2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 27 — Liquor Control and Licensing Act (continued)

D. Eby

Hon. S. Anton

A. Weaver

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Liquor Control and Licensing Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

B. Ralston

A. Weaver

R. Fleming

D. Routley

V. Huntington

Hon. S. Anton

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act

Hon. S. Anton

D. Eby

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

M. Elmore

Hon. T. Stone

S. Fraser

B. Routley

S. Chandra Herbert

D. Donaldson

R. Fleming

C. Trevena

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training

Hon. S. Bond

S. Simpson

[ Page 7585 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Barnett: It is my privilege and honour today to introduce British Columbia’s first rural advisory council members. We have a council from all across the province of British Columbia here today to help government put together long-term ideas, work on policy issues and other things for the betterment of rural British Columbia.

If you’ll bear with me, Madame Speaker, I have quite a list.

I have Debbie Arnott from Cache Creek, Susan Clovechok from Fairmont Hot Springs, Geri Collins from Kamloops, Tom Hoffman from Williams Lake, Bill Holmberg from Houston, Chief Roy Jones Jr. from Skidegate, Sue Kenny from Dawson Creek, Jonathan Lok from Port McNeill, Grace McGregor from Christina Lake, David Pernarowski from Terrace, Chris Pieper from Armstrong, Sylvia Pranger from Agassiz, Gary Thiessen from Vanderhoof and Eric — or Rick — Thompson from McBride, B.C. I’d ask the House to welcome them and wish them well in all their deliberations.

D. Eby: Today in the Legislature — not here but in the precinct — we have students and a teacher from St. Augustine School in my constituency. Ms. O’Hara is ably leading a group of 36 grades 7 and 8 students coming to learn about the Legislature and what we do here in B.C. politics. I’m very excited to have them here, and I look forward to meeting them later on this afternoon.

D. Donaldson: Well, I, too, would like to welcome some of the members of the committee introduced by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. Bill Holmberg, Dave Pernarowski and Gary Thiessen I’ve worked with on both the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako and the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine.

Welcome to the Legislature. It’s very good to see some familiar faces in the gallery today.

Hon. S. Bond: I ran, so forgive me for my more winded introduction.

[1335]

First of all, I’m very, very delighted to be able to introduce someone from my part of the province, a fantastic advocate for the Robson Valley. I’m very thrilled to know that he will be part of the rural advisory group. I want to welcome and introduce Rick Thompson, who is representing the Robson Valley.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. Rustad: In the main chamber here I call the continued committee stage for Bill 27. And in the little House I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. At 4 p.m. that’ll switch to the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — LIQUOR CONTROL

AND LICENSING ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

section 2 (continued) .

D. Eby: Before the break we heard the minister say that she intended

section 2 to apply to home brewing, but there’s nothing in the

section that limits it to home brewing.

Certainly, under the

Interpretation Act, a “person” can include a company. Just for clarity, as the act reads right now…. If the minister wants to amend it, that’s what we’re here for. But I would discourage her from doing that, because I think it reads very well.

I think it says that if you run a business, making equipment, and you want to do R and D and create a batch of beer and see how your equipment works, you don’t need a licence from the government to do that. Why would you need a licence from the government to do that?

I just want to clarify that as the act reads right now, that kind of behaviour would not be caught, would not require a licence.

[1340]

Hon. S. Anton:

Section 2(

a) is very similar to the former

section 55(2). The purpose of the

section is to deal with manufacturing for personal consumption — for example, homemade wine, homemade beer. The kind of function that the member opposite is talking about is more properly determined or permitted under

section 11.

D. Eby: We have an industry in British Columbia that is growing rapidly and that is internationally successful, manufacturing equipment for craft brewers around the world. They want to test their equipment to see if it works, to do R and D to make their equipment work better. It seems very clear to me that

section 2(

a) says that they don’t need a licence to do that — but not just

section 2(a). Common sense says that.

[ Page 7586 ]

I sent the minister a letter about this. I raised it in the briefing. This is not a surprise that I’m asking about this. I’m just looking for a clear answer. I know what the intent of this

section is. The minister has made clear what the intent is. It’s too bad the intent is not to help these B.C. manufacturing businesses, but whatever. The section, as it reads….

Can she confirm whether or not they’re required to have a licence? On plain reading, they’re not required to have a licence. They’d like that clarity. Can the minister provide that to this House before we vote on it?

[1345]

Hon. S. Anton: For the purpose that the member opposite is referring to, that does fall under

section 11, which permits regulations allowing “consumption, use, sale, service, purchase or manufacture of liquor without a licence or permit, by prescribed persons or entities for prescribed purposes.”

D. Eby: I’m sorry to say that I didn’t hear an answer there about

section 2, but those are all of my questions on

section 2, and I’m prepared to go to

section 9 on this.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

D. Eby: I’m sure the minister will recall that there was a public inquiry in British Columbia called the Frank Paul inquiry. It was an inquiry into the death of an urban aboriginal man who was a chronic alcoholic. He drank non-beverage alcohol, mostly rice wine. Non-beverage alcohol, for many people, can be anything from hairspray to hand sanitizer to mouthwash to rice wine. Frank Paul’s beverage of choice was rice wine.

One of the core recommendations out of that public inquiry was that there should be a managed alcohol program for chronic alcoholics in a situation like Frank Paul. There are a number of these programs in Ontario.

Section 9 appears to contemplate that there could be such a program in B.C. under the act as proposed.

Am I correct in my understanding of the sections here, as set out, that the minister has created a situation here, with the ability to serve alcohol in a community care facility and assisted living residence or hospital, where a managed alcohol program could take place as a harm reduction measure for people engaging in these kinds of activities?

[1350]

Hon. S. Anton: There are two parts to this answer. The first part reverts back to subsection 2(c), which says nothing prevents “a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner from providing liquor or a preparation containing liquor for medical purposes if allowed to do so in the scope of practice of his or her profession.”

Secondly,

section 9. I don’t know what kind of residence might be contemplated by the member opposite, but there are three sets of terms here — “assisted living residence,” “community care facility” and “hospital” — and they’re defined. I think that in the situation the member is contemplating, if it was one of those kinds of facilities, then it may be permitted under

section 9.

Let me give a more general answer. It wouldn’t be the goal of the structure of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act to stand in the way of a perfectly good program. Generally, somebody running that program would probably want to just come and talk to the branch and find out the best way of making sure it was properly licensed.

D. Eby: That concludes my questions on that section.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

D. Eby: This is the

section that the minister referred me to in relation to my questions about manufacturers of brewing equipment, whether for wine or beer, and their ability to test that equipment, to demonstrate it working to potential customers, to do quality control, to do research and development. I have to admit that I don’t see in this

section any mention of manufacturers. I see a regulation-making power. Can the minister explain why I don’t read anything about manufacturers here? This is the

section she’s referred to me repeatedly about manufacturers.

D. McRae: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: In the galleries today we have above us a contingent of students from the Comox Valley. There are approximately 50 students from Brooklyn Elementary attending in the galleries today, accompanied by their teacher, Caroline Parrish. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.

[1355]

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Anton: The microbrewing industry and the brewing of beer is obviously a very active industry in British Columbia over the last few years and, of course, very welcome by everyone, I think it is safe to say.

Just to remind the member that the purpose of this act is to regulate alcohol but not to regulate manufacturing

[ Page 7587 ]

equipment, which is why

section 11 refers to the manufacture of liquor. It doesn’t refer to manufacturing equipment, because that’s not our role in this act. But, certainly, the goal of this

section is to accommodate the kinds of circumstances that the member mentions.

Some other kinds of things that could be covered in this

section include auctioning of small quantities of liquor by charitable organizations, purchase of ethyl alcohol by pharmacists, consumption of liquor in a church for religious purposes — I think that’s probably been going on for quite a few years; I certainly remember it from my childhood — and then also flexibility to accommodate unlicensed uses of small indoor family events, sale of liquor without a permit and in a residence for small family events, and so on.

One other is manufacture of liquor without a licence for research and development purposes or by an educational provider — for example, doing a course on brewing.

D. Eby: I heard the minister read from a list. It’s not in

section 11, and I wonder: is that in a regulation that we can reasonably expect to see soon under this section?

Hon. S. Anton: The auctioning, the ethyl alcohol, the church use — those are all current uses. In fact, they’re currently in the act, and the intention is to place them in the regulations. The other things I mention are not currently in regulations. Obviously, we’re interested in them. I don’t want to promise that they’ll come, because that’s up to cabinet, but, clearly, it’s something that government is interested in.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

D. Eby:

Section 13(2) provides a fairly remarkable set of powers for the general manager, in particular if you apply for a liquor licence in B.C. This

section says: “…the general manager may make inquiries and conduct investigations, including, without limitation, background investigations and criminal record checks, that the general manager considers are or may be necessary….”

Can the minister explain why such an incredibly broad investigation and background-check power, without any apparent restriction — in fact, explicitly the opposite: without limitation — should be permitted simply because someone has applied for a liquor licence in British Columbia?

We’re talking about everything from talking to ex-girlfriends, former landlords…. Certainly, criminal record checks make a lot of sense. Check with the police, but without limitation? Can the minister explain this?

[1400]

Hon. S. Anton:

Section 13 reflects current practices done, obviously, with the consent of the applicant. The current

section 16 says the person must be fit and proper. In deciding whether they’re fit and proper, the general manager must consider convictions of the person, may consider administrative penalties, financial integrity and other factors the general manager believes are relevant. Those kinds of things were considered before and will continue to be considered under the new act.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

A. Weaver: I have but one question on this bill. It’s a question that permeates a number of sections, but I’ll address it here in

section 15. In comparing this and the earlier bill, I’m wondering to what extent and the reason why and what the ramifications are of including the words “without prior notice” in quite a number of places. In

section 15 it appears in four places: (b), (c), (

d) and (f). Those words were not there in the previous version of this bill. I’m wondering what the ramifications of them being included now are.

[1405]

Hon. S. Anton: There are two forms of notice. One is without notice, and one is with notice. They’re broken down in this way. Without notice, it’s something that applies to the entire industry all at once. With notice, it’s special to your licence.

Let me give you an example. We changed the terms of the liquor primary to allow a liquor-primary licence holder to get permission to allow kids, children, in up until ten o’clock at night. That was a change that affects all of the industry, although they had to make that second application. That was without notice.

With notice would be that there’s something you’re doing that the general manager wishes to address with you and you alone. That would be a with-notice provision.

Sections 15 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 38.

D. Eby: This

section relates to the ability of local government and First Nations to control activities within their jurisdiction, within their geographic jurisdiction.

Section 38 reads really well, in my opinion. The challenge comes in where subsections (4) and (5) say: “Subject to

section 39….”

Now, I’m picturing a scenario where a First Nation has said: “We don’t want to have this liquor licence in our territory.” Or I’m picturing a situation where a municipality says: “We don’t want to have this bar or this club open in this area of our city. We don’t want you to issue

[ Page 7588 ]

this licence.” Yet

section 38 creates — and we’ll get on to

section 39 — the possibility that the general manager of the Liquor Distribution Branch could overrule the First Nation or overrule the municipality based solely on the manager’s judgment that their recommendation is not in the public interest.

Well, I’d like to know why the minister has put this provision in place that would allow the general manager, an unelected person, to overrule a First Nation or a municipal government that does not want a liquor licence in their community.

[1410]

Hon. S. Anton: The interplay between 38 and 39 does reflect current practice. The point of subsections (4) and (5) is that if the local government or the local First Nation doesn’t do the work that it needs to do or it doesn’t do it properly in terms of assessing local views — the views of residents, for example — then the general manager can step in and perform that role.

D. Eby: Actually, that’ll conclude my questions on

Section 38 approved.

section 39.

D. Eby: I just heard the minister say that sections 38(4) and (5) related to the general manager stepping in and performing the role of a First Nation or municipality. On reading

section 39 itself, 39(1)(a): “Despite

section 38, if (

a) the general manager is satisfied that…the recommendation of the local government or first nation is not in the public interest….” I’m not sure why it would have this wording if it had the meaning that the minister said.

Clearly, the general manager is allowed to decide that the recommendation of the elected local government or First Nations government is not in the public interest. That seems to me to be incredibly offensive to First Nations, certainly, and not particularly trusting of local governments.

Can the minister explain what the public policy reason is for undermining the judgment of First Nations or local governments that a licence is not in the public interest?

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: The question is around sub 39(1)(a)(ii). I’ll just note, first of all, that that is in the current act, sub 11.2(1)(b), so it is a repeat from the earlier act. It is a safeguard provision. I was asking the helpful staff here, and it’s not something that is used terribly commonly. It’s a safeguard in case there was some very unusual decision made by a local government or a First Nation that was clearly not in the public interest.

Sections 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

section 42.

D. Eby: Subsection 42(

e) gives the general manager very broad power to demand identification at any licensed facility, of any patron of that facility. Now, I would have thought that this ability to demand ID would be limited to prove your age or perhaps, to phrase it differently, in the event that there was some belief that the person had actually committed an offence. That’s not a limitation that’s placed on this ability to demand ID from anybody in a licensed facility.

Can the minister explain why she thinks the general manager needs to be able to demand ID from anyone simply because they walk into a bar?

[1420]

Hon. S. Anton: This is a change that actually came in with the amendments from a year ago. The purpose here is that the licensee — or, presumably, an employee — can always ask a patron to produce identification, but prior to this

section coming into force, the general manager, through the inspector, could not make that same request. In fact, if an inspector went into an establishment and wanted to ask someone for ID, they would actually have to go through the licensee. This gives the inspector the direct authority to make that request.

Sections 42 to 46 inclusive approved.

section 47.

D. Eby: This

section relates to alcohol that is being sold or held illegally that is seized by the government. I found it unusual that this

section specifically didn’t permit the general manager to sell seized alcohol. There’s provision 47(6) that the “liquor and packages forfeited to the government under subsection (5) must be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the general manager may direct.”

Does this

section contemplate and would it permit the sale of liquor that is seized? I can picture a very valuable bottle of wine, for example, or even a large quantity of alcohol that’s perfectly serviceable. Why would we destroy it instead of selling it and getting a return for the taxpayer?

Hon. S. Anton: In subsection (6) “disposed” in that case does include the possibility of selling.

Sections 47 to 59 inclusive approved.

section 60.

D. Eby: This

section contemplates training and certification for people who sell or serve liquor or supervise the sale or service of liquor. Can the minister explain whether there are any significant changes in this

section from the

[ Page 7589 ]

existing training requirements or any changes contemplated under this

section or the anticipated regulations from the existing?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton:

Section 60 is more or less a repeat of the former

section 13. There is a slight change in the first section, which used to be that the general manager couldn’t issue a licence unless the person had completed the prescribed training program — the one we have now, of course, being Serving It Right. Now the general manager can issue the licence, but the licensee cannot use that licence until they get the Serving It Right. So it’s just an ordering piece.

Sections 60 and 61 approved.

section 62.

D. Eby:

Section 62(2). When I read it, I was surprised to read it. I think it’s notorious in the bar industry and in clubs and so on that there are bar mats…. This

section relates to tied houses and inducements. The

section says that “a person must not offer, give or agree to offer or give to a licensee, a permittee or an employee” anything — money, gifts, reward or remuneration, directly or indirectly — “for promoting, inducing or furthering the sale of a particular kind, class or brand of liquor.”

I can picture little shot glasses on the side of a bottle of hard alcohol. I can picture bar mats, mugs, signs, stickers. There are all kinds of things, promotional product that liquor companies give out. This

section is far too broad to catch what I think the true mischief is, which is somebody offering money or offering bonus alcohol or giving some kind of significant gift to somebody in return for only selling their products and excluding others.

Why has the minister made this

section so broad that it captures activity that’s really banal and well accepted by both bars and the public — that there are these gifts of signs, bar mats, mugs and so on?

[1430]

Hon. S. Anton:

Section 62(2) is virtually identical to the former

section 45(1). I will observe that government has a fairly broad regulation-making authority in subsection (3).

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Sections 62 and 63 approved.

section 64.

D. Eby: This

section relates to advertising liquor. It says a person should not “advertise liquor or the availability of liquor except in accordance with the regulations.” I don’t understand why the minister has reserved this power for the regulations.

I can think of all kinds of things that should be in this

section for us to debate in this House: certainly, advertising to youth; advisory labels, perhaps, of “Don’t consume alcoholic beverages when you’re pregnant” or “If you’re drinking more than 14 drinks a week, you’re doing your health some serious damage” and these kinds of things; whether government stores should be able to advertise. These are issues the public is interested in. Why has the minister reserved this whole

section for the regulations?

Hon. S. Anton: The ability to advertise was previously gained through regulation, so that is not changing in the new section. I will observe that there used to be a definition of “advertise,” and we have taken that out of the proposed amended act. The reason to put it in the regulation is because rules around advertising are something that it’s good to have flexibility on. It’s certainly government’s preference to contain that in a regulation.

Sections 64 to 72 inclusive approved.

section 73.

D. Eby:

Section 73 — well, the

section I’m interested in — relates to municipalities or regional districts being able to designate areas where a person could be in a public place and consume or possess liquor in an open container.

[1435]

Subsection (2) appears to suffer from the same malady as the other

section I raised, which is that there’s very little trust in municipalities. It seems to set up the possibility for regulations that would restrict the ability of municipalities to set these rules. If I’ve misunderstood, perhaps the minister can clarify. But why is the minister restricting municipalities in their ability to set these rules by creating a regulatory power that could rein that in?

Now it is subject to sub (3), and the regulations may be designated, etc. The reason to allow the ability to regulate is simply a reflection of the fact, which is fundamental to this whole act, that liquor is fundamentally a provincial responsibility, and ultimately the province does need to have the authority, if necessary, to be exercised in such cases.

Section 73 approved.

section 74.

[ Page 7590 ]

D. Eby: This

section is an incredibly important one. It relates to the powers of police to arrest somebody who is in a state of intoxication in a public place, take them to jail without a warrant and hold them until they can be safely released. I was surprised to see that this language was very similar to the previous act, given that the technology has shifted so radically around being able to determine whether someone is intoxicated.

If we want to take away someone’s licence or if we want to stop them from driving, they have the right to a breathalyzer test. But this

section contemplates that we could actually put somebody in jail without any breathalyzer test, without any indication other than the judgment of the peace officer that they’re intoxicated.

I can certainly tell this House, through experience with a number of people who filed complaints and provided me with copies of those in my previous life, that there was a lot of concern that people — and obviously, they have been drinking; their judgment’s impaired — felt that they weren’t intoxicated when they were arrested. They wanted the ability to have a breathalyzer test when they were arrested for being intoxicated in a public place.

I can think of several cases, off the top of my head, where this would have prevented police complaints. It would have prevented litigation. People think they’re not drunk, and then they blow in the breathalyzer, and they’re 0.13.

Why is it that there’s no

section here that says if a person asks for a breathalyzer they should be given that, and they shouldn’t be arrested if they’re under a certain level? We do it for driving. Certainly we should consider doing it for taking someone’s liberty away, putting them in jail.

[1440]

Hon. S. Anton: This

section is virtually identical to the previous

section 41. It is something that has been in place for some time. It is common across most of Canada. I think we just have to remember that a peace officer has the obligation of acting in good faith, and it is assumed that they will do so.

Sections 74 to 76 inclusive approved.

section 77.

D. Eby:

Section 77 is dealing with supplying liquor to minors. Again on the issue of advertising, why is there not a prohibition on advertising liquor to minors in this act?

Hon. S. Anton: The rules around advertising directed at minors — that option is available under the regulations. In fact, under

section 64(2) we “may adopt by reference a code, standard or rule enacted as or under a law of Canada.” In fact, the regulations now currently do refer to a CRTC code.

Sections 77 to 80 inclusive approved.

section 81.

[1445]

D. Eby:

Section 81(1)(

a) allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is cabinet, the ability to make regulations “conferring additional powers and duties on the general manager.” Surely, the minister recognizes that this open-ended, unlimited power to make regulations giving additional powers and duties to the general manager has no place in this legislation. It should come to this House. It should be debated, and it should be discussed. Cabinet should not have an unfettered, unending authority to confer additional powers and duties on the general manager.

Can she explain why she feels the cabinet needs this authority to circumvent this place?

Hon. S. Anton: Sub (

a) is currently in the act under

section 84(2)(l). Sub (

b) is new last year and carried over. It was 84(2)(l.1) and is now carried forward into this new act. Subsection (

a) is limited because the regulations conferring additional powers and duties must, of course, be within the scope of the act itself.

D. Eby: I’d just like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Scott and Ms. Vale for their assistance to the minister. I’ve reached the end of my questions. This side of the House will be supporting this bill. If the minister has doubt about that, she can certainly call division on it.

We support the modernization of the act. It was a significant piece of work. Despite the concerns that I’ve noted during this section, I just wanted to congratulate those public servants that were involved in that significant task. We certainly support the modernization of the act and a number of the reforms that have come along. I think we’ve been pretty clear about what reforms we don’t support that this minister has brought forward.

One more time I would like to thank the public servants involved in this particular piece of legislation and their writing of it and their assistance to the minister. I’d like to thank the minister for her answers this afternoon as well.

Sections 81 to 122 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:50 p.m.

[ Page 7591 ]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — LIQUOR CONTROL

AND LICENSING ACT

Bill 27, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading of Bill 23, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 23, the Miscellaneous Statute Amendment Act, 2015, now be read a second time.

Bill 23 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act repeal sanctions for individuals who are the subject of Criminal Code or provincial offence convictions or civil court judgments for debt in relation to obtaining assistance for which they are not eligible. These amendments will allow government to recover fraud-related debts through minimum repayments to be established in regulation.

Amendments to the Liquor Distribution Act will provide for B.C. liquor stores to operate under certain rules available for other liquor retailers. These changes will clarify and simplify administrative processes in the statute. This removes outdated provisions respecting advertising and purchasing liquor products by B.C. liquor stores, as well as simplifies how government store operating hours are set. Together, these changes will help to continue modernizing the B.C. liquor industry in response to B.C.’s liquor policy review.

An amendment is being made to the Local Government Act to enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to provide municipal reclassification in exceptional circumstances. A second, consequential amendment is being made to update the name of the Motor Carrier Act to the Passenger Transportation Act.

Amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act will validate the reclassification of the corporation of the district of Maple Ridge as a city. The legislation will also confirm that any actions and proceedings which have occurred since the reclassification, and before the legislation is passed, are valid.

Pacific NorthWest LNG and the district of Port Edward have negotiated a mutually beneficial and unique tax agreement. The Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act will be amended to allow the district of Port Edward to enter into a 25-year tax agreement with the certainty that the agreement will not be invalidated in the future.

[1455]

The Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act amendment will provide the Provincial Court with the authority to issue and enforce orders related to prosecutions under Maa-nulth laws enacted in accordance with Maa-nulth foreshore agreements. The orders referred to under this amendment are in respect of payment for damages, costs associated with an investigation and prosecution or a declaration prohibiting or ordering specific actions.

Maa-nulth foreshore agreements are side agreements to the Maa-nulth final agreement where the province delegates local government law-making authority to Maa-nulth over foreshore areas fronting their treaty lands. The amendment is equivalent to provisions set out in the Community Charter and Local Government Act.

Amendments to the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act enable marketing boards and commissions to require participation in biosecurity programs and insurance programs and imply an administrative penalty for failure to comply with requirements of biosecurity programs. Enabling marketing boards and commissions to require that producers have biosecurity programs insurance helps to ensure the continued economic viability of the regulated commodity sectors and minimal interruption of the production cycle in the event of major disease or disaster.

The proposed amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act increase regulatory certainty for oil and gas value-added facilities by appointing the Oil and Gas Commission as the agency responsible for overseeing their construction and operation. This streamlined process is designed to attract new investment for value-added production and facilitate economic growth.

The proposed amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will allow the province to enter into long-term royalty agreements with natural gas producers. These agreements will specify the royalty rates owed to the province by a producer. With this certainty, industry can plan their operations over a longer period of time and commit capital to jobs and production needs. In return, the province will have a guaranteed royalty rate each year, as well as incremental investment, jobs and economic activity.

Amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act give veterinarians authority to destroy an animal or have it destroyed where the animal is in critical distress and provide statutory protection from legal proceedings for veterinarians who make such decisions. Without this amendment, an animal in critical distress may suffer

[ Page 7592 ]

until an agent of the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can be located to authorize destruction. This amendment is supported both by the College of Veterinarians of B.C. and the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The proposed amendment to the 1989 Provincial Symbols and Honours Act establishes a medal of good citizenship, recognizing British Columbians who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing manner for the common good without expectation of reward. This amendment encourages the virtue of good citizenship and ensures that individuals whose lives and actions exemplify this virtue can be recognized by the province.

Amendments to the Public Agency Accommodation Act will streamline the process for ministers who wish to transfer land to the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for the purpose of disposal. Under current legislation, the process for transferring land is cumbersome and requires the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to act as an intermediary. The amendments will relieve the FLNRO of this administrative burden, allowing any minister to transfer the administration of land directly to the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services.

The proposed amendments to the Queen’s Printer Act will support government’s decision to enable the private sector to deliver printing production services which are currently delivered by the Queen’s Printer. At the same time, the proposed changes will provide the necessary legal framework to enable government to continue to manage and control the outsource printing of these materials. The shift modernizes government’s printing model and will expand opportunities for small-to medium-sized businesses in the industry.

The Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters Act, the SAFER program, provides cash assistance to eligible B.C. residents who are age 60 or over and who pay rent for their home. By repealing the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act in this bill, we are strengthening the SAFER program and eliminating unnecessary red tape. The act sets out the guidelines for rental assistance for seniors. However, B.C. Housing already has its own regulation authorizing it to administer rent supplement programs. It does not require a stand-alone act to administer SAFER.

Repealing the act makes it easier to manage the SAFER program and to respond to clients’ needs. The legislation is an administrative change ensuring that all payments have been properly authorized. These changes do not affect the benefits for seniors or how the program is operated. Benefits will continue to be calculated through administrative policy.

[1500]

And finally, Bill 23 also makes transitional provisions, validation and confirmation provisions, a consequential amendment, as well as housekeeping corrections and amendments.

L. Krog: Misc bills. We get at least a few every session, and it’s always fun.

For the benefit of those watching in the gallery today — the young people, in particular — this is the situation where in the Legislature the government is not going to introduce separate bills with a whole series of small matters. They’re dealt with during the course of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. Every session we do see a couple.

A number of my colleagues are going to speak to the various areas that fall very specifically to their critic role, but there are a few things I want to say about some of this bill, particularly around the Natural Products Marketing Act amendments. What that demonstrates quite clearly is that the government…. In the summer of 2014, when we had an outbreak of avian flu, 250,000 birds were killed. The disease paralyzed some 11 farms, while producers were left with no insurance. The government was caught off guard.

So here we are in 2015 trying to make up for lost time by introducing these amendments, which are extremely important. It recognizes the problems associated with the spread of disease amongst animals and the kinds of conditions in which they’re raised for human consumption. One would have hoped that the government would have been prepared for this problem, but it’s not untypical for governments not to be prepared, notwithstanding the warnings that they may receive from public servants doing their job and trying to ensure that governments are ahead of the game instead of behind.

These amendments will allow avian producers access to the insurance that they would otherwise not have had. Of course, that is, to use the old cliché, pretty cold comfort now for those 11 farms who were left with no insurance and faced significant loss in the circumstances. It’s too bad that it took that kind of disaster for the government to move and take some steps that would actually protect agriculture.

As I’ve reminded the members of this chamber many, many times, there are four wonderful ceiling murals outside in the rotunda, and one of them is devoted to agriculture. To quote one of the former Liberal members who retired from this chamber some years ago, “We have to eat to live,” or words to that effect.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Unfortunately, the members are asking me to tell us who. It was Val Roddick. We might as well give Val credit while she’s not here. But I digress for a moment.

One would hope that there won’t be some other lurking disaster down the road where the government will be caught off guard. I know the member for Saanich South has raised the issue of agriculture in this chamber many, many times on various issues, most recently around hazelnut farming.

[ Page 7593 ]

One would hope that the government is going to start to pay attention, particularly as we see the disaster occurring in the United States — year after year of significant drought conditions, meaning that the great vegetable basket of the state of California, which has provided so much fresh produce to British Columbians and Canadians generally over the last years, is in fact going to be a diminishing source of that food supply. Let this be a lesson to the government in the sense that what they’re doing with the Natural Products Marketing Act won’t be repeated in the future because of their failure to act appropriately at a time when they should have been acting.

I know there is certainly concern around the changes made to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act that are proposed. That is based on a number of things. I know the member for Surrey-Whalley is very interested in this topic — an area of particular expertise for him.

In this government’s desperation to try and recover from the fiasco of the political promise of the benefits of liquid natural gas, a “Debt-free B.C.” and all of those things we heard touted during the last provincial election campaign, they are as anxious as anyone to secure some deal on natural gas, unless the election date changes, between now and May of 2017.

[1505]

This bill, on the face of it, gives the opposition some particular concern. We’re afraid, quite naturally, that it will be used to give extended tax benefits, perhaps hidden tax cuts and other favourable provisions, to induce proponents to participate. Well, we will wait and see, and I’m looking forward to what the member has to say when he rises to speak to this particular issue. I think British Columbians are tired of seeing their resources literally sold down the river in order to accommodate a government that has overextended its mandate and, worse, made promises that it can’t possibly keep.

The credibility of this particular government around the careful management of provincial assets is no better demonstrated than by the fiasco we’ve come to learn about in the last few days around the sale of lands in Burke Mountain. You would think a party that has traditionally been so strongly supported by the real estate industry might have been able to strike a better bargain than the fiasco of Burke Mountain lands, where we see well over $40 million quite literally left on the table.

Only in one of the busiest and most significant, rising real estate markets in North America, and I say that without exaggeration, could a government sell raw developable land at $40 million below its price— literally blow off a third of its value.

I come back to my point about the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. We’re concerned about that. Following on that, of course, are the changes to the Public Agency Accommodation Act. Again, this ties very much into the opposition’s concerns around the sale of the Burke Mountain lands. The clichés are used over and over again. You know, selling the furniture, getting rid of the silverware, selling the farm and leasing the land back — whatever you want to talk about; there’s a whole series of them.

What the opposition thinks may be happening here is that the government is simply going to create a system that, from their perspective, may well make it easier to dispose of government land. But from the opposition’s perspective, it’s a rather frightening concept that a government, with the existing cumbersome process, they suggest — their thought, not the opposition’s — and given the time that one would think that would afford them to carefully consider whether they’re getting value for money for public assets, still manages to blow off lands at two-thirds of their value.

Now they want to speed up the process. So they won’t even have the opportunity for a couple branches of government to give the famous second look that W.A.C. Bennett was known for and decide whether or not the taxpayers and the people of British Columbia, whose assets these are, are going to receive the value that they deserve. Because once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Many members of the opposition expressed their concern a couple of years ago when the government was talking about selling off Crown lands, particularly in the Lower Mainland where the government talked about selling surplus lands. You have to ask yourself a pretty basic question. How can you have surplus lands, even as a concept, in the Lower Mainland when there is so little developable land left there?

You’ve got all the prospects of increasing population in front of you. You know there is going to be significant growth. You know there will be a requirement for further public assets in terms of the construction of schools, post-secondary education institutions, potential government offices, health care clinics, hospitals — you name it — and all of the attributes of a contained urban society. And the government wanted to sell off land.

Now we’re told they want to bring in this process to streamline the process for selling government land. Forgive the opposition if we’re somewhat skeptical that maybe this is just part of the government’s continuing plan to sell off the patrimony of the people of British Columbia for peanuts at a time when, in fact, they should be husbanding those resources and ensuring that the people of this province have a full opportunity to use those resources in a way that benefits the public, that doesn’t see significant benefits go to major donors to the B.C.

Liberal Party or, alternatively, to try and shore up the government’s incompetence in being able to handle the fiscal problems of British Columbia in a forthright, open, honest and transparent manner.

[1510]

In terms of the government’s treatment of people, this misc bill also speaks to that with the changes around the Queen’s Printer Act. You know, there are institutions in our society and in our province that have, I think, to use

[ Page 7594 ]

the cliché, stood the test of time. Surely, one of them is the Queen’s Printer. And for this government, 20 minutes before they announced their press release indicating the privatization of a significant portion of the Queen’s Printer services is when they tell those loyal public servants — who have provided able, competent and confidential printing services to the people of British Columbia for years — that their jobs would be eliminated.

In other privatization schemes, and in fairness to the government, they have attempted on occasion to work with the workers through their union and ensure that there was an opportunity to remain in the public service, where many have chosen to make their careers working on behalf of the people of British Columbia. And in this case, we’re assured that there would be a transition plan.

The minister announced: “A transition plan for employees is being worked on with their union, Unifor, and the Public Service Agency.” That was back in October 2014. Now, nothing would make me happier today than to see the minister responsible stand up in this House and announce what the details of the transition plan are. But that was October. Last time I checked, this is the month of April. We’re a long ways down the road.

I’m just wondering how those folks who worked for the Queen’s Printer feel about the treatment they’ve received at the hands of this government, whether they feel comforted by the prospects of a transition plan that is getting on to the point where it will last the ordinary gestation period for most pregnant mothers in this province.

Surely, a government that had any sense of compassion and duty to those people who worked for it would be able to move more quickly and ensure that the workers are treated fairly and honestly and decently.

When it comes to changes to the Liquor Distribution Act, bless them, the government is going to allow public liquor stores to advertise as other liquor retailers do. It’s the fair and right thing to do. Mind you, it would have been the fair and right thing to do to have allowed the B.C. government liquor stores to live and practice and operate on a fair and consistent field some time ago.

Of course, for years they weren’t allowed to open on Sundays, notwithstanding the union’s request to do so. The union made it clear they felt they could increase revenue to government. Lord knows, this government in particular, of any government, is a government that can suck up revenues so quickly — whether they’ve drawn it out of B.C. Hydro or ICBC, whether they have ensured that those corporations face difficult financial circumstances themselves because they’ve overdrawn the account.

One would have thought, in these circumstances, that the B.C. Liberals might have moved a little faster to ensure that B.C. Liquor Stores, unionized decent jobs and benefits for their employees, would have received the same advantage and ability to compete in what the government has made a fairly competitive marketplace, on one hand, philosophically, but now we know, with the introduction of Bill 22, they have turned around and upset the apple cart in a very real way for many of those very private stores that they claimed to support and believed needed support.

There is much to criticize in this bill, notwithstanding that it’s supposed to be fairly minor and modest changes.

Now, one aspect of it that falls to my particular critic role is that relating to the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act. I must advise the House, with no small amount of embarrassment, that it’s been a long time since I’ve bothered to look at that statute. It’s not one that springs to mind in normal use — certainly, in the practice of law.

[1515]

I just want to tell the members that if they bother to go there, they might discover some things about the province they weren’t aware of.

Section 3 provides that the “flower of the tree botanically known as Cornus nuttallii and commonly known as the flowering dogwood is the floral emblem of British Columbia.”

Section 4. The mineral emblem, jade, “known in minerology as nephrite or jadeite” — forgive my pronunciation — “is the mineral emblem of British Columbia.”

Tree emblem,

section 5. “The tree known botanically as Thuja plicata Donn and commonly known as the western red cedar is the arboreal emblem of British Columbia.

Section 6, the bird emblem. “The bird known taxonomically as Cyanocitta stelleri and commonly known as the Steller’s jay is the bird emblem of British Columbia.”

Then — I can’t resist —

section 6.1. “The non-albino, white colour phase of the mammal known taxonomically as Ursus americanus and commonly known as the Spirit Bear is the mammal emblem of British Columbia.”

Then, of course, we get down to the fish emblem, which is obvious — the Pacific salmon, including the cutthroat trout, pink salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, sockeye and the chinook salmon. I wouldn’t even begin to attempt to pronounce the Latin phrases involved in those. It is fascinating.

Interestingly, one of the government’s major announcements of its legislative agenda involves amending the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act.

Section 19, which has been around for quite some time, is one of Gordon Campbell’s lucky legacies, left behind for the good people of British Columbia since 2003 and unused until, obviously, the Premier, in a moment of literary interest, much like myself, being forced to take a look at the statute, decided to draw up and give political life to what had been otherwise a provincial corpse. That was

section 19.

I bet you not one of the members present in this chamber, until this bill was introduced, had given any thought to the existing

section 19.

The

section is entitled British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship. “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may

[ Page 7595 ]

award the British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship to recognize persons who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing manner for the common good without expectation of reward.”

The fact that since its introduction 12 years ago they have never bothered to award it, I hate to say, may suggest they don’t believe we’ve had any good citizens here for the last dozen years. I find that a shocking insult to the good people of British Columbia, who may have enjoyed an opportunity, who may have wanted to experience the joy of receiving an award at the hands of the Premier.

I understand that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey wishes to make an introduction of a class. I would defer to him for a moment, in my remarks, to allow him to do that with the leave of the House.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Eby: It’s a wonderful pleasure for me to be able to rise in this House and introduce the fantastic students of St. Augustine School and their wonderful teachers and parents, who came all the way from Vancouver to see us hard at work in this chamber, passing laws, making sure there is money there for the public services we all rely on.

Would the House please make them welcome and wish them a good time on their tour today.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: I’m delighted to carry on with second reading debate, for the young folks who have just come into the chamber to understand what we’re dealing with. If I may, I’ll repeat myself slightly.

Interjections.

L. Krog: The enthusiasm for my remarks is almost inspirational.

To the young people who are listening, we’re dealing with the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. That’s where the government throws in all kinds of tiny changes to various pieces of legislation that they don’t want to put in separate statutes. It’s sort of a convenient way of dealing with a number of little issues.

I’m dealing with one of those little issues now, which for the uninitiated, is

section 19 of the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act.

This dormant matter….

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member from Prince George says she’s spellbound. I am again terribly flattered and inspired to carry on for a little more, perhaps.

[1520]

It has lain dormant for a dozen years. During that time, we have made significant awards under the statute for those British Columbians who have received the Order of British Columbia. The Order of British Columbia, which is sort of the gold standard, is not to be confused with the Community Achievement Awards, which, some have suggested to me, are in fact a more practical approach to the concept of rewarding good citizenship.

Again,

section 19, as I say, says: “…to recognize persons who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing manner for the common good without expectation of reward.”

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As you do every day.

L. Krog: The minister suggests: as I do every day.

Minister, I’m sure your cheque clears as regularly as mine does, and I understand that’s tomorrow.

In any event….

Deputy Speaker: I’m not certain how the House heard the minister, given he’s not in his seat.

L. Krog: Even with my fading hearing, I always hear the minister.

Now, if I may come back to the point, the fact is that we have a process in place and a program in place to reward, perhaps, those citizens who are not seen as worthy or having achieved the heights of the Order of British Columbia. I don’t mean to diminish the importance of that honour. To receive the Order of British Columbia is a pretty significant recognition of your contribution.

But I think there is a certain concern on the part of the opposition that we’re now talking about awarding a Medal of Good Citizenship. For those of us on this side of the House, there is a certain cynical view that perhaps it will be another photo opportunity for the Premier, who, as we know, is very good at photo opportunities, is regularly attendant on them and, I’m sure, may wish to participate in this.

We have a number of sections here to fill out the process for the awarding of the medal. We have a definition

section being proposed in

section 39 and a number of sections. “‘Medal’ means the British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship referred to in

section 19.”

It establishes a selection committee, and indeed, a selection committee is established under 19.1 consisting of the following: “(

a) a Chair appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for a term not exceeding 4 years; (

b) up to 6 additional members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for terms not exceeding 2 years.”

If there was some specificity given to the appointments, perhaps reflecting various aspects of our community…. Oh, I don’t know. Say, the outgoing chair of United Way in Vancouver or the former head of the B.C. Federation of

[ Page 7596 ]

Labour or a Supreme Court justice or a retiring president of a university or people who have been already recognized with the Order of British Columbia, as a matter of fact — people who have, on the face of it, a non-partisan interest in who they will choose.

That might have been somewhat more inspirational for the members of the opposition. Otherwise, the concern is we will end up with a selection committee that will determine who gets the medals that may reflect a less — how shall I say? — objective aspect than most of us would think appropriate. In other words: who’s going to get the medals?

I’m a bit concerned when it says: “… have acted in a particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing manner….” The term “generous” gives me concern. Does that mean…? Generosity based on what concept?

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head cynically suggested donation to the B.C. Liberals. I am shocked by that suggestion, simply shocked.

[1525]

However, one of my favourite quotes is that line “easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle than for the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven…”

Interjection.

L. Krog: …for which I’m receiving support from Surrey.

The question is, though: what does “generous” in this bill mean? If generous means you have $1 million and you give away $900,000, that’s generous. But if you have $10 million and you give away $100,000, I would just suggest you are less than generous. If you make $10,000 a year and you give away $1,000, I’d suggest you’re more than generous.

My fear is that we won’t recognize those people who truly give in terms of their generosity. We will recognize those on whom fortune has smiled and the god of Mammon has descended and provided with all the benefit possible. With great respect, I have seen a number of them already receive the Order of British Columbia. I don’t know that we need to add now to their prestige by awarding them a medal, presumably at the hands of the Premier — more hopefully the Lieutenant-Governor, but quite possibly at the hands of the Premier.

Indeed, I might make a prediction with respect to this bill. Assuming for a moment that it’s going to pass…. And it might well pass, because the opposition is still the minority, the last time I did a head count. Assuming it passes, I am willing to make a bet — I hope I breach no legislation when I say this — with any member of the opposition for whatever reasonable amount they may propose that somehow there will be a photo opportunity in the presentation of these medals which will involve the Premier of British Columbia. I am willing to bet on that.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Surrey-Whalley suggests I may have achieved some consensus here this afternoon. I think even the members in the government benches are smiling with a certain all-knowing acceptance that what I have to say, which they don’t always accept, may bear some semblance to the truth and may be somewhat accurate.

Having said that, I do hope that the government, in its wisdom, will ensure that this process and the people placed on the committee will be British Columbians that people will invariably respect and accept as being good stewards of the process, people whose judgment we will trust, and that it will not end up being an opportunity for Liberals to reward Liberals, for Liberals to recognize Liberals, to the exclusion of the many good people in this province who may well deserve and probably should have had for the last 12 years an opportunity to receive the Medal of Good Citizenship.

I can think of many in my constituency. I think every member here is aware of those who, without hope of reward, without consideration for public adulation, have gone about doing things in their individual communities, amongst their friends and neighbours, the kinds of acts that merit a Medal of Good Citizenship.

I do hope that the government will take the opportunity, that instead of treating this as some political reward, some recognition of its friends and supporters, we will see a process that works, so that those who actually get this medal will be able to wear it with pride amongst all the citizens of British Columbia, not simply when they go to a Liberal fundraiser or a convention or a gathering of the elites of this province — in other words, that it is awarded to people who truly deserve the medal.

Having said that, I know that there are many members in this chamber anxious to speak to this bill, anxious to contribute to the debate. I’m pleased to take my place and have the opportunity to listen to other members.

B. Ralston: After hearing the member for Nanaimo, I can recite one of the Latin expressions I know, tempus fugit . It means times flies, for those who aren’t conversant with Latin. I’ll forgo some of the other Latin expressions that I know.

[1530]

In any event, I do want to address one aspect of the bill, which is

section 46, which is a proposed amendment to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Now, under the present Petroleum and Natural Gas Act the power to set royalties is in subsection 73(1). “Royalties are reserved to the government on petroleum and natural gas produced from any location held under this Act.” Subsection

(2) [ Page 7597 ]

gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the cabinet — the power to prescribe a royalty that is payable to the government for petroleum and natural gas and goes on to introduce several qualifications to that.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In addition,

section 78 — and it seems that this amendment is directed to

section 78 in particular — gives the power to create an agreement establishing a royalty, but it appears to be very limited and restrictive in that power in the sense that the….

I’ll read the section, since it is a bit technical, and it helps to perhaps understand my argument, for those many members who are keenly following what I’m saying. “Despite

section 73 and the regulations under that section, the minister may make an agreement establishing the amount of royalty to be paid to the government, and the method of calculating the royalty, on petroleum and natural gas produced from a unitized operation or as the result of a conservation plan or a special project under

section 75 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act.”

Now, that language restricts considerably the legislative power to enter into royalty agreements. What this amendment does is give the government a very broad power to enter into agreements. Subsection 78.1(1) — this is the amendment now, in

section 46 — gives the power to the Lieutenant-Governor to “enter, with a person, into an agreement establishing the royalty to be paid by the person to the government, and the method of calculating the royalty, on petroleum or natural gas produced from a specified location or class of locations.”

It goes on to talk about the…. There’s no minimum term set. Under subsection (4), an agreement “may be for a term the minister considers advisable, but not for a term exceeding the prescribed number of years, and may also include any or all of the following….” It goes on to put certain conditions on that.

What, in effect, this amendment does is give the government unlimited power to enter into an agreement on royalties with a producer which could extend 15, 20…. It could extend for the projected economic life of the natural gas extraction operation. That’s clearly, in my view, the intention. I’m sure that when the time comes the minister will want to agree with me on that.

But the purpose for that is, in my view, to give yet another incentive, shall we say, or concession to those in the LNG industry to fix their costs over the economic life of the project. If you are building or you’re contemplating an investment in an LNG plant, one of the advantages that this will afford you is the government will be able to enter into an agreement on a very important part of the whole operation, which is to fix the royalties on your costs.

You will remember, those of you who follow these things, that one of the benefits that the government talked about — the two chief benefits in terms of government revenue from LNG, after the LNG tax was bounced down last February, not this year but the previous year, and then bounced down to a much lower rate in October — was…. They said: “Well, don’t worry about that. Never mind. There are these other fees and taxes that flow into the provincial treasury.” The two biggest ones were corporate income tax and royalties.

[1535]

This amendment now gives the government the power to enter into an agreement that will fix that royalty at a level — perhaps, given their skill at negotiating with LNG proponents — likely advantageous to the LNG producer.

This is unprecedented in the sense that these agreements could be very long term. No one else, no other government, even if the government changes its mind…. Unless it drafts these agreements in a very careful way, it will not be able to change the course on royalties.

And the Premier said today, as we all heard, that the revenue from natural gas royalties has diminished from 2005, when the price was very high — $2 billion in 2005 to $500 million per year roughly this year.

But rather than being interested in riding out the market cycle, the government is now taking unto itself the power to enter into a long-term royalty agreement on terms which a fair-minded public — given the record of the B.C. Liberals on resource management — would suggest might very well be advantageous to the producer and not to the public. That seems to be what the government’s objective, in bringing in this particular amendment, is.

On top of that, not only are they proposing to enter into these agreements that will be disadvantageous to the public and to the sale of the natural resource owned by the public, they are going to give themselves the power to keep these agreements secret. It’s perhaps no wonder that they’ve included this provision.

That, in my view, heightens the suspicion or the perception — and I’m sure that the minister will want to confirm this when the time comes. Unlike a typical commercial secret where other competitors may want to know, this is the assessment of royalties, the sole prerogative of the government that generates revenue for the government. Yet the government is proposing that the detail of that agreement will be kept from the public.

That’s what it says in subsection 46, 78.1(3): “The minister must, as soon as practicable, publish an agreement entered into under subsection (1) but may withhold from publication anything in the agreement that could be refused to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , if a request were made under that Act for disclosure of the agreement.”

I had some recent experience, because the Minister of Natural Gas Development and the Minister of Finance have spoken here in the Legislature about project development agreements. These are agreements not contained in legislation but are currently being negotiated, I have strong reason to believe, with leading LNG proponents.

[ Page 7598 ]

When the Minister of Finance said that these would have to be disclosed ultimately, the Minister of Natural Gas rejected it on the basis of commercial secrecy and proprietary interest. That difference of opinion, a major one, doesn’t yet seemed to have been resolved.

We did make a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for even notice of and terms on which these agreements might be set, and any detail about any agreements that have been entered into. We came back with the chronic results of a freedom-of-information request on these kind of matters: blank pages.

So I don’t have any confidence that, if this provision is passed and the government enters into long-term royalty agreements — that is the payment to the Crown for the utilization of public resources — they will be obliged to disclose them to the public.

[1540]

I think, frankly, that it’s outrageous. It’s the revenue to the Crown. It’s being assessed by the government. Surely, the public has a right to know and make its own judgment of whether the return that the treasury is receiving is a fair one or not.

There’s no doubt that the pressure will be downward on royalties. In some research a few years ago on royalties and the setting of royalties — this is on the oil side, but I think it applies equally to the natural gas side — a consultant who’d been involved in the oil industry for 35 years in the business of advising both governments and companies on royalties said that in his experience, no company had ever said there was a good time to raise royalties. Either the market was too hot and didn’t need more royalties, or the market was too slow, and it was the wrong time to increase royalties.

So the companies will, generally…. It’ll be their bargaining position — I mean, who’s surprised? — that royalties are too high and that they should been driven down. One doesn’t get the sense, when the government wants to keep the results of those negotiations secret, that they’ll be driving a hard bargain for the citizens of British Columbia.

It is possible. I mean, one only has to look at a Premier in Newfoundland, Danny Williams — not a New Democrat, by any means — who had the gumption and the guts to negotiate agreements with major oil companies. He took 10 percent equity and negotiated a royalty, all done in public. And the 10 percent ownership in these enterprises provided an effective financial window into the operation of the companies so that the government knew exactly what the companies were doing and achieving in their operations, got a revenue stream on the equity side and also was able to set royalties in a way that reflected the real economic value to the country.

Do you see this government doing that? Not a chance. What do they want to do? They want to hide the result of their agreement.

This is a very major piece of legislation that I suppose people on the government side hope will be disguised in a misc bill and sneaked through without a lot of debate. This is something that should be debated and should be questioned widely and publicly. That’s what we, on this side of the House, will be endeavouring to do as we deal with this bill over the next while. That’s the first part of the objection.

Then, when one looks at other provisions that are related to this, there are some minor language changes. But in

section 51…. The note doesn’t really explain the purpose for this, so I just want to put those members of the ministry and the oil and gas division on notice that I’ll be asking a question about

section 51.

It excludes “the operation of the following petroleum refineries” and says that they are “not an oil and gas activity within the meaning of the Oil and Gas Activities Act: (

a) the Burnaby Refinery, operated by Chevron Canada Limited or its successors…; (

b) the Prince George Refinery, operated by Husky Energy Inc. or its successors or assigns.” There’s a real question about why this change in definition of those two refineries.

Finally, just to wrap up on my

part in this bill, which is relatively brief, I think I should also state that it does not seem to me to be coincidental that the government is in the process of tearing up the Fair Share agreement and renegotiating it. This bill, this section, contemplates a reduction in royalty revenue that is now presently being shared under the Fair Share agreement. It’s hardly a surprise that the government wants to tear up the agreement, reduce the flow to municipalities, because the royalty agreements that are contemplated here will generate less revenue for sharing with municipalities.

[1545]

The two rather disparate activities on the part of the government are directly related — the introduction of this and the contemplation of long-term royalty agreements, and the tearing up of the Fair Share agreement for the communities in the northeast, where the bulk of the oil and gas activity is, certainly on the production side of natural gas. It’s contemplated that revenue to the Crown will be reduced and they want to ensure, in advance, that the obligation to share that reduced revenue with the municipalities — the concomitant reduction in revenue to the cities and towns of the northeast — under the Fair Share agreement will be reduced as well.

Those two pieces fit together, in my view. I’m sure that this will be dismissed, of course, because it’s far too logical and consistent, by the other side. But that seems to me to be a further motivation for these royalty agreements.

This is not good news for the people of British Columbia. This is bad news for the people of British Columbia. We do not oppose natural gas development, providing there’s a fair return to the citizens of British Columbia. And what these amendments contemplate is a reduction in the royalty regime of the province.

[ Page 7599 ]

It’s not onerous, relative to other jurisdictions and certainly compared to some of the more progressive regimes in the world. In Norway, for example, the royalty regime and their operation of a heritage fund has garnered them a substantial fund that will fund the future of Norway for many generations to come after the oil resource is depleted there. Great Britain didn’t do that, and the Scottish oil boom is almost over. They have nothing to show for it.

Alberta, despite the creation of a heritage fund, never did that to any effective degree. They’re now in a cyclical downturn of the oil industry and the price of oil. It’s as if they never expected the price to go down, when the history of resource industries is, of course, one of the volatility and cyclical nature of resource prices.

This is not good news. This will lower the royalties and the returns to the citizens of British Columbia. We will oppose that and do our best to bring this to the attention of the citizens of British Columbia, particularly those in the northeast, who I’m sure will agree with the position that I’m taking about the link between tearing up the Fair Share agreement and the reduction of royalties in long-term agreements, to the disadvantage of the citizens of British Columbia.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the previous speakers for highlighting some of the issues I, too, would like to speak to and against in similar cases. First off, I do wish to thank the Minister of Natural Gas Development for making staff available for a briefing today, which we found very helpful in explaining some of the rationale behind the royalty amendments that I will discuss later.

As was mentioned by the member for Nanaimo, this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, like previous acts, is always interesting. There’s a potpourri of topics in here, some of which some members in this House will approve. Others, some members in this House will not approve. There are many different angles that one could take with this bill. In voting yes or no on the second reading, one has to weigh the pros and the cons. One might actually think that the ways of dealing with some of these are at the committee stage, which I certainly will explore in more detail, some of the ideas there.

[1550]

There are a couple of sections that concern me quite profoundly. But I want to preface that there is one

section here that is actually good and something that I find very easy to support. It’s an election promise that the B.C. Liberals will be able to keep.

The irony here should not be lost on many people. I’ve had the privilege of serving in this Legislature for two years. In that two years I’ve heard a lot about the 1990s. I’ve heard it referenced time and time again, about what happened in the 1990s. Well, did you know that in the 1990s, the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act was brought into place?

Guess what is there in

section 19 of that act.

Section 19 states this: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may award the British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship to recognize persons who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing manner for the common good without expectation of reward.”

This was one of the prime announcements in the throne speech — that government would actually bring forward a B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship that already exists. This has got to be one of the most bizarre moments for me in this Legislature, to see the hubris, the narcissism of a government that thinks that it’s okay to make a big deal about bringing in a medal that’s been on the books for almost 20 years. It’s truly, truly…. I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. It’s happening in B.C. politics here in the House.

You know, what is so sad about this is that British Columbians are paying the price. British Columbians are paying the price for a government that clearly does not have an legislative agenda this session, apart from desperately trying to fulfil its election promise about LNG.

We watch one after another after another of the big players in the LNG market cite what I have been saying for two years. The growing glut of natural gas. The price is dropping. Japan is bringing on nuclear reactors again. Australia is well ahead. Companies are merging. The price of oil is dropping. And B.C., rather than recognizing that we are late players in this game, that we do not have a competitive advantage, that we will maybe one day find a use for this natural gas….

I see some small little additions here — which I call the methanol and the refining amendments — where there are some kinds of ideas: that perhaps we should do something in case it doesn’t pan out and there are other projects that we might go for.

But what this government is doing with amendments, two of them in this act, is continuing this generational sellout, which my friend from Nanaimo–North Cowichan…. I describe it as a generational sellout, but I cannot take credit for the term “multigenerational sellout.” That goes to the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. But it’s far beyond that. We see this taking another step.

Not only are we letting the minister enter into royalty agreements that will hamper future generations, not only government but future generations, by irresponsible promises made by a government that had no idea what it was doing during an election campaign except for offering a message of hope wrapped in hyperbole in a desperate attempt to get elected.

“Say anything. We’re not going to get elected, but let’s hope we get a few seats.” And lo and behold, we have a majority over here, a government that does not know what they’re doing on this file and that has become an embarrassment internationally on the LNG file. We’ve watched company after company after company look at us and say: “What’s going on?”

[ Page 7600 ]

Here we now have in this bill the greatest, most serious insult that future generations could have. It’s saying: “We are going to lock you into royalty rates with one company. We’re also going to forget municipal charter acts. We’re going to go over that too, and we’re going to do what we can to write legislation so that this one company may — may, possibly, perhaps, if things go well — make an investment decision by June of this year. And they’re the only one thinking of doing it.”

[1555]

The level of irresponsibility here — I cannot underestimate it. British Columbians should be walking in the streets over this legislation. I know they’re not going to pay attention to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. Buried within that is not only an intergenerational or a multigenerational sellout; it’s a historic one. It’s a historic sellout to foreign multinationals of the rights of British Columbians and future generations to gain value from our natural resources.

It’s a very sad day in British Columbia if we were to pass the relevant sectors in here. Sadly, as this government no longer listens to constituents, to small business owners — we see it in the liquor legislations — to the opposition, to independent members, they are marching to the beat of their own drum, because they think that by being elected as a majority they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, with no accountability.

But there will be accountability when British Columbians do realize this, and we can see it happening around the province. There will be accountability in 2017 for this multigenerational, historic sellout that is continuing here in British Columbia.

Let’s move directly to

section 23, the Port Edward tax agreement. Now, where is this coming from? The Port Edward tax agreement. For those riveted at home to the debates that are happening now, Port Edward is near Prince Rupert. It’s where Petronas and BG and Shell…. It’s in the area where there was going to be an LNG facility. It’s an area where there used to be a vibrant pulp mill, but of course that shut down because we’re not nurturing our forest industry; instead, we’re natural gas.

It’s LNG or nothing in B.C. right now. It’s a message that’s being sent to business in B.C. I recognize the minister is troubled by those words, but the reality is that business in B.C. has heard the message: you’re either with us on LNG or we’re not interested in where you’re going. That is the signal, because the government here is picking winners and losers in the marketplace — a so-called free enterprise government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. The winner they’ve picked is LNG.

But it’s even worse than that. It’s not winners and losers; it’s winning companies and losing companies, because we see legislation at the scale of individual municipalities. We’re amending the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to allow the district of Port Edward to enter multi-year agreements with Pacific NorthWest LNG.

What is going on here? We’re introducing law so that a municipality can forget the rest of the law that’s applied to municipalities in the province so that they can negotiate and do special deals with one company. We’re picking the winning technology and the winning sector, and we’re picking the winning company.

This is no longer a government that has any credibility as a free enterprise government. This is a government that is really a pick-a-winner-and-loser government. They’re picking losers as we go along, and it’s continuing to manifest itself with this legislation.

To be able to have this agreement last up to 25 years and establish an amount or formula to be used for the duration of that agreement for one company may give business certainty for that one company. Sure, Pacific NorthWest is going to have business certainty, and we all know business needs certainty, but this is giving an intergenerational sellout at the same time.

There’s no certainty for British Columbians here. This government was elected to represent British Columbians, not elected to represent Pacific NorthWest natural gas and Petronas and market that company to British Columbians, which is what is happening here in this legislation.

There are many other examples in this. I have another couple on this particular section.

You know, we see Port Edward being given the power to set a unique tax rate for Pacific NorthWest LNG that could be different from other class 4 properties. “No, we’re picking one company over another. You want to develop this land, your class 4 property? Guess what. If you’re LNG, it’s one thing; if you’re forestry, it’s another.”

[1600]

This is sending a message to industry that you are either…. “You want to do industry in B.C.? You’re with LNG? We’ll do anything we can for you.” But if you’re a struggling industry in another sector, maybe not. It’s LNG or nothing here in British Columbia.

A government that has the audacity to claim leadership on climate. The audacity — for a Premier to be invited by the World Bank and to claim, in this province, that she is leading a government that has leadership on climate policy. It does nothing but make the government of British Columbia a laughingstock within credible people across Canada.

This government has no credibility on the issue of climate policy. It was the previous administration, under the leadership of Mr. Campbell and the leadership of Barry Penner, the Environment Minister, that built that credibility that this government has destroyed in the matter of two-and-a-half short years.

Now, I recognize the Minister of Health did his bit. He was a very fine Minister of Environment when he was there, but he’s no longer there. The Minister of Environment is doing what she can. Unfortunately, they are but a few within a caucus of many who are doing

[ Page 7601 ]

everything they can to unravel the leading climate policy that existed in this province.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The truth does hurt. When the members opposite start heckling, they recognize that the truth does hurt — the truth to try to claim leadership on greenhouse gas emissions.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Health suggests I’m losing credibility by telling the truth. I would suggest to the minister that the government has lost credibility by not telling the truth for two years.

You can check my page: andrewweavermla.ca. It’s there from December 2012. That’s on Facebook prior to the election, during the campaign. I’ve said the same thing about LNG. I haven’t changed my tune. The government has — a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion hit to GDP, “Debt-free B.C.,” no PST, thriving schools and hospitals. La, la, la. “Come to B.C. We’ll tell you what you want to hear,” not what you need to hear. Unfortunately, here we are in B.C. with yet another generational sellout happening before us.

Subsection (4)(

b) exempts agreements from cabinet regulations that prescribe limits on tax rates, relationships between tax rates, formulas for calculating tax rates and so on.

Section (4)(c), another exemption for PNW properties, allows an exemption for them being prescribed as port land under the Assessment Act. That, again, means that cabinet regulations that prescribe the actual value of the port land — or they establish rates, formulas, rules or principles for determining the actual value of the port land — would not apply. Let’s just throw that out, because it might not give a company certainty.

Subsection (4)(

d) exempts PNW properties under an agreement from the Ports Property Tax Act — we wouldn’t want to tax LNG — which generally outlines property tax provisions for ports.

Whose needs are actually being served here? Is it British Columbia’s needs? Is it this government that is voted and tasked to represent British Columbians and provide the oversight that British Columbians want? Or is it the winner that they chose in the winning sector, in an economy, in a market that’s falling? When other jurisdictions are diversifying their economy, we are not.

The Community Charter was written to provide fairness and a level playing field for businesses. This act seems to empower Port Edward to create an unfair playing field.

It gets worse, with the royalty agreement

section in sections 44 to 56. Sections 44 through 66 have received a lot of focus already, as they appear to be particularly troubling. They appear to allow the minister to enter into royalty agreements with natural gas producers. The minister can enter into an agreement without approval from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council if the agreement is “in respect of a prescribed class of agreements” — whatever that means.

There are several concerning points here. The entire purpose of this

section appears to allow this government — a government that’s lost credibility on the LNG file, if it ever had any in the first place — to lock future governments into royalty agreements without offering as much as any way of oversight or checks and balances to protect British Columbians from, frankly, irresponsible decision-making that is ongoing in British Columbia today on this file.

[1605]

We already have a royalty regime in place. The problem, of course, is that as far as the government is concerned and, perhaps, the industry is concerned, this royalty regime may not be certain in future governments. Perhaps the government is worried. Perhaps the government is worried that in 2017 the B.C. Green Party will be sitting over there, and they’ll be sitting over here. There’ll be a lot of my friends to the right over there and a few of you over here.

Perhaps they’re worried about that, and they want to give PNW, some certainty by locking in 25-year royalty rates at some rate that is to be prescribed at some point by a minister, if he or she wants, with some consultation — maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Because we’re not going to be actually bringing this forward in a very open, public fashion.

You know, the powers that have been given to the minister in this amendment act with respect to royalty creation in the natural gas sector are enormous. Not only are they enormous; they’re enormous powers to one minister — not the minister in the next government or the government after that but the minister in this government, a minister who’s part of the government that is so desperate to fulfil their irresponsible election promises.

The media are not going to…. They’re going to start probing. They may have given the government a few years of grace on this, but mark my word, when people start looking into this, it’s going to come a cropper if it’s not already starting to. This is egregious — what’s going on in this particular amendment.

Under the changes, the minister also has to disclose information that would be required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, the

section in here does not clarify who determines if the information needs to be disclosed or not. Is it an independent body that’s at arm’s length from the ministry? Or could the minister, theoretically, decide what should be or should not be disclosed? It’s not clear.

There are other aspects of this act, which I’ll just very briefly speak to, that I’d be interested in exploring further

[ Page 7602 ]

at committee stage. That’s with respect to the oil and gas activities changes,

section 48, where we have (e.1) and (e.2) to include two types of oil and gas activities, and these are the “construction or operation of a manufacturing plant designed to convert natural gas into other organic compounds” and the “construction or operation of a petroleum refinery.”

Again, it’s seeming to me, in light of the fact that I know of one proposal that’s been brought to government on (e.1) and one proposal that has been brought to government on (e.2), the government again is going forward and trying to pick winners and losers in a marketplace before actually letting the market decide who those winners and losers should be. I’m curious about what the government is intending here, and I will, indeed, speak to it at committee stage.

With that, I do thank you for the time. I look forward to further discussions in committee stage. At this point I’m still in a quandary with respect to the vote at second reading — not because I support everything in it, but because I’m not sure at this point. I still need time to reflect on whether or not the merits of supporting it at second reading or not supporting it at second reading are more on the positive or negative.

Clearly, the egregious royalty and Port Edward changes, which are the government desperately trying to pick winners and losers in the marketplace to fulfil election promises, are unsupportable.

Obviously, I support the B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship — again. It’s already been on the books for nearly 20 years. And the irony of this, of course…. Again, it’s one of these priceless moments that you get in this place, in the Legislature, after listening as an independent here for two years to “in the 1990s this” and “in the 1990s that.”

[1610]

Well, one of the things that happened in the 1990s was that this B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship was brought into place. Obviously, I support that. Obviously, there are other aspects in this updating of various acts that I support. But these two changes are very, very troubling.

With that, I’ll pass and look forward to hearing the continuing debates.

R. Fleming: I wish to speak to Bill 23, which is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. We’ve had a lot of miscellaneous acts go through this Legislature in recent years, and some of them contain sections that amend laws that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and this bill is within that spirit.

Nobody on this side of the House and nobody on the government side of the House would wish to see a miscellaneous bill pass without comment or without question before we get to the next stage of debate. It is in that spirit that I wish to make a few comments this afternoon on a couple of sections.

There have already been some very good comments made by members this afternoon on various aspects of this act. If my comments range a little bit, I apologize. It’s because the miscellaneous bill itself covers a lot of territory that one wouldn’t expect legislation to combine in such a fashion. But of course, that’s how this bill has been introduced, and that’s how we will proceed.

I think the comments around the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act were well made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the member for Nanaimo as well. While there’s nothing wrong with recognizing and encouraging deeds and acts of good citizenship in our communities, it’s kind of interesting to see how this is being introduced at this time — and by whom, of course.

I can think of a lot of examples where this government and the head of this government have recognized the importance of families, have recognized the importance of school leaders, parents, kids. I speak to this as the Education spokesperson for the opposition.

When the cameras are rolling…. When the highest priority at that very moment as the television cameras appear is the safety of our kids, for example, from horrible things happening, living on the fault line as we do in British Columbia in seismically unsafe buildings, where we have hundreds of them…. Where government has made, in the strongest, most unequivocal words possible, a commitment to do something to live up to a timeline to work with the engineering profession, to work with school boards…. Only for it to mean, after the cameras have stopped rolling, absolutely nothing.

Anybody who may deserve recognition in the communities that we represent here as members, 85 distinct parts of British Columbia…. We can well think of people who deserve and some who get recognition by this level of government and others for the things that they accomplish in their lives and the things they do for others in our communities. I think all of us would want to shelter them from something that could potentially be an utterly meaningless exercise.

It has already been commented upon that the supposed uniqueness of the amendment to the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, to create this medal, is in fact not unique at all. We’re covering ground that was passed in this Legislature as recently as 2003. This amendment simply allows something that is already possible under the original legislation that was passed in 1996.

So what is this about? What exactly does government and the Premier have in mind to sign and distribute a new category of certificate that’s being enabled under this amendment? Why does it supersede underutilized things that are allowed already, and what exactly does government have in mind? I think that is something that deserves to be answered.

[1615]

It’s not good enough just to say: “Oh, we thought this thing up, and we thought it sounded good in the throne

[ Page 7603 ]

speech, and we need to see it go to fruition.” There has to be something explained about this. So far, I haven’t heard anything from government in the introduction and debate on this bill that gives proper motivation or answers any of the questions that have been raised. We’ll look forward to further asking questions of government at the committee stage of debate.

Jumping over to the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act. Now, there may well be deficiencies in legislation that have to be amended, and that’s perfectly legitimate. What raises questions around this

section of the bill is around the penalties for contravention of this act. What penalties are in place currently for what contraventions? What are the gaps, exactly, that are trying to be addressed here by government?

I think more seriously, in this

section of the bill, the question really is around: can somebody be penalized twice, both for what exists in law now and what will become law later with this amendment? Can, in fact, for the same infraction an individual who is in non-compliance with the original act and now the amended one be penalized twice? It’s an important legal principle to establish before this bill becomes law. We haven’t heard yet from the government whether there’s a risk of that occurring.

It’s not clear to me at all, for example, how much consultation was actually done with those who live in the Maa-nulth boundaries of their settlement, and it’s not clear what motivates this amendment at this time, based on the lack of evidence that there has been consultation with that nation.

I would also echo some of the concerns we heard from the member for Surrey-Whalley about changes to the Oil and Gas Activities Act, among other things. There is a debate in a number of jurisdictions — Alaska to the north of us, Alberta very much so just to the east of us — about taxpayer maximization of resources after decades of extraction activities and royalty regimes that have been in place.

There is, of course, the government’s story here around LNG. Leaving aside how well that story holds up at this point in time, I think the broader concern simply is about whether the royalty regime in B.C. has been adequate and continues to be adequate, whether long-term agreements that cover the ups and downs of the market have concerns contained within them, and also about the principle of transparency.

These are the people’s resources. Every British Columbian has a share in the resources beneath us that have a value, that can be extracted, that can be produced, that can be sold. Not just oil and gas activities, of course, but that’s what we’re dealing with here in the hopes of creating a new industry that has not exactly taken off according to plan, if I can put it mildly.

What concerns me are these clauses that amend the legislation around the Oil and Gas Activities Act that will remove and make more difficult the public’s ability to get information about the business dealings on royalties that are concluded with private companies — how long the terms of the agreement are, what the financial returns are, whether there are things such as a minimum and maximum royalty regime.

We need to be able to assess whether a government has acted competently in the public interest in its negotiations around the value of the natural resources which belong to all of us as a fundamental part of our democracy.

[1620]

This government talks all the time about how we can’t have a modern society with proper public services for our kids and for all demographics of society, whether we’re talking about health care or education, without being reliant upon oil and gas and other resource extraction activities.

Prove that they’re doing a good job. Don’t shield it in blanket carte blanche exemptions from freedom of information to the public. That is a

section of this bill that I think should raise a lot of alarm bells with the public, especially given this government’s record. We’ve been talking about it this week in question period, and we’ve been talking about it over a number of years. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has been talking about it, indeed, in her reports to the public.

Given the record of this government for poor, untimely disclosure and for erring on the side of redaction and failure to release information, when we’re talking about huge numbers here, when we’re talking about economic dividends that should belong to every British Columbian, people had better be worried about what amendments like this in a miscellaneous bill can mean for years and decades to come. That’s a concern about Bill 23 that has yet to be adequately answered and is of huge concern to every British Columbian, no matter what part of the province they live in.

The Natural Products Marketing Act. Again, there are some concerns here about insurance requirements that may arise, whether there are going to be standards imposed, how those will be deduced and what they will mean for those that the legislation touches upon and their businesses. I expect that will be canvassed later, and I will let various critics ask those questions and hear from the minister.

I do want to say at this stage in the debate that it would be remiss of me as a Victoria MLA to not make any comment upon the winding down of the Queen’s Printer Act after 155 years of service to British Columbia. I haven’t heard an adequate motivation for why the announcement was made a year ago by government that Queen’s Printer was going out of business.

It was suggested that the printing industry is changing, and that’s hardly news. Of course it is. The volume of printing has gone down. But there was nothing that said to me that there was a business case saying the elimination of Queen’s Printer, at least in that category of busi-

[ Page 7604 ]

ness, provided economic benefits to the taxpayer.

There was nothing offered by government in its news releases and in the limited media coverage that there was that suggested that where there is security of printed products required by government — and that can range on everything from provincial examinations to reports that must remain confidential until they can be released, even the budget documents themselves — those responsibilities and risks to government have been eliminated. They haven’t. Yeah, times have changed, but those kinds of things are of enduring value to government.

Bottom line is there are 30 individuals in this community who are going to lose their jobs at Queen’s Printer. Those are people with families. Those are people who contribute to our economy. Those are people with skills who have served the public well, and we haven’t even been given any indication, any information, from the government that winding down this function at Queen’s Printer has any benefits to the public, to this community.

Now, I know this government likes to send out these little dog-whistle messages to a

section of its base every so often to re-establish its hard right-wing spurs, that it’s a pro-privatization, anti-regulation kind of party. There’s a Tea Party

section to the B.C. Liberals that has to be satiated every once in a while. Maybe that’s why Queen’s Printer is on the chopping block. Maybe that’s why.

[1625]

It’s certainly been told to me by senior Liberals who no longer work in this government that that’s how we arrived at the debacle that was the B.C. Rail privatization. The discussion was as sophisticated as this. I’m told by senior former employees in the Premier’s office…. I know the member from Kamloops has sneezed, perhaps. It sounds like he sneezed, perhaps. But let’s remember how B.C. Rail worked out in the end.

I think the court documents show how ham-fisted and idiotic that was, and corrupt. You’ve got two people who pled guilty to corrupting the bidding process on B.C. Rail. Now, the reason….

Interjection.

R. Fleming: They lost their jobs. Kept their houses and cars and everything else, and the trial was mopped up. And their legal fees were paid for. Wow, what a tough-on-crime government. Wow. Taking bribes, and you can keep everything you’ve got.

That privatization of B.C. Rail was described to me and to others…. If the members don’t want to hear it just from me, this has been well canvassed — people who have written about this government. Because the government couldn’t privatize ICBC, which they wanted to do….

That was the big prize. They wanted to privatize ICBC, and then they appointed an individual to oversee the privatization of ICBC who came back with a report to the then Finance Minister and said: “If you privatize ICBC, it will be the dumbest thing your government could possibly do, and there is no public interest served by its privatization.”

They had to move on to some other topic to satiate their right-wing base. They had to move on to another Crown corporation, and it was B.C. Rail’s turn. That was going to happen no matter what.

I certainly hope that Queen’s Printer is not some randomly selected target with no business case behind it, à la B.C. Rail. I don’t hear anybody saying that the loss of provincially strategic rail services has been a great thing for British Columbia or that the corrupt, rigged process has been a moment of pride for this government. I certainly hope…

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

R. Fleming: …that the privatization of Queen’s Printer doesn’t go in that litany of botched, ideological, unjustifiable privatizations that have been rammed through by this government.

On that note, because I know there are others who want to speak to this miscellaneous bill this afternoon, I will conclude with the concerns I’ve raised on Maa-nulth, on the oil and gas royalty act and on the Queen’s Printer privatization. Thank you for the time this afternoon.

D. Routley: It’s interesting. I won’t say it’s a pleasure or an honour, but it’s interesting to rise and speak to Bill 23, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which is anything but simply miscellaneous.

We are accustomed in this House to being drawn to legislation that is entitled “miscellaneous.” By tradition of this House, that would indicate that the measures taken would be simply housekeeping, simply miscellaneous pieces of legislation that need to be amended in order to be consistent with previous changes to other bills. But as has become a custom in this place, this is anything but simple.

Why on earth should we be asked to endorse a bill that has, in an alphabet-soup manner, amended significant pieces of legislation and put at risk the public interest of British Columbia? Why? Well, I would suggest one simple reason. It is the political well-being of the B.C. Liberal Party that is at stake.

[1630]

If we look at all of the measures in this act, there are some that are worthy of support, but there are some that are definitely putting at risk and putting to vulnerability the public interest when it comes to our natural resources and the assets of British Columbia.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast mentioned to me during the last speaker’s contribution that

[ Page 7605 ]

if the members opposite felt they should defend this bill, then have them stand up and do so; have them stand up and defend the measures that are being taken to excuse the government from its responsibility to openness around natural gas and commitments that they’re making to multinational corporations; have them stand up and defend the changes that are being made to significant pieces of legislation that impact British Columbians going forward, including the Queen’s Printer, which was mentioned by the previous speaker and will have a direct impact in people’s lives and direct impact in the provision of services in British Columbia.

We are asked to endorse a bill that has, on the one hand, provided opportunity for the Premier to engage in her favourite pastime, that of photo opportunities — to stand with British Columbians who have shone with distinction in their communities and bask in the inherited light of that shine from other people’s sacrifice. We’re asked to endorse that.

We’re asked to endorse a discretionary award that has, in fact, been on the books for 20 years. At this time the provincial government, the B.C. Liberals, have seen fit to adapt it, to amend it, to morph it to their particular need — the need of appointing friends to committees. They can then award friends with distinctions and then award the Premier with the opportunity for photo ops in awarding those distinctions.

I don’t feel comfortable with that. I don’t think British Columbians would feel comfortable with that. But this is just a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. Of course, it is inconsequential. But then we look at the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act changes that are going to be forced upon the Legislature and the people of B.C. by an inevitable majority vote of the elected monarchy of the current Premier.

We have little to do but to point to the problem, call out loudly to our friends and neighbours and hope that people will notice that in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, the B.C. Liberal government is, in fact, giving away the resources of British Columbia in order to satisfy its political goals and satisfy broken election promises that everyone agrees were never realizable.

I speak to so many people who say to me: “Well, they’re all like that. All politicians are like that. All political parties are like that.” It’s so sad to see people who have essentially resigned themselves to this outcome — and such a blank cheque written to a government like this, the B.C. Liberal government, that will take that and say: “Well, you know what? This gives us permission. People expect us to be deceitful. People expect us to be dishonest. So why not?”

The people have resigned themselves to the outcome that their government will not serve them, that their government is beholden to interests far above the reach of their own — interests that donate millions upon millions of dollars in order to achieve legislative goals that suit their business interests. That’s the crew that we have opposite that serve that interest, that don’t serve the public interest.

How else could it be that the petroleum and natural gas amendments of this bill could offer the B.C. Liberal government the opportunity to offer natural gas proponents extended tax benefits, hidden tax cuts and other favourable provisions that would entice these proponents to advance their LNG export projects? That, after all, is the basket into which the B.C. Liberal government has deposited all the eggs of their political future and the well-being of the B.C. economy.

[1635]

They must come through with some kind of approved project at any cost. The cost was defined in Bill 6 debate around LNG royalties and corporate taxation. Now we have Bill 23 that opens the door to any giveaway that government should imagine would materialize a deal. Not only are they actually opening the door to the favourable provisions around tax benefits, tax cuts and royalties, but this bill essentially shields those agreements from Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act scope.

Not only are these deals going to be offered, at any cost to the interests of British Columbians, in order to achieve a political benefit for the B.C. Liberal government — a promise during the election which, of course, could never have been fulfilled — but even to remotely come close to actioning the promises that the government made during the election campaign….

This bill offers them the tools to offer any benefit they should imagine but then hide that from the public. Not only hide it from the public, but exempt it from approval from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or cabinet. In a sense, the minister has complete control over the future of the LNG industry and the deals that are being offered to corporations in order to land the deal — land the big one that the B.C. Liberal government absolutely needs to salvage any vestige of political credibility.

Having made this great commitment, having now opened the barn doors to any imaginable benefit to be offered to these corporations, having hidden it from FOI scope so that the people cannot discover what those agreements might be, using project development agreements which are more common in the Third World but now are common in use in British Columbia and then exempting them even from cabinet approval, the government has, in effect, bound the hands of any future government in British Columbia because, of course, these agreements can be entered into over any length of time.

As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said, it is not just a generational sellout but a multigenerational sellout. In fact, what we see is the B.C. Liberal government saying it’s the resource of the people of B.C. In order for us to save our political skins, we must have the free hand to give this resource away, to give it away into

[ Page 7606 ]

perpetuity, to hide that giveaway from the public and not even require the approval of cabinet to make that giveaway.

It is absolutely sad and inappropriate in the extreme that these measures should be taken in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, which is typically considered to be simple housekeeping in correcting aspects of bills that are affected by other legislation that’s been passed in this House.

It’s a sad day in British Columbia that we see….

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah, it is. The Minister of Energy and Mines repeats my words.

It’s a sad day when the people of the province are asked to endorse a bill that gives away their resources — this from a minister who champions the non-existent community of Jumbo and the passage of millions of dollars of public money to his friends and insiders of the B.C. Liberal government.

But then the government counts on the disengagement of the people. The government counts on the resignation of the people that their government is not going to be truthful with them, that they would be dishonest with the people of British Columbia.

[1640]

That is a sad circumstance, when people have come to the point when they have resigned themselves to the fact that the government isn’t telling the truth. They’ve resigned themselves to the fact that powerful, moneyed interests in this province will be far more important than theirs as citizens. I’m sure the Minister of Energy and Mines is proud of that.

For me, even after ten years in this House, I find it galling. It’s disturbing that the government can continually reach new heights or plunge to new depths of deceit when it comes to dealing with the public interest of British Columbia. This is what we see.

We see the Public Agency Accommodation Act being streamlined in order to make the process of government selling land easier, less complicated. So far, the government has shown, in selling land, that they’re prepared to give away tens of millions of dollars of benefit to insiders and donors to their party.

We saw $128 million worth of property in Burke Mountain sold to a person who has donated almost $1 million over the past decade to the B.C. Liberal Party, and for $43 million below its appraised value. One property valued at $5.5 million sold to that same individual for $100,000. You can’t buy a doghouse in the Lower Mainland for $100,000, but this person managed to buy over 13 hectares of developable land for $100,000.

That’s what the government does bold-faced, right in the faces of the people of British Columbia. “We don’t care what you think. We don’t care what you say. We won the election. We’re a monarchy. We do what we want, and we’ll see you next time the 28-day campaign rolls around.”

It’s absolutely discouraging to talk to young people who come to this House about the value of their vote, the value of their citizenship. I always tell the young people about the famous B.C. entrepreneur Jimmy Pattison. I tell them about the fabulous wealth, the dozens and dozens of companies he owns and all the power that he has in the province.

I ask them, every class: “How many votes do you think he gets?” Three students in ten years have said: “One.” They always say 50, 500 or 5,000 — whatever. Then I tell them: “No, he gets one vote, the same as a person who lives under a bridge, the same as your teacher, the same as your parents, the same as you when you have the right to vote.”

The raw value of us as citizens is supposed to be defended in this place. At election time we expend the value of that citizenship by choosing our government, and then we make this assumption that the government will be working on our behalf, in the public interest, an assumption that is diminishing, that is being pulled apart by the behaviour of the B.C. Liberals over this past decade.

This is no change, when you come to a point where the government is selling property, prime real estate, to donors. This donor donated almost $1 million over ten years — $220,000 plus since the time the property sales plan of the government was announced. Donations the day before and the day after the sale — how blatant can you get? It’s $43 million below appraised value, while every newspaper you open has

article upon

article telling us that there are bidding wars for properties in the Lower Mainland. The primary concern of economists is that we’re experiencing a bubble of speculation.

[1645]

Deputy Speaker: I think the member has covered this point already, and I’d ask him to move on to second reading of Bill 23.

D. Routley: Absolutely.

That in this bill we should see the government streamline the process to allow itself to make even more efficient giveaways of public assets seems unbelievable.

You know, I used to write paycheques for people. I used to employ people. In a small business you employ people. You hope to employ yourself, but primarily, you worry about the survival of your business and the survival of the people who work for you. It’s something that you go to bed at night worrying about — whether you’re going to be able to continue employing people who, in a small business, you become so attached to.

You hope to treat people with respect. You hope to return the favour they’ve done by committing themselves to your dream as a small business person. You hope to reward them — but in the end, at least be able to write their paycheque.

[ Page 7607 ]

There are many pressures at all levels of business, from small to medium to large — many pressures on profit, many pressures on business, many forces which encourage people to do less by the people who work for them. That can translate to poor safety standards. That can translate to a lack of benefits or an unfair payment arrangement based on any number of factors. But in the end, regulation and government standard are the bottom line.

When we look to the government, we would expect the government would uphold the highest standards in employing people, would be the most respectful employer, would be the one that is the most committed to safety standards, the most committed to encouraging people to develop themselves within a professional environment. The most basic consideration is respect. The governme