number of things on record with re-
spect to an issue she's very passionate about, but this is
not the place.
The Chair: Member, it's my duty to inform you we are
debating today estimates on Vote 11. Do you have ques-
tions relevant to Vote 11?
J. Kwan: Let me just close with this. The minister has
repeatedly referred this matter to the Attorney General's
ministry. I take it from her response that she does not
feel compelled to advocate on this issue as the Minister
of Aboriginal Relations. I did not hear her say that she
will in fact advocate on behalf of the aboriginal commun-
Monday, March 26, 2012
ity to address historical injustices as a component piece
within the context of the Missing Women Inquiry. I find
that disappointing.
I have to be very honest. It's not an issue about my
passion. It is an issue about injustices of the past, and we
all have some responsibility for taking it on — no matter
where we stand, where we sit or what capacity we hold.
If you believe in those injustices that occurred in our his-
tory and you want to rectify that in some meaningful way,
then you would pick it up and move forward.
That's all I'm asking of the minister. And how does
that relate to this vote? By the sheer fact that she is the
Minister of Aboriginal Relations, and part of the groups
she deals with are from the aboriginal community — and
to advance those concerns, hopefully, as passionately as
we all feel here today in this discussion.
Let me just close with this — why this is so critical in
our history today. The missing and murdered women's
history is nothing short of astounding in the sense that,
I dare say, it is probably the largest homicide case in the
history of Canada. The depth of the tragedy here is be-
yond words.
[1700]
We have group after group that has withdrawn from
the inquiry. The list of groups includes the Native
Women's Association of Canada, the committee of the
February 14 Women's Memorial March, the Downtown
Eastside Women's Centre.…
Point of Order
Hon. M. Polak: Point of order, Mr. Chair. I believe the
member has already been directed several times that this,
in fact, is outside the scope of the debate of the Ministry
of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation's estimates.
The Chair: Hon. Member, I understand you have
posed a number of questions on matters outside the
scope of the vote currently before the committee. As
the Chair, I must ask you to relate your questions to the
provisions of Vote 11 and not discuss matters outside
of Vote 11.
Debate Continued
J. Kwan: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I will do that.
The groups that I was just mentioning — the minis-
ter knows who they are. Let me just say this. The Union
of B.C. Indian Chiefs is another group that has raised
many, many issues in the public realm, on the public re-
cord, as they relate to historical injustices for the aborig-
inal community.
They relate to a wide range and breadth of issues, in-
cluding issues that surface in the treaty process, issues
that are not part of the treaty process and issues that are
part of the urban aboriginal community. Many of the
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
folks that live in the Vancouver–Mount Pleasant com-
munity are aboriginal in their ancestry but have had no
recognition from any levels of government anywhere.
They struggle day in and day out, and they're amongst
our most vulnerable populations, if you will.
Let me ask the minister this question. Has she seen fit
to advocate at the cabinet table on behalf of the urban
aboriginals in our community, bringing their issues and
concerns forward to her colleagues and ensuring that op-
portunities and a better future for aboriginal people in
the urban communities are addressed?
Hon. M. Polak: We have a number of tools that we use
in our ministry to attempt to address many of the historic
wrongs that have taken place, and the member has well
outlined many of them.
I would take great pleasure in having a discussion with
the member about those tools, about the types of agree-
ments that we put in place, about the way in which we
can empower First Nations, both on reserve and off re-
serve, as a result of some of the economic development,
reconciliation protocols — very many tools that we have
in our ministry. I would very much like to discuss those
matters as they have been the subject of considerable
study for myself in preparation for estimates.
I'd certainly appreciate it if we could return to the sub-
ject of the vote.
The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant,
I recognize you on Vote 11. Can we get back to Vote 11
please.
J. Kwan: Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Maybe the minister can tell us what those tools are.
Hon. M. Polak: I'm excited to be able to spend some
time speaking about some of the very important work of
our ministry. In very many cases, the types of agreements
that we enter into with First Nations have a very direct
impact on the kind of socioeconomic circumstances that
those First Nations experience.
First off, for example, we have our strategic engage-
ment agreements. The strategic engagement agreements
are a way in which we meaningfully involve First Nations
in the planning and decision-making around their terri-
tory. We have very many successful ones. In fact, one of
the most recent that we're very proud of is one that we
have put in place with the Taku River Tlingit First Nation.
It also involves a very comprehensive land use plan that
we have entered into with them.
[1705]
One of the advantages to the First Nations is that,
then, any industry proponent coming into their territory
understands clearly what the expectations are of them
when they're going to deal with those First Nations. It
means that the First Nations spend far less time strug-
10383
gling with industry proponents in an attempt to get at
some shared and meaningful decision-making, because
it's already laid out. It's already agreed to, and it's done
respecting the ways in which those First Nations would
like to engage both with government and with industry
proponents.
The forest consultation and revenue-sharing agree-
ments. These have been around in another format for
many years. It's a really exciting opportunity for First
Nations, some of whom are in rural areas — I would ven-
ture to say most — but also those that are approaching
more urban areas — up the Fraser Valley, for example. It
gives them an opportunity to share revenue on forestry
activity that's taking place in their territories. Again, it's a
way for them to be able to develop the kind of economic
base they need in order to contribute to the very many
social needs that they have in their territory.
It is empowering, because it means they are the ones
who are able, then, to enter more meaningfully into de-
livering those types of services and assisting with those
types of needs in their communities. We've spoken a little
bit about the economic community development agree-
ments that we have in place and are in discussions with
other First Nations about.
One of the things that you will hear time and time
again from First Nations is their frustration at seeing the
resources on their land base extracted in order to benefit
communities around them without really experiencing
a benefit for themselves. It has meant that you have seen
great riches taken out of many areas of the province while
still seeing First Nations living in abject poverty and not
benefiting from resources in their territory.
Our province became the first to address that and
to provide for revenue-sharing opportunities for First
Nations. While we have many other avenues we can go,
we find that in terms of these economic community de-
velopment agreements, the mineral tax revenue that is
shared with the First Nations has become a very powerful
tool for them to become empowered and be able to, again,
provide for that economic opportunity on their land base.
In many cases it enables them to enter into other agree-
ments with proponents that involve training and build-
ing toward a better future for their young people, their
future generations.
In the north we have economic benefit agreements on
the sharing of oil, gas and coal revenues with Treaty 8
First Nations, and we are also in discussions around fur-
ther types of agreements that give certainty in those areas.
I want to talk, also, about some more recent develop-
ments. Those are with respect to reconciliation agree-
ments, which are much more comprehensive. If we take,
for example, the Nanwakolas, the Haida, the coastal First
Nations…. There we've been able to enter into much
more comprehensive agreements on the land base, which
include a full range of different areas under which we've
formed agreement.
10384 British Columbia Debates
Probably the best example of one operating right
now is what's taking place on Haida Gwaii. The mem-
ber knows — we've talked about this before — that I
spent time living in Haida Gwaii in the early and mid-
'90s. The differences between the economic activity then
and the economic activity now is absolutely night and
day. It's a result of the reconciliation agreement that we
have with them.
Here is the key, though. It is that it doesn't just have an
impact on the economy of Haida Gwaii and the economy
of the Haida people. It has a very direct impact on what
they are experiencing in terms of outcomes on a socio-
economic basis in their territory. There's an example. I'm
happy to have been able to provide that to you. It is some
of the very important work that we do that advances the
interests of First Nations and aboriginal people across
British Columbia.
J. Kwan: I thought I asked a question about urban
aboriginals. I didn't realize the Haida Gwaii would be
considered urban aboriginals. The minister read off
some statement on a whole range of different tools. Fair
enough. There are different tools. But with that said, my
specific question was on urban aboriginals.
Let me ask a very specific question. Has the minister
actually met with representatives from the Downtown
Eastside Women's Centre, the Frank Paul Society, or the
committee of the February 14th Women's Memorial
March?
[1710]
Hon. M. Polak: I couldn't say specifically with respect
to each of the groups. I don't have the material with
me. But when we were heading up the Ending Violence
forum, many of those women were people whom I met
at the forum, some of whom I met when we were at the
ceremony down in the park prior to the forum.
So I couldn't say specifically with respect to that, but
I'm sure that they were part of many of those discussions.
Again, though, it's not an area where we have any formal
role as a ministry.
J. Kwan: Well, if the minister did meet with these
groups, then in all likelihood, she would have remem-
bered some of the content, I would anticipate, of those
meetings.
Whenever I meet with those groups, what they con-
stantly talk about are the issues and the plight of the
aboriginal community, for both men and women, but
particularly when it relates to women — the challenges
that they face, the historical injustices, the systemic im-
pact of those injustices that we see as it impacts the ab-
original community today. It's to the point where we see
people are extremely vulnerable, extremely marginalized.
Many of them were victims of Robert Pickton. Many of
them were the women that went missing. Many of them
Monday, March 26, 2012
were the women that were murdered. Many of them
are still seeking justice for their family members, which
clearly, they're not going to really obtain from this min-
ister, because she says it's not her responsibility but that
of the Attorney General.
S. Fraser: I visited the Peace River last year, actually
for an annual event, the Paddle for the Peace. The West
Moberly First Nations weren't able to get me paddling
because it was a very bad flooding situation. Actually,
driving was the problem. Coming in through Alberta
was the only route to get there by road, and all boat traf-
fic was impossible.
They did lay out a very clear sort of a road map. We
hiked quite a bit to get to the areas that would be poten-
tially flooded by the Site C dam, including traditional
territories of the West Moberly and other Nations and,
potentially, grave sites and that sort of thing — very sig-
nificant historical land.
I'm wondering if the minister can inform how discus-
sions go to deal with the modern-day proposal to flood
massive traditional territories. How would accommoda-
tions be met in those very difficult circumstances?
[1715]
Hon. M. Polak: I, too, have visited the Peace not
that long ago. It's absolutely beautiful country. I toured
around some of the areas that potentially could be inun-
dated in the case of Site C.
With respect to the consultation and accommoda-
tion as it relates to this specific project, B.C. Hydro is
the lead on that because it's their project. We, along with
other ministries, are working to support them and pro-
vide support to them as they do that. Our ministry has
responsibility for areas outside of the Site C discussion
with respect to other types of agreements and discussions
that we have with treaty 8, but B.C. Hydro is the lead with
respect to the discussions around Site C.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.
Perhaps she could inform…. The significant issues of
things like grave sites, historic and significant sites — is
there a role for the ministry here? I realize it's not a treaty
issue, but has that role been delegated to B.C. Hydro?
Or maybe it is the B.C. Heritage Conservation Act? I'm
not quite sure who…. First of all, is it not this ministry
that has a role? If not, who would handle those signifi-
cant issues?
Hon. M. Polak: I will try to shed some light on what
will prove to be a nicely complicated matter, but maybe I
can simplify it. In this case…. Well, let's go back. For any
project, the proponent is the one responsible to meet the
regulatory requirements. In this case, the proponent hap-
pens to be B.C. Hydro. In the case of remains or artifacts,
it would be the archeology branch of Forests, Lands and
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
Natural Resource Operations that has responsibility for
the Heritage Conservation Act.
[1720]
There is a regulatory review process that would guide
the treatment of any human remains or artifacts. I'm
advised that currently there is quite extensive work be-
ing undertaken at this time by the archeology branch
of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations. I apologize. It's not information that we pos-
sess in our ministry, but I'm quite certain that that min-
istry would be happy to provide it to you.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.
I'll just close on this issue. I agree with the minister that
the area is very impressive. I understand the voracious
need for power, but it is kind of scary to be standing on
the bluff overlooking the confluence where the Moberly
River comes in and seeing the site.
We had native elders. It's a long hike. One of the biolo-
gists moved the grass out of the way, through the mos-
quitoes — it was pouring rain — and there was a cactus.
This was on the south slope there. There was a cactus, an
actual little cactus. It was perfect. It's one of the few places
in Canada outside of the southern Okanagan where such
a thing will exist — probably the only place.
It's such a unique region ecologically, sort of a micro-
cosm for various things. Of course, the history there of
the First Nations is extensive. I'm hoping that….
I have found failures with the Heritage Conservation
Act. It is an old act. It hasn't been updated in an awful-
ly long time, and I think that's way overdue. I did touch
on that a little earlier in estimates when we were here a
couple of weeks ago.
So just those closing comments on this, and I hope to
get back there soon to learn more about the region and
what impacts something like a Site C would have on the
traditional territories.
I would like to move to the residential school commis-
sions. Their sessions will end in Victoria on the Island on
the 13th and 14th of April, across the street at the con-
vention centre.
Now, when I attended in Port Alberni, I believe I saw
ministry people there or, certainly, provincial govern-
ment people there. Were there, indeed? Was I right?
Did we have anyone from the Ministry of Aboriginal
Relations and Reconciliation attending either the Port
Alberni session or other sessions?
I might as well throw the next question in. Will there
be anyone attending this big regional session to be held
by the commission on April 13 and 14?
Hon. M. Polak: Yes, there were ministry people at the
Port Alberni gathering, and there will be at the gathering
that the member mentioned.
S. Fraser: I'm hoping, and maybe the minister can in-
10385
form, that there will be recommendations coming out
of that. I touched on this two weeks ago, but the com-
mission has already asked for a national awareness cam-
paign on this. Obviously, this spans various levels of
government, but I'm hoping that the…. Will the min-
istry be playing some role out of this, since we have staff
attending these sessions?
The recommendations will be an important part, I
think, of reconciliation. Will the ministry play a role in
the recommendations coming out? Justice Sinclair and
the other commissioners, I suspect, will have quite a
few recommendations. Will they be something that are
addressed provincially, in part, by the ministry? At any
point will they come before the Legislature so that we can
all take part in that?
[1725]
Hon. M. Polak: As the member knows, I'm sure, it's a
federal process. It is one that I think is critically import-
ant, but nevertheless, a federal process. It would be im-
possible for me to speculate with respect to how those
recommendations may shape up. Certainly, if there are
recommendations that have a relationship to British
Columbia, we will want to take a serious look at those.
S. Fraser: I can inform us that Justice Sinclair has al-
ready come out with a recommendation. A part of the
campaign that he has referred to deals with curriculum,
which does fall on the provinces. I think there'll prob-
ably be, hopefully, some sort of united response from
the provinces in their role in dealing with education and
making sure that a very, very dark part of history is not
forgotten and is part of what is taught in the school sys-
tem.
With that, I'll move on to my last topic, and we'll be
closing down hereafter. We'll see how many questions
we get on this, but I don't think it'll take too long. It's
around the Gathering Our Voices, the big aboriginal
youth event that happened in Nanaimo last week, just
a few days ago.
I know the minister was there. It was impressive. I
applaud the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship
Centres and the work they did, and all of those who at-
tended — 1,400 youth attending that event.
There was obviously a role the government played and
the ministry played. I'm just wondering if the minister
could inform us as to what role…. What was budgeted
for that? Did the budget come out of this ministry? That
sort of thing.
Hon. M. Polak: Yes, the Gathering Our Voices con-
ference was very impressive. Having all those aborig-
inal young people in one room, the energy was very,
very high.
We provided $100,000 from our ministry budget in a
grant to them to support their conference. We were not
10386 British Columbia Debates
the only ministry that did. I understand the Ministry of
Children and Family Development provided the larger
portion, which was about $300,000. We provided some
staff and in-kind support as well.
S. Fraser: While we didn't have the resources, we had
a couple of our members that were wearing green shirts
and volunteering too. It was great. I wanted to do that
also.
Hon. M. Polak: Did you get a photo?
S. Fraser: Yeah, I wanted an autograph. I didn't get one.
It's great to have a celebrity there too. Thanks to the min-
ister for that. I guess another shameless plug here, but a
very, very important event — as the minister knows and
is nodding — and worthwhile.
I know these are annual events, and a few hundred
thousand dollars is a lot. However, 1,400 youth…. It's
impressive. As far as value for the dollar goes, I think the
people of British Columbia certainly got that. I would put
a plug in for next year. I don't think this will get to be a
smaller event. I think it will grow. I think it's well worth
supporting. I know the minister probably feels the same
way, and so does the staff.
With that, I will close my questions and leave it to the
minister to close out this session.
[1730]
Hon. M. Polak: I think it was fitting that we closed
with a topic that is about the future for aboriginal people
and, indeed, about the next generation. I think the mem-
ber would agree with me, having been in attendance at
the Gathering Our Voices Conference, that we have every
confidence that the next generation of aboriginal people
is really going to take hold of its future with great zeal. I
think we are going to see some very great things com-
ing from them.
With that, I thank the member for his questions.
Vote 11: ministry operations, $34,753,000 — approved.
Vote 12: treaty and other agreements funding,
$40,007,000 — approved.
The Chair: We'll have a short recess.
The committee recessed from 5:32 p.m. to 5:52 p.m.
[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
On Vote 14: ministry operations, $52,314,000.
The Chair: Do you have an opening statement?
Monday, March 26, 2012
Hon. D. McRae: By all means. I have a number of
ministry employees that have joined us today. I would
like to introduce some of the people that work so hard
for agriculture in British Columbia. To my left I have
Wes Shoemaker, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
To my right I have Colin Fry, executive director of the
Agricultural Land Commission. To my back right I have
Melanie Stewart, assistant deputy minister, agriculture
science and natural resource policy division. To my left I
have Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister, corpor-
ate services, for the natural resource sector.
During the course of the next several hours, both
maybe today and also tomorrow, we'll have several
cameos or guest appearances by other staff members as
they're so needed.
It's an honour to speak to the estimates of the Ministry
of Agriculture. Like I say to my staff, I'm starting to do
things for the second time now in the role of the ministry,
so I'm looking forward to this. It gives us an opportun-
ity to reflect on how much government and the ministry
have achieved since this time last year, and I look forward
to the coming successes in the year to come.
The year that has passed since we last met for estimates
debate has been a year of accomplishments for agricul-
ture in British Columbia. While the member opposite
may not always agree, I think there have been some great
wins for agriculture in the past 12 months.
We have a stronger ALC, thanks to not only the
$1.6 million of new additional funding we provided in
November, but new legislation that increased enforce-
ment capabilities and allows the ALC to transition into a
more self-supporting operating model by 2013.
We have also increased access for B.C. fruit producers
to many countries, including China. China is one of the
world's most sought-after markets, and we achieved rec-
ord sales there in each of the last two years. In 2011 sales
reached almost $150 million.
To give you an idea of the growth of B.C. exports to
China, prior to 2010 our exports of agrifoods to China
had never exceeded $100 million. In 2010 it was $118
million. Last year we were very pleased to say it was al-
most $150 million. I predict next year will be more of
the same — record exports as both domestic and inter-
national markets want the good-quality, high-value pro-
duct that we produce in British Columbia.
B.C. beef is already on its way to Korea. We're working
hard to ensure access to China as well.
[1755]
B.C. wines, enjoyed and cherished by residents of
British Columbia, are seeing opportunities in markets
outside of this province. They are capturing niche, lux-
ury markets in cities like Beijing and Shanghai. While the
dollars are not huge — $5 million in sales in 2011 — the
growth has been phenomenal percentage-wise, and we
look forward to future growth for our wineries.
There is also a huge opportunity for B.C. cherries in
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
China, one that we continue to work on with the gov-
ernments of Canada and China to access. We're pleased
to hear the federal government making an announce-
ment recently, and I know the tree fruit growers in the
Okanagan were indeed, as well, pleased.
The province is going to build on our successes and ex-
pand the opportunities for B.C. agriculture and seafood
producers in new markets. One way to do this is that we
continue to create an environment in British Columbia
where agrifoods succeed.
Some examples of how we're doing that include de-
veloping new bylaw guidelines to protect farmland and
providing supports for groups like 4-H, farmers mar-
kets and ag fairs. We also support the Food Innovation
Centre of British Columbia, the place B.C. food and
health product entrepreneurs can go for help, know-
ledge and advice.
All of these provide clear support for the farmers and
families who grow our food and are the backbone of
many rural and urban communities and economies. They
form our agrifood sector, which is becoming increasingly
competitive in the domestic and global markets.
As it grows, it creates more and more rewarding
careers and opportunities. As of last year more than
61,000 British Columbians were supporting their fam-
ilies through farming and food.
Like I'm sure many people saw in the news, ten days
ago we unveiled the agrifoods strategy as part of the B.C.
job plan. The strategy will build on our advantages of
innovation and our recognized leadership in providing
high-quality, trusted and safe foods.
The strategy focuses on our strength and maximizes
the benefits and opportunities for B.C. farmers, work-
ers and communities large and small. It ensures that B.C.
food producers operate in a business environment that
is supportive and rewarding. This year's budget further
supports this goal.
As announced in the budget, we will review the carbon
tax to see the impact it has on food producers in British
Columbia. We will also continue to protect the environ-
ment and ensure the agricultural sector is competitive
not only today but well into the future.
The budget also supports our partnership with the fed-
eral government. This partnership jointly funds B.C. pro-
ducers and processors to develop new products, create
new processes and invest in food safety and renewable
energy. The partnership also provides producers with
business risk-management support crucial to farming,
which totalled about $38 million in 2011.
So even in the midst of global economic turmoil, with
other Canadian provinces and countries around the
world overwhelmed by expenses, we continue to work to
improve operating conditions and opportunities for B.C.
farmers. Despite all these global challenges and the im-
pact they have on B.C. government, it has reaffirmed the
importance of agriculture in this province by preserving
10387
the ministry's budget.
As a recent federal study pointed out, farmers in B.C.
continue to exceed. That study reported farm operating
income increased by 23 percent in 2011 and predicted
years of stable growth in B.C. food producers coming for-
ward. The government will also work to make it happen.
British Columbians can continue to enjoy local, fresh
and healthy foods at 125 farmers markets in B.C., at their
neighbourhood restaurants and supermarkets. That's
more and more British Columbians who will enjoy our
$10.5 billion food industry and support their families by
providing customers at home and abroad with world-
class foods produced in British Columbia.
I welcome questions from the members.
L. Popham: It is a pleasure to be here. For me, I think
this might be my third or fourth time. I've been looking
forward to it a lot.
I think that my perspective on the estimates process
has changed from the last time I did it. I think that you
can look at the estimates process as an extended question
period which is a place where you can bring in regional
issues and have colleagues bring in those regional issues.
But I think my responsibility as a critic for
Agriculture…. As I look at the budget estimates, I think
that my job is to go line by line through each part of the
estimates and make sure that the accountability state-
ment for the minister and the budget estimates line up.
I would like to open by saying that I feel extremely
fortunate to live in British Columbia. As I have travelled
around this province as the Agriculture critic, the enor-
mous landscape that we have to work with became very
apparent to me very quickly. I see the opportunities that
regions have to develop their food systems and the op-
portunity we have as a province to support that distribu-
tion as we develop a domestic market.
[1800]
The former Minister of Agriculture, Corky Evans, once
said in these chambers that he thought this was the very
best place to work. He was referring to the Ministry of
Agriculture. He also stated that he valued the budget es-
timates of the ministry because it was one of the few op-
portunities for the House to actually talk about matters
of importance in agriculture and food in the province in
a meaningful way. I appreciate the opportunity to do this.
The budgets of both the ministry and that of the
Agricultural Land Commission represent a statement of
how much the current government values our agriculture
and food system in this province — or the way I see it,
how much they don't value this important sector as be-
ing part of our provincial economy.
It's a sector that provides jobs in all regions of the prov-
ince and contributes directly to the economic and social
well-being of our local communities. As I've watched
the budget for agriculture decrease over the years….
It's a status quo budget this time, but it really is a place
10388 British Columbia Debates
where we should be investing. When times are tough
— in tough economic times, as we continually hear — I
understand that, but this is a place where investment
would really pay off.
This budget is disappointing not only for me as the
Agriculture critic but as well as for all of the stakehold-
ers that I visit and communicate with over the year.
Everybody is hoping that one day this government may
find a priority in agriculture. It's been ten years of chip-
ping away at a budget. It's been ten years of chipping
away at a sector that should have been held up on a ped-
estal as something that is greatly important to all parts
of this province.
The focus of the debate in estimates of the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Land Commission is public account-
ability for what is represented in these estimates; how the
estimates align with statements made by the current gov-
ernment with respect to specific initiatives; specific issues
of concern relating to the estimates, which my colleagues
and I will address.
I can tell you what commitment to agriculture means
to me. What it means to me is that I can travel from one
end of this province to another, and when I'm eating in
places in different towns, in restaurants, the idea of or-
dering B.C. food is not foreign; when I order a steak at a
golf course in Williams Lake, that it's B.C. beef because
there's an emerging ranching industry there that's trying
to focus on grass-finished beef. We haven't embraced that
as a government. We haven't put those supports in place.
As I go through these estimates, that's going to be
my focus. It's not a negative focus. I'm a champion for
agriculture. I expect the same from the Minister of
Agriculture. I believe he's doing his best, but I think this
government doesn't value agriculture.
I'm going to start with Vote 15, the Agricultural Land
Commission. The Agricultural Land Commission, as
pointed out last year…. I understand that the minister
needed to have staff available all day waiting for these
estimates to come up, so I appreciate Mr. Fry being here
for the day. I expect that we'll be moving into tomorrow
as well, so I appreciate the time.
As far as the Agricultural Land Commission budget
goes, I see from Vote 15 that the total 2011-2012 oper-
ating expenses are $1.974 million and the total 2012-13
operating expenses are again $1.974 million. Is that cor-
rect?
Hon. D. McRae: The status quo budget remains the
same. However, I would like to also remind the mem-
ber opposite that we also included a $1.6 million con-
tingency input into the Agricultural Land Commission,
which for the year coming will be $975,000 added to their
$1.974 million.
[1805]
L. Popham: Could the minister please confirm on
Monday, March 26, 2012
page 22 and 23 of the Supplement to the Estimates, Vote
15, the standard object of expense 86, 88, 89 and 90 re-
coveries are adding up to what amount?
Hon. D. McRae: The recoveries are for $3,000, which
we didn't actually bring the data for at this stage. That's
okay?
L. Popham: Thank you.
On November 25th, 2011, the minister made a state-
ment regarding the changes in the Agricultural Land
Commission and the legislation that changed in the
House. The minister commented on enforcement. In
fact, the wording was to: "increase enforcement within
the agricultural land reserve by involving qualified offi-
cials from other government agencies and levels of gov-
ernment in enforcement activities."
Can the minister explain how this statement affects
Vote 15 and where in Vote 15 one would find the in-
creased expenditure on enforcement?
Hon. D. McRae: There is no extra cost to the ALC.
We've had a year with 31 FLNRO staffers being depu-
tized. This year we'd look to see potentially between 60
and 100 FLNRO staffers being deputized as well, to assist.
But these are government resources that, when available,
are being retasked. Lastly, the municipal bylaw officers
are enabled under this legislation. They have yet to be
used, but that's a choice or a practice that could follow
in the future.
L. Popham: Can the minister please tell me which
ministry vote the budget for this item should be can-
vassed under?
Hon. D. McRae: Since they are FLNRO people who
could be potentially deputized, they would canvass
FLNRO. If a person were to be deputized or worked
under the municipal bylaw authority, they'd have to ask
the municipalities.
[1810]
L. Popham: In regard to the moratorium on applica-
tions…. "Place a five-year moratorium on repeat applica-
tions to the ALC and focus resources on core functions
like preserving farmland and encouraging farming."
Can the minister advise how much of the $1.974 mil-
lion annual budget of the ALC is currently being spent
on encouraging farming and describe the specific ac-
tivities being undertaken by the commission to achieve
this function?
Hon. D. McRae: The goal of the budget basically en-
courages farming, they would argue, in all aspects. C
and E is an example which is assisting farming and farm
practice; planning, obviously; and dealing with applica-
Monday, March 26, 2012 British Columbia Debates
tions. All these functions of the ALC encourage farming.
However, I'd also like to remind the member opposite
that the $975,000 being injected into the ALC from con-
tingencies also allows the chair to be very proactive and
do more outreach around the province.
L. Popham: Can the minister explain how much sav-
ings will be realized by placing a five-year moratorium
on repeat applications?
[D. Horne in the chair.]
Hon. D. McRae: The moratorium is not about saving
money. It's allowing the hard-working staff at the ALC
and the organization to achieve its mandate — protecting
farmland and encouraging farming in British Columbia.
Again, it's not about saving dollars.
L. Popham: From what I understand from reading the
chair's report last year, the amount of applications that
was coming through the commission was taking the en-
tire staff time of the commission, so that must have been
taken into account when the minister was looking at
this situation. It's hard to believe that a monetary value
wouldn't have been put on that. So I'm going to ask again:
was there any consideration of any monetary savings?
[1815]
Hon. D. McRae: There are years where there will be
600 to 800 applications going forward, and obviously,
every application requires staff time and staff resources.
Also, the time is key here. As the member opposite knows,
there are great workers in the ALC. If they spend all their
time processing applications, they will be unable to do, I
think, the work that they would really find rewarding, as
well, which is encouraging farm practice and preserving
farmland in British Columbia.
10389
L. Popham: Maybe I should ask this question. Can the
minister explain how much time savings will be realized
by placing a five-year moratorium on repeat applications?
Hon. D. McRae: These changes were brought in
late November last year, so they're still relatively new.
To give, basically, any numbers would be…. We don't
have enough data gathered to feel that we can do it well.
However, these changes will allow staff at the ALC — this
is done with conversations with the ALC and their ap-
proval — to focus on their mandate of protecting farm-
land and encouraging farming.
L. Popham: I guess I'm wondering what the new meas-
ures will be to encourage farming and to protect farm-
land exactly. What are the new initiatives that the time
savings would be able to buy?
[1820]
Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, when we spend less time
processing applications, it allows the ALC staff to devote
more of their valuable time towards planning.
Outreach. The chair of the ALC — I'm very, very
pleased at his ability to visit communities across this
vast province. It also allows the ALC to engage with the
Ministry of Agriculture, sector stakeholders and com-
munities, all of which will be a long-term benefit for
agriculture.
Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report
resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Aboriginal
Relations and Reconciliation and report progress on the
Ministry of Agriculture and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.
 Hansard Production

Acting Director
Robert Sutherland

Post-Production Team Leader

Christine Fedoruk

Editorial Team Leaders

Laurel Bernard, Janet Brazier, Robyn Swanson

Technical Operations Officers

Pamela Holmes, Emily Jacques, Dan Kerr

Indexers
Shannon Ash, Julie McClung, Robin Rohrmoser

Researchers
Jaime Apolonio, Mike Beninger, Matthew Cleeves

Editors
Kim Christie, Aaron Ellingsen, Deirdre Gotto, Jane Grainger, Betsy Gray,
Iris Gray, Linda Guy, Barb Horricks, Bill Hrick, Paula Lee, Nicole Lindsay,
Donna McCloskey, Bob McIntosh, Anne Maclean, Constance Maskery,
Jill Milkert, Lind Miller, Lou Mitchell, Karol Morris, Dorothy Pearson,
Erik Pedersen, Janet Pink, Amy Reiswig, Heather Warren,
Arlene Wells, Glenn Wigmore, Anita Willis

Published by British Columbia Hansard Services,

and printed under the authority of the Speaker.

Printing Agent
Crown Publications, Queen's Printer for British Columbia
563 Superior St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 9V7
www.crownpub.bc.ca

Daily and annual Hansard subscription information

is available from Crown Publications.

www.leg.bc.ca

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.