2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th 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)

Monday, May 9, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 4

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Baraladei Daniel Igali

G. Hogg

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Cancer survivor park in Richmond

L. Reid

Gathering Our Voices aboriginal youth conference

G. Coons

Traffic on lakes and rivers and traffic on Highway 5A in Kamloops–South Thompson area

K. Krueger

Jane Jacobs and urban planning

L. Popham

Social entrepreneurs

G. Hogg

Family caregivers

C. Trevena

Oral Questions

Funding for parks system

A. Dix

Hon. T. Lake

R. Fleming

M. Sather

School district carbon-neutral requirements and resource industry emissions reduction

B. Ralston

Hon. T. Lake

R. Austin

B. Simpson

Hon. G. Abbott

Post-secondary education funding and Vancouver Island University

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act

J. Kwan

Hon. P. Bell

M. Sather

G. Gentner

V. Huntington

B. Simpson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. S. Bond

K. Corrigan

J. van Dongen

L. Krog

D. Hayer

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government (continued)

D. Routley

Hon. S. Cadieux

R. Chouhan

M. Elmore

S. Fraser

D. Donaldson

K. Conroy

N. Simons

G. Gentner

[ Page 6759 ]

MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I am delighted to introduce two guests with us today. One is Nelson Allen. He's a trustee from school district 68 who has been here several times before, but he is here today more in his capacity as a Rotarian and a host. Accompanying him is a young student, a Rotary exchange student, all the way from Colombia, here to observe politics in the making. He has political ambitions, I'm told. I hope we don't put him off by the performance in question period. Would the House please welcome Kevin Hartmann Cortez from Colombia.

Tributes

Baraladei Daniel Igali

G. Hogg: In 1994 a young, community-minded wrestler came to Victoria to compete in the Commonwealth Games, and he stayed. He became a Canadian citizen in 1998, and he won an Olympic gold medal for Canada in 2000. On April 26 of this year, after three months of rigorous campaigning in a riding of 34 villages and 60,000 people, he was elected to the Bayelsa State Assembly of Nigeria. He will be sworn into office on June 3. I ask this assembly to extend its congratulations and best wishes to a wonderful international citizen, Baraladei Daniel Igali.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: Today in the gallery for the first time is the newest employee of the Premier's correspondence branch, Jasmine Bains. She's with Holly Oaken, and they are looking forward to seeing the events unfold from now until the end of question period. Let's make Jasmine and Holly both feel very welcome.

[1335]

D. Routley: I would like to expand on my colleague's introduction of Mr. Nelson Allen from Nanaimo. I think the House should know just how dedicated Nelson has been to the city of Nanaimo and to education in this province. He is the former chair of the board of Nanaimo school district and current vice-chair. He has served two terms on the Nanaimo city council.

He was a Nanaimo regional district representative. He was on the Nanaimo parks and recreation committee. He's been a chair of practically every committee in the school board. He was a BCTF local president. He was involved in their children's committee for, I think, five years.

Nelson Allen has given great service to education in our province and to the city of Nanaimo. I would like to have this House help me thank him for that dedicated service.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd like to introduce a guest in the House today. His name is Brian Smith. He's from the beautiful community of Halfmoon Bay on the Sunshine Coast. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. Dalton: In the gallery today I have three special guests. First of all, my lovely wife, Marlene. I appreciate all her love and support for these many years — 26 years and counting.

Also, Gloria Bodnarchuk, who is a retired teacher I met for the first time today, from Edmonton, Alberta. She has come along with Lynn Gendron.

Lynn is a very special person to me. She was my grade 4 teacher. She taught me in Holberg, British Columbia, which is up by north Vancouver Island. She taught me all that I know, and she said: "Marc, you can do anything." I remember those words. "You can be Prime Minister one day if you want." I took that to heart. Well, I'm not on Parliament Hill, but I am here in elected office. I appreciate her encouragement and inspiration, and I'm glad she could be here today.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

G. Hogg: We are joined in the gallery today by the ambassadors from the city of White Rock. I enjoyed having a lively conversation and lunch with them today. They are Chloe Woodin, Freda Zhang, Stephanie Charleton, Kira Apted Tilcock, Katie Fownes and two ambassadors who are a little more mature and have been ambassadors for the city for a long time, their chaperones, Debbie Ward and Donna Beaudry. Would the House please make them most welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today we have a young lady whom I first got to know at about age three, the daughter of a neighbour. She's now doing her best for the cause in the Premier's office, correspondence section. Would you please welcome Holly Oaken.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CANCER SURVIVOR PARK IN RICHMOND

L. Reid: I'd like to dedicate my remarks today to someone I miss each day. Her name is Kathie Hatlen.

Cancer survivors parks — because what's outside can help heal what's inside. There are currently 22 cancer

[ Page 6760 ]

survivors parks in North America, a legacy created by Richard and Annette Bloch and their foundation.

The Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Survivors Park in Ottawa is a public park offering green space for reflection, sculptures, a healing garden with stones of hope, motivation and so much more. This cancer survivors park is the second of its kind in Canada and will offer a place of serenity and inspiration to cancer patients and survivors, their friends and family. I am working for the creation of a third such park in Richmond, British Columbia.

Each park is unique, though they maintain three common elements. In each park there's a sculpture called Cancer: There Is Hope , created by the renowned Mexican sculptor Victor Salmones. The piece features eight life-sized figures passing through a maze depicting cancer treatments and successes.

A positive mental attitude walk is an area where visitors can stroll through, meditate and read through 14 plaques which feature inspirational words and suggestions inspired by Richard Bloch. A road to recovery, with seven plaques explaining what cancer is and basic actions to assist in recovery, is a place of peace and reflection. I hope each of you will have the opportunity one day to visit.

GATHERING OUR VOICES

ABORIGINAL YOUTH CONFERENCE

G. Coons: What do you get when you have 1,200 aboriginal youth descend on your community? You have four days of high energy and interactive workshops, and four days of sharing, networking and meeting new friends. March 21 to 24 was the ninth annual Gathering Our Voices Conference held on Tsimshian traditional territory in Prince Rupert.

[1340]

It was an inspiring four-day event with the theme "A vision of our future." Over 50 unique, imaginative and fun workshops were offered in six venues spread throughout the community, exploring the breadth and potential of aboriginal health, language, culture, the environment, employment, education, sports and recreation. Partnering to make this happen were the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres' Provincial Aboriginal Youth Council and the Prince Rupert Friendship House.

I solicited comments from the Friendship House youth hub, and this is their perspective:

"This youth conference had countless amazing motivational speakers such as the Hon. Steven Point and Dakota Brant, Miss Indian World 2010. The conference allowed not only the youth but everyone involved the opportunity to make lasting friendships. Everyone was so positive, and this inspired youth to be the best they could be."

"One of the highlights of the week was the 'Elders Don't Bite' workshop, bringing youth and elders together in a safe and positive environment where you weren't afraid to share stories and have a conversation. The wisdom of the elders sharing with youth is so important for us to stay grounded in everyday life and in our futures."

"The amount of talent woven throughout the entire conference is enough to blow you away. JB, the First Lady from the Nuxalk and Cayuga nations, is an inspiring young role model spreading the words of empowerment and the perspective of urban indigenous women in Canada. She really inspires you to be proud of who you are."

"It was really great to see so many people come together, people with similar cultural beliefs. We all look forward to the conference next year where aboriginal youth will gather our voices and be a force to reckon with."

TRAFFIC ON LAKES AND RIVERS

AND TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY 5A

IN KAMLOOPS–SOUTH THOMPSON AREA

K. Krueger: My constituency is the home of many famous people. One of the most famous is Sen. Nancy Greene Raine, Canada's woman of the century. Nancy said to me one day that government really ought to think about a quiet waters designation. Personal watercraft are a lot of fun, but they shouldn't be everywhere. There are a couple of locations in my constituency that are notable as examples of how right she is.

The South Thompson River, for example, is the route that the Adams River sockeye run takes — a very famous icon of British Columbia. There's a problem with siltation from people wakeboarding and speedboats using the waterway, a problem with quiet enjoyment of their properties for people who live along the river. Also, in the valley of scenic lakes which houses Highway 5A and feeds Nicola Lake there is severe competition between the speedboats and water-skiing and fishing lakes. So it's an issue I'd like to put on the radar of everybody in the House.

Highway 5A itself has another challenging issue. Truckers like to use it because it is relatively flat. They burn less fuel, many of them say it's fun to drive, and they'd rather use it than the Coquihalla. Some of these truckers are rogues. They speed, they take chances, they flop their trucks, and they do things like tailgating local ranchers and local farmers and tourists.

In one case a trucker actually chased a rancher up her driveway and rebuked her for having slowed him down because she had to make a right turn into her driveway. It left her quite shaken. Speaking of shaken, I visited a rancher in her home, and the trucks were making the house shake every minute or so as they drove by. Many of them travel too fast. There's a constant risk and threat of injuries, fatalities and pollution of the waterway.

We've spent a lot of money trying to make sure that these things don't happen. In the meantime, there's a

[ Page 6761 ]

perfectly acceptable alternate route that's already built, already paid for, and that's the Coquihalla Highway. I'd like the House to pay close attention to that risk.

JANE JACOBS AND URBAN PLANNING

L. Popham: I'm grateful today to have the opportunity to stand and honour a woman who has been an inspiration to me since studying urban geography at the University of British Columbia in the early 1990s.

April 25 marked the day that Jane Jacobs passed away five years ago. At age 89 she left us with a lifetime of contributions in the form of books like The Death and Life of Great American Cities, historical protests like the battle with New York city developer Robert Moses, incredible interviews with anybody who would listen and reflections that changed the way we can think about our cities.

For over half a century, Jane Jacobs championed our urban centres as places of human habitat which bring together people in adequate numbers to develop strong, local economies, rich culture and connected communities. She warned us of the necessity of protecting the social capital of the city, that complicated web of human relationships built up over time that provides mutual support in time of need, ensures the safety of the streets and fosters a sense of civic responsibility.

[1345]

Jane Jacobs's observations about the way our cities work and don't work revolutionized the urban planning profession and engaged communities in ways that had never happened before. Because of Jane, ideas once considered inconvenient and quaint, like mixed-use development, short blocks, increased density, are now, thankfully, being seen more commonly in new developments around the province. We know that progressive developers and planners are asking themselves what Jane Jacobs would do before making critical decisions that shape communities forever.

This is not the case everywhere, and when we miss opportunities to integrate Jane's vision, we miss the opportunity to improve our quality of life. When we design our urban centres for cars instead of people, we know that Jane Jacobs would have been troubled.

Jane Jacobs wasn't very tall, but she was brave. She showed us that all great things come in small packages, and she also showed us that so does dynamite.

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS

G. Hogg: Through recorded history, families, communities and societies have looked after each other, have cared for each other and have provided support and social programs for each other. The primary providers of this care and this support have been family and friends, philanthropists and governments. The development of physical capital, of physical wealth, has been the purview of the marketplace, of business. There has been little sharing of the strategies between these two domains.

In today's international climate of fiscal challenges, funding has become more challenging, be it for social determinants of health or for social programs more generally. As societies we continue to face many intractable social challenges.

Worldwide, in Denmark, in England, in the United States, in Australia, in New Zealand, and even in Canada, social entrepreneurs are finding new ways to approach these challenges, finding sustainable methods for funding social programs.

Some of the world's leaders in social innovation live right here in British Columbia. The Lower Mainland was recently called by the Ottawa Citizen : "The Silicon Valley of social innovation in Canada."

Many new models have been designed to ensure the development of sustainable social networks and programs. Increasingly, the world's leading social providers and service providers are melding marketplace practices with social programs to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of their impact.

The social entrepreneurs of British Columbia are world leaders. They provide services, and the people of our province are the beneficiaries. They need and deserve our support and our thanks.

FAMILY CAREGIVERS

C. Trevena: Juggling work, children, parents, housework, driving to hockey games — life is an extreme balance for many people, which is why this week we should stop, take a breath and notice that it's Family Caregiver Week from May 7 through to May 13.

Not surprisingly, women make up the majority of caregivers, and many women are in what is so aptly described as the sandwich generation, looking after the children and caring for aging parents. You may be providing care for your spouse or partner or providing care for another adult family member or friend. The person you're caring for can be elderly, in poor health or disabled and be living in his or her own home, with you or in a care facility. In some instances, it may be a child giving care for its disabled or sick parent.

Caregivers are, of course, unpaid. Looking after family, you don't usually get paid. In fact, on average it costs people as much as $300 a month, and it takes hours out of the day, leaving families stressed and overworked.

So one of the messages of this week is for people to get a better understanding of caregiving and what caregivers need. Much of what is needed is support — peer support, community support, family support. Not always government support, but that too is needed from time to time.

[ Page 6762 ]

Caregivers need information, whether it's the progress of a disease or access to services. Having information means they can make informed decisions and get the right support.

Organizations who work with caregivers providing supports are using the week to hold workshops on different aspects of caregiving. They're also using the week to help people understand that this is part of our society, that help is there and that caregivers — although they often may feel left alone to tackle problems they never thought they would face, helping people they have either loved or simply feel obliged to look after — are not alone.

[1350]

There is a network, there is help, and they do not have to be silent, unsung heroes of our homes.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR PARKS SYSTEM

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Let me first congratulate him on his new appointment.

This year British Columbians should be celebrating the 100th anniversary of our provincial park system. But instead of celebrating, they're having to endure the effects of a decade of B.C. Liberal neglect. Today freedom-of-information documents show how park rangers are being deprived of even the most basic resources they need to do their job.

My question to the Minister of Environment is simple. In light of the FOI information that presumably he's now read today, does he think B.C. park rangers have adequate resources to preserve and oversee B.C.'s park system?

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to thank the member for pointing out to everyone that we are celebrating 100 years of B.C. Parks. Many British Columbians may not realize that British Columbia has the third-largest park system in all of North America. We have 13.6 million hectares in parks and protected areas in British Columbia — almost 14 percent of our entire area in parks and protected areas.

There are 97 seasonal rangers that work at the busiest times of the year in our parks across the province. But not only that, over 700 employees of park facilities operators are on the ground every single day assisting visitors through our wonderful parks system here in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I appreciate the minister's kind comments about the NDP's record on parks. The B.C. Liberal record — less edifying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Less edifying. Let's face it. They've cut 60 percent of full-time park rangers — 60 percent cut; 25 percent cut in funding; 13 percent cut in park visits by the public. The public has been denied access to our parks.

The park rangers themselves see what's going on. The minister talks about them. They see the damage being done. Let's take Garibaldi Lake as an example. Four rangers used to monitor and protect the area. As of summer 2009 that was reduced to one. According to Parks staff — the minister's staff — this has caused "major issues with garbage removal, illegal dogs, illegal camping, damage to the park."

My question to the minister is simple. Does he think this kind of decline is acceptable?

Hon. T. Lake: Over the last ten years we have added 1.9 million hectares to parks and protected areas of B.C. In fact, over the last five years $107 million in acquisitions and improving park infrastructure…. This government knows that British Columbians appreciate their B.C. parks, and in fact, we have an 80 percent approval rate with visitors to B.C. parks.

The people of British Columbia love B.C. parks. They're happy with B.C. parks. We'll continue to improve B.C. parks as we celebrate 100 years.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

[1355]

A. Dix: Parks staff, who the minister apparently doesn't want to listen to, have made the situation very clear. There's no money to clear trails, no money for garbage removal, no money for screwing hinges to keep bridges in basic safe condition, no money for the vehicles that rangers need to respond to emergencies in the back country.

Interjection.

A. Dix: I know it's hilarious to the minister from Kamloops — not the minister, the member from Kamloops.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

[ Page 6763 ]

A. Dix: These are serious cuts to B.C.'s park system, and they have a real impact. The minister had said outside — and I'm quoting him — that there's no money tree — right?

Well, what was there money for? Well, anyone watching the Canucks game on Saturday night knows there's adequate money for the government to do TV ads that were self-congratulatory — I know there's a by-election — TV ads celebrating B.C. parks. So why is there money in the government's ad budgets to celebrate B.C. parks but no money in the government's budget for properly funded, safe parks?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I find it amazing that the opposition member would say that we shouldn't be celebrating B.C. Parks 100 and telling all of British Columbians about Parks 100. The member opposite says that people aren't going to B.C. parks. Well, in fact they are — an increase of 19 percent over the last six years. We want more and more people to go to B.C. parks.

We just removed parking fees so that families can enjoy the day use of B.C. parks, and $500,000 into a community enhancement fund, and now we are celebrating B.C. parks, telling all the British Columbians to go and have a great time this summer. Visit a B.C. park near you.

R. Fleming: The minister has just asked us to join with him in celebrating parks after ten years of neglect. The state of B.C. parks, revealed through freedom-of-information documents — hundreds of pages; I recommend he reads them — shows that the state of British Columbia parks has never been worse than it is today.

The documents reveal that basic ranger patrols don't even cover B.C. parks during the busiest times of the year. We've got a long weekend coming up on May long weekend, and that's going to be the same situation. They show that trails have overgrown across British Columbia in our parks facilities, vandalism has increased, the potential for human injury has risen. These are all staff concerns documented in correspondence between staff, back and forth on e-mail. The potential for environmental damage has increased in B.C. parks.

My question is to the Environment Minister. Instead of cute announcements about parking meters, does he think the ongoing budget cuts are an appropriate way to celebrate the 100th anniversary of B.C. Parks in our province?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm amazed the NDP would think that removing parking fees is a bad thing to do — amazing.

Did I mention the 80 percent approval rating of those people who visit B.C. parks — 14 percent…?

British Columbia has an amazing level of biodiversity — the last bastion of real biodiversity in North America. We use our parks and protected areas to make sure that that biodiversity remains. That's an area the size of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. combined — the third-largest park system in the world.

[1400]

People over on this side of the House celebrate our park system. We're celebrating 100 years, and we're proud of the men and women who support that park system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister refers to the significant announcement around parking meters. I'm glad that the new Premier has finally got around to cleaning up a mess that she was warned against when she was Deputy Premier on Treasury Board — that parking meters in parks would be a disaster. They were. There are three million less visitors to B.C. parks now than there were when she put them in, and it's about time she cleaned up her mess.

But that's not the only problem in B.C.'s parks, and the minister knows it. We're the only jurisdiction in North America other than Mississippi that doesn't have interpretive services. We expected to hear something about that.

We had an Auditor General report in 2010, just six months ago, that said that 75 percent of British Columbia's parks don't even have a management plan in place. We have species at risk in our parks that haven't even been given an inventory. We have dozens of parks that are closed to families. We have seasonal trails that are being closed, and we get an announcement about parking meters.

Well, my question to the minister was about how he's going to restore trust and confidence in his ministry amongst park rangers and conservation officers in particular. It's gotten so bad in British Columbia that today you go to a tackle and bait shop, and what do you see there? A coffee can asking for donations for their gas money. They can't even do their jobs in British Columbia today.

So the question to the minister is: will his government actually restore the funding to B.C. Parks that they have cut year after year for ten years, so that basic human and safety issues, hygiene, aren't even considered problems in B.C. parks? Will he do that in 2011, the 100th birthday of B.C. Parks?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead, Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: I was doing so well. [Laughter.]

This year we expect over 20 million people to visit British Columbia parks — 20 million people. British Columbia parks represent an enormous opportunity for British Columbia families to enjoy a very affordable vacation, for British Columbia to promote tourism all over the world.

[ Page 6764 ]

We have 97 park rangers doing a fantastic job during the busy summer season, with over 700 park facility employees on the ground ensuring that our visitors are looked after. The third-largest park system in all of North America. We're celebrating, on this side of the House, 100 years of great parks in B.C.

M. Sather: Well, this minister may be new, but he's certainly not doing so well on this parks file. I mean, he should look around a little more. Go and have a look at Golden Ears Park, the most well-used park in this province. The toilets are overflowing, the trails are closed, and the park is closed for half the year. It never used to be that way until this B.C. government came in with their mismanagement of our parks.

Looking at Garibaldi Park and the freedom-of-information document, this is what park staff had to say: "There are several impacts on Garibaldi Park and its visitors that are a direct result of lower ranger staffing levels. There are major issues with garbage removal, illegal camping and damage to the park."

Is the minister going to stand up again and defend the declining British Columbia parks, or is he going to take responsibility, apologize to the people of British Columbia and fix the problem?

Hon. T. Lake: Since 2004 the visitations to B.C. parks have increased over 9 percent — 19.5 million people. We expect over 20 million this year to visit parks like Golden Ears, where I remember going with my family when my kids were young and enjoyed the experience there, as families all over British Columbia are enjoying their experience in B.C. parks.

[1405]

Well-managed, well-run B.C. parks celebrating 100 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Well, that's a sad indictment of this government if the minister thinks that our parks are being well run. Again from the freedom of information, this is from the B.C. staff: "We did have two of four outhouses closed at Garibaldi Lake campground this season. Those toilets are full and require new holes to be dug and toilets moved. We were not able to do this project this past season due to staffing levels."

To the minister again: how are British Columbians supposed to enjoy the 100th anniversary of parks when we can't even get basic facilities like bathrooms in them?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I think lots of families will enjoy B.C. park visits this year — the day use parks particularly, where they won't have to pay any more for parking. Community groups will also be able to apply for community-enhanced fund money — up to $500,000 around the province for important projects that they think are important for their parks.

We have wonderful parks around the whole province. Wells Gray Park in my riding, where visitors from all around the world come to visit. An 80 percent approval rating from visitors — over 20 million this year. We have a first-class park system. We're protecting biodiversity. We're protecting natural values. We'll continue to do that over on this side of the House.

SCHOOL DISTRICT CARBON-NEUTRAL

REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCE

INDUSTRY EMISSIONS REDUCTION

B. Ralston: EnCana's Cabin gas plant, recently approved by the B.C. Liberal government, will produce over two million tonnes of greenhouse gases this year. This single project will increase B.C.'s total carbon emissions by more than 3 percent over 2006 levels.

School districts are forced to pay for their carbon emissions. That money is taken out of classrooms and sent to companies like EnCana, who pay nothing for their industrial emissions.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Does he think that the B.C. Liberal law forcing cash-strapped school districts to send scarce classroom dollars to energy companies like EnCana is right?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: I know that children around the province understand the importance of climate action, taking action to preserve our environment. I'm glad the NDP finally know what the children around the province have always known — that this planet is worth protecting. Carbon neutrality is a huge part of that.

Our public sector is committed to being carbon-neutral, and offsets are a big part of that. I'd like to quote the member for Juan de Fuca, who says: "I have no problem with carbon offsets — none whatsoever. I think that is a useful way for individuals, corporations, companies to do what they can to offset their emissions that they may…have."

I think that's a great quote.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: I'm sure children in classrooms understand better than this minister the importance and the ridiculousness of this particular law. Michael McEvoy, the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, has pointed out that the B.C. Liberal law that takes money from classrooms and sends it to companies like EnCana is "a scheme that doesn't make any sense."

[ Page 6765 ]

Why, as Mr. McEvoy asked, are these education dollars being sent to polluters like EnCana instead of invested in school districts to finance projects that will actually reduce emissions?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the fact is that the cost for school districts to become carbon-neutral for 2010 was about $5 million. They've received five times that amount over the last three years to reduce their energy use, to allow them to meet their carbon offset opportunities.

[1410]

Not only that, but it's amazing that the opposition would say that companies like EnCana are somehow bad for us as British Columbians, when in fact they're the ones that are providing money for schools, for hospitals and for B.C. parks. Where does the money come from?

R. Austin: Even a child could understand we don't sack a teacher to help a polluter. Even a child can figure that out. Last year the B.C. Liberal law forcing cash-strapped school districts to send money to big polluters like EnCana stripped up to $6 million from classrooms.

My question is to the Education Minister. Does he really think that the district should be financing big polluters like EnCana at a time when they are struggling to find resources for classrooms?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the fact is that resource revenue in this province supports schools, supports hospitals and supports B.C. parks.

I know that the opposition members opposed the carbon tax. They've reversed their position on that. It sounds to me like they're against carbon neutrality in terms of government operations. We are for carbon neutrality. We are the first government in all of North America to be carbon-neutral, something the children of this province can be, rightly, very proud of.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: School districts are excited about the opportunity to shrink their carbon emissions. Yet instead of providing them the means to do so, the B.C. Liberals are financing EnCana, using money cut from classrooms.

Again, my question is to the Education Minister. When will he stand up for districts and end the practice of sending classroom dollars to gas companies like EnCana?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the members opposite voted against cap-and-trade legislation, they voted against the carbon tax, and they voted against clean energy projects. So I'm not surprised they're against carbon neutrality.

The fact is that funding for education has gone up every single year, despite what the member opposite claims. That financial commitment to education on the part of the government on this side of the House is funded in large part by the resource industries of this province who are making steps to reduce their carbon footprint in a way that makes sense. In fact, the goals are very well aligned with leadership — something that member opposite wouldn't understand.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North. [Applause.]

B. Simpson: Very gracious of both sides to recognize me standing — some, anyway.

The issue here is not about what is trying to be accomplished. The issue is about how. As a result of budget constraints in school district 27, Big Lake School will have to put eight grades in one classroom four days a week. That includes three full-day kindergarten students and special needs students. Yet school district 27 must transfer $87,000, which is supposed to be going to classrooms, to the Pacific Carbon Trust to go to EnCana, cement factories and hotels.

My question to the Minister of Education…. It looks like he's wanting to leap at it. Is this the fairest way to achieve carbon neutrality in this province and the public sector? Is it fair?

[1415]

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the question from the independent NDP member on this important issue. It is important to note, I think, that…. At least up until recently I understood that the NDP was opposed to the carbon tax, opposed to cap-and-trade and generally opposed to all of the climate change legislation and initiative that the government had undertaken.

I thought I heard from the now Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, some of the other remarkably capable candidates for that position that the NDP had moved to a different position with respect to carbon tax and with respect to climate change, that they were now going to be embracing the commitment, the initiative, the drive of this government to fight climate change. Yet today I hear some recidivism with respect to that. It appears that already, before they had even fully embraced it, their enthusiasm is beginning to flag.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: It's unfortunate that this kind of rhetoric occurs here, rather than dealing with the substance of the issues. This is a patently unfair structure to do what is a laudable outcome. The school districts would love to be able to achieve carbon neutrality. We would love to see EnCana and others be able to be supported to get their greenhouse gas emissions down. That's not the issue.

[ Page 6766 ]

The issue is whether or not classrooms, health authorities, universities ought to be the ones that bear the burden of the private sector's ability to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. School districts would love to become carbon-neutral, with the support of this government as well.

So my question, again, to the minister…. If he's talking to the people in his ministry, he knows that they're very upset about this. Municipalities are allowed to self-fund or buy carbon offsets. Wouldn't it make more sense if schools and other public agencies would be allowed to self-fund projects first — to get their emissions down, get cost efficiencies, get cost reductions — and then use the extra to pay to the trust, if there's extra? Would the minister please comment on whether a fair deal could be given to school districts as well?

Hon. G. Abbott: I first should note that overall funding for education in this province has never been higher. In fact, it is up 41 percent, from $4.1 billion to $5.8 billion, over the ten years that we have been in government. That is a huge increase.

Further, this member — this so-called independent NDP member — makes, I think, a very specious connection between carbon offsets and EnCana. That is a false connection. It is entirely specious. These members, this opposition, this NDP had no commitment to fighting climate change. They have no commitment.

If they have a commitment, they would step up and they would join the students across this province in embracing the fight against climate change. They wouldn't turn around and at the first opportunity say: "Oh, school districts don't need to be a part of fighting climate change. They should be exempt." The students of this province would very much disagree.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

AND VANCOUVER ISLAND UNIVERSITY

M. Mungall: Post-secondary institutions are faced with rising enrolments, but funding just hasn't kept pace. Vancouver Island University had to make significant budget cuts this year because the B.C. Liberals refused to back up their rhetoric on post-secondary education with sufficient funding. But last week the minister insisted to the media that everything at VIU is just fine and that they should just make do.

[1420]

Does the minister have any better plan to address B.C.'s post-secondary future than contradicting schools and telling students to drink less coffee?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Ensuring that our students have access to the best-quality post-secondary education in this country is a priority for this government. We have made record investments in post-secondary education in the last ten years.

I'll just give you some of these numbers: $21.8 billion — that's the amount of money that we've invested in post-secondary education in B.C. since 2001; 56 percent — that is the increase in annual funding for universities since 2001; $1.9 billion — that is the annual funding that we are providing to the post-secondary sector in B.C. this year.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House we will be doing committee stage of Bill 5, intituled the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act, and in Committee A we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 5 — new west partnership

trade agreement implementation Act

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

section 1.

J. Kwan: Question 1 of Bill 5, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act, deals with the definition. In the definition, of course, it brings forward the term "Agreement," which refers to the new west partnership trade agreement itself. I'm wondering if the minister, first of all, could tell us: in this agreement, what kind of consultation work did the ministry do in getting the agreement to the stage where we're at now?

Hon. P. Bell: This agreement is largely similar to the TILMA agreement, and of course there were extensive consultations that took place during that process.

However, that said, there were further consultations on this particular agreement, not to the depth that was done during TILMA, because that would have been repetitive, but with organizations such as the CFIB, the B.C. Business Council, chambers of commerce, Vancouver Board of Trade — those sorts of groups, different industry associations. The consultation process was lighter than it was under TILMA, reflecting the fact that this agreement is much the same as the TILMA agreement, adding Saskatchewan.

J. Kwan: The minister said that it's lighter than TILMA. Now let me ask the minister this: was this brought to the attention of UBCM, for example? Did they comment on it, and if so, what did they say?

[ Page 6767 ]

Hon. P. Bell: I should just identify that I am joined by several officials here: my exec director, Don White; Guy Gensey, who is responsible for the bulk of the consultation work that went on; as well as Russell Getz, who is with the Attorney General's ministry.

UBCM consultations took place at an officials level. Again, the thinking was that this work was done largely during the TILMA negotiations. But at an officials level, yes.

J. Kwan: I think the minister said the "officials level." That would be with staff — is that correct? And what was that exchange?

Hon. P. Bell: The discussion was at an officials level or a staff level, if you will, and it was an ongoing discussion through the process.

J. Kwan: Could the minister enlighten us as to: what concerns did they bring to the table?

Hon. P. Bell: There were primarily two issues that came up, although there were some other kinds of residual issues as well. The two primary ones were the procurement issue and then the coverage of the agreement, including municipalities. Other kinds of residual issues that came up were to do with the European Union negotiation, which is ongoing right now, and some of the U.S.-Canada agreements, but they weren't deemed to impact this agreement in any way.

[1430]

J. Kwan: Yes, so the issues were around procurement and the coverage of local government itself in the agreement. Could the minister please advise what exchange took place between officials at the UBCM level, at the local government level, with the ministry in addressing those concerns?

Hon. P. Bell: The bulk of the issues that were identified were similar to issues that had originally been raised under the TILMA discussion and were dealt with at that level originally in the TILMA discussion. So that was where the bulk of the issues were raised. I understand that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities actually has adopted some of the principles behind this agreement as well.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please be more specific? Let's just go with the procurement issues. How did the ministry address those concerns on the procurement issues?

Hon. P. Bell: The issues identified around procurement were dealt with by increasing the thresholds for local communities. So the communities, in fact, have higher thresholds for procurement than do Crown corporations or ministries.

J. Kwan: Is the minister talking about the…? I have the agreement in front of me, so I'm just going to check the numbers.

Under the agreement,

article 14 on procurement practices, it refers to "regional, local, district and other forms of municipal government; school boards; publicly funded academic, health and social service entities; as well as any corporation or entity owned or controlled by one or more of the preceding entities where the procurement value is (i) $75,000 or greater for goods, (ii) $75,000 or greater for services or (iii) $200,000 or greater for construction."

Are those the numbers that the minister is talking about? I suspect that they are, because that's probably why they're in the agreement. If those are the numbers indeed, what were they before? Were they the ones that were utilized for Crown corporations? Were those the numbers that were being contemplated, and as a result of the consultation, the amount got increased accordingly for local governments?

Hon. P. Bell: The original recommendation was the same as that for departments or ministries. That is $10,000 or greater for goods. In fact, the agreement shows $75,000 or greater for goods; $75,000 or greater for services, which remain the same at services; and under ministry, department, agency, boards, $100,000 or greater for construction. Municipalities have been set at double that, at $200,000. The original threshold was the one listed under sub (a).

[1435]

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister could advise. For local governments, is the minister now saying that as a result of the change in the threshold dollars, local governments no longer have any concerns regarding this agreement on procurement practices?

Hon. P. Bell: While I'm sure the member opposite would be able to find a community somewhere that might disagree with the thresholds, the Union of B.C. Municipalities has in fact signed off on the thresholds as they're identified in the agreement.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Could the minister please repeat that?

Hon. P. Bell: While I'm sure the member opposite could find a community somewhere that disagrees with the thresholds as established or even the principle behind it, the Union of B.C. Municipalities has signed off on the level of thresholds that are contained in this agreement.

[ Page 6768 ]

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister, in the conversation with local governments — or the ministry, in that discussion with local governments — has a sense of…. What is the average value of a procurement contract by local governments in the areas of goods and services and construction?

Hon. P. Bell: The staff-level people that we dealt with did not identify averages, and I'm sure that depending on what community it is, it could be quite different.

For the member's home community of Vancouver, clearly some of those numbers, I would think, would be much higher by the nature of the business that they do. For one of the communities located in my riding, Mackenzie, I suspect they'd be much lower. So I'm not sure that averages would be useful in this case.

In any event, the Union of B.C. Municipalities seems content with the levels that were established in the agreement, and on that basis, we move forward.

J. Kwan: The sign-off on the procurement issue. Was that signed off by an executive member of UBCM? Who signed off on that, and when was that done?

Hon. P. Bell: To the best of our knowledge, the staff at UBCM were provided the authority by the executive to sign the agreement. So it is a staff signature on the agreement, but I don't think that's unusual. In fact, the northwest transmission line environmental assessment was just signed by a federal staff person, and that was a significant decision that was signed by ministers here in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: When was that done?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have the exact date with us here, but we believe it was late 2007.

J. Kwan: So it was late 2007, and this is now brought before us in 2011. Would that be, then, part of the consultation that took place with Alberta TILMA, separate and apart from this, or there's specific discussion with respect to this piece of legislation, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act?

[1440]

Hon. P. Bell: I hope I made this clear earlier, but if not, the primary bulk of the detailed consultation with UBCM and with others took place during the TILMA agreement. This agreement mirrors the TILMA agreement, so the consultation that took place here was simply going back and reaffirming with UBCM and other organizations that the thresholds and the like that had been set were still appropriate.

The determination of the thresholds was done as part of the TILMA agreement, and that was reaffirmed as a result of the consultation to do with the new west partnership agreement.

J. Kwan: Does the minister, somewhere in the ministry, have the threshold, whether it be average dollars or median costs to a contract, in these areas across different communities across B.C.? Would the minister have that information in the ministry? If so, could the minister please provide that information to the House?

Hon. P. Bell: While this ministry doesn't have that data available, we do think it's likely that Ministry of Finance would have that data, and we would be happy to try and research that out. However, it may take some degree of time in order to collect that, so I would hope that the member would give us the leeway to do that as time allows.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate that very much. I'll be interested. I'm not sure how detailed that information would be in the Ministry of Finance. It might be a community-by-community type of format, or it could be a regional format. But I would appreciate as much detail as the minister could gather from the Ministry of Finance on this.

Now, that's in the area of procurement practices by way of the threshold question. Let me just ask an example. Would this agreement stop local food service contracts — for example, for a B.C. food–first sort of direction? For example, if the threshold is over the amount prescribed in the act, would that stop this kind of initiative from taking place in B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: As with many things in life, the answer is often yes and no. So the answer to that question is: if the product is to be resold…. As an example, if a school was to be selecting fruit to be resold through its cafeteria to the students, they could specify a specific product, location. Saanich Peninsula grapes could be on the list. But if it was not to be resold, then it would restrict it and it would require an open procurement process.

J. Kwan: Let's just take this further by way of an example. We have a school system whereby the local school cafeterias would buy various agricultural products. Then they would produce it into some sort of meal or food item to sell to the students, so it would be resold in that context. In that instance….

For example, local governments decided to go forward with a local food service type of initiative for their school district. Would this agreement apply then, and would that threshold apply to them?

[1445]

Hon. P. Bell: Under the circumstance that the member opposite describes, those products would be exempt.

[ Page 6769 ]

They could specify the location where the products were to come from or in some other way prescribe what the product is. So it would be exempted from this agreement.

J. Kwan: Would that be the case also for hospitals? Let's just start with that.

Hon. P. Bell: As with many things in life, that's yes and no, because if it is to be resold, in fact, it would be exempted. So if it was a hospital cafeteria or vending machine or something of that nature, it would be exempted. If it were to be given away for free, then you would fall under the procurement process if it exceeded $75,000 in value.

J. Kwan: What about in the instance of daily meals to patients in the hospitals?

Hon. P. Bell: As with many things in life…. Sorry, that line is probably getting tired but, however, is probably true again.

In the circumstance that the member describes, I would have to answer that question on a contract-specific basis, because I can imagine circumstances under which it would be exempted. I can also imagine circumstances under which it wouldn't be exempted. So the question that the member asks doesn't have enough detail around it to be able to provide a firm yes or no.

Again, just as a general rule of thumb, if the product is being resold in some way, then it is exempted. If it is not being resold, then it would be required to fall under this. Again, the threshold of $75,000 would apply for that particular item.

J. Kwan: Actually, in that last instance, where patients in hospitals…. I've been a patient before. You're in a hospital bed, and your meals come. You have these little sheets of paper asking you what you would like for breakfast, lunch and dinner. You as a patient don't pay per se for those particular meals. They just come as part of the hospital service for patients that are there.

In that specific instance, with those kinds of contracts, where those meals are being served to the patients in various hospitals across British Columbia, would they be exempt or would they be included in this agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: In the case that the member opposite describes, I suspect that they would be included and captured under this agreement.

J. Kwan: Is that the case also for seniors homes, for example? In the case of seniors homes, it's a little bit complicated. I'm anticipating the minister's answer that he has been diligently putting forward in this set of debates, and that is a yes and no answer together.

I'm talking about in the seniors home, where you do pay for the services yourself. You're purchasing a service in this particular seniors home. Purchasing that service in the seniors home, it comes with the meals as part of that service. So as part of that service…. These are organizations — or seniors homes, if you will — that are managed by the provincial government or a local government. In those instances where the meals are served, would they be included in this agreement or would they be exempt?

Hon. P. Bell: This is going to be a bit complicated again, I think, so I'll try and go into it in some detail.

In most circumstances in a seniors facility, where the senior is paying for that service, it would be considered to be purchased by the senior and therefore would be exempted.

[1450]

But there's actually a second tier, or lens, that comes to bear here, and that is that a private contractor typically will contract that food delivery service. Once that private contractor has contracted that food delivery service, they're free to make whatever procurement decisions they choose to make.

That would also apply in a hospital. So if a hospital contractor, a private contractor, acquired the contractual responsibility to deliver food services in a hospital, that contractor would then be free, if they chose to, to only purchase a B.C. product, as an example. That would be an acceptable thing for that contractor to do.

They're not bound by the agreement once they've entered into the contract. The actual agreement revolves around the contract being available to the broader private sector in the three provinces combined.

In the example that the member was asking previously, specific to procurement of food products, that is largely only relevant in circumstances where the hospital provides its own food services, which does occur. There is a mix of service providers. So I think the answer to the member opposite's question is that on the seniors home example, to the best of our knowledge, they would be exempted from the requirement under the new west partnership agreement.

J. Kwan: Presumably, local governments would have raised the issues around various other economic development initiatives — often, particularly, in small communities, for sure, but not just in small communities — where you would want to engage in a practice that encourages and supports local economic development activities for those communities.

Can the minister, then, shed some light on what economic development initiatives would be exempt from this agreement? Or conversely, what would be included in this agreement, aside from the threshold issue?

[ Page 6770 ]

Hon. P. Bell: There are three such circumstances that we are aware of here. The first is if there is a specific public policy objective around the procurement of a service or a good, and those are listed — what those policy objectives are. They're around public safety and security — those sorts of things — and they're listed in the agreement.

The second is if it can be demonstrated that there is only a single potential supplier for a particular good or service and that there is no reasonable cause for you to go outside, knowing that there is only that single potential supplier.

The third is under emergency situations where it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to deal with the situation in an expedited fashion. An example of that might be a roof caving in on an arena that needed to be fixed or secured. The local jurisdiction would be able to go ahead and direct-award that or award it on a local basis if they so chose.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please define the word "local"?

[1455]

Hon. P. Bell: Well, this maybe isn't the best definition the member opposite is looking for, but it's under

part 6 of

definitions. It is sub (c), which says: "Regional, local, district or other forms of municipal government, as well as any corporation or entity owned or controlled by any such form of municipal government."

J. Kwan: Okay, so there are procurement practices issues. I know that there are other members of the House who would want to get into some specific areas of the agreement. I'm going to sort of just plow along, and then they'll signal me when they want to jump in with respect to this set of debate.

Okay, so that's on procurement practices. Now I'd like to ask the minister questions around other areas that local government might have expressed concerns about with respect to this agreement. Are there any other areas on which local governments have brought up issues and concerns? Also with respect to this, aside from UBCM, did the ministry consult with the B.C. School Trustees Association and the various health authorities?

Hon. P. Bell: To the first question, I had mentioned earlier, in a previous answer, that the coverage of municipalities was another issue that was flagged. To the second question, groups like BCSTA, others, the health authorities…. We had informal discussions with them, but again, the detailed discussions were held previously at the TILMA level.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, with BCSTA, the discussions were at the TILMA level. Were they informed, then, when this agreement was brought forward that it's going to be signed off? Are they aware of this prior to the agreement being signed off?

Hon. P. Bell: I need to correct the record.

My previous answer, I think, will show that I said that we had informal discussions with BCSTA, health authorities and the like around the new west partnership. In fact, I'm informed that it's not the case. We did not have those discussions. Those discussions were all held at the original TILMA process, and that was deemed to be sufficient. So I just want to correct and make sure that's understood.

[1500]

J. Kwan: Yeah, that actually raises concerns for me, to be sure, because the BCSTA raised concerns around the TILMA agreement. Now we're sort of moving and plowing ahead with further agreements, as well, in this instance — the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Before we get too far along in this area, my colleague the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows actually has some questions around procurement practices. I'm going to defer the floor to him at this time, and then we'll come back to further discussion around this issue.

M. Sather: I just want to ask the minister a question about…. Under appendix 1, the transitional measures for Saskatchewan under

article 14 on procurement, it says that it does not apply to Crown corporations until July 1, 2012. That's the transitional period then — right?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

M. Sather: So after that date, the in-effect date, procurement of Crown corporations is not exempted in any way from this agreement, then.

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

M. Sather: So that would be for Saskatchewan. I'm just trying to understand the agreement, and I have gone through TILMA quite a bit too. Why does the agreement bother to do that? Why have a two-year transition period when it's going to come into effect anyway? Why not just make it happen right off the bat?

Hon. P. Bell: It's actually just over a year, given that it's May 9, 2011, today. To July 1, 2012, is 13½ or 14 months. But in addition, the member opposite will recall that in the TILMA agreement Alberta and B.C. had a two-year transitional process which allowed for Crowns and others to adopt the new responsibilities that they had in their procurement and other purchasing services. That would mirror the decision here to provide some time for

[ Page 6771 ]

transitional processes, with the new province coming in being the province of Saskatchewan.

G. Gentner: Just a very simple question to back up on this to the minister. If I have it correct that the whole modus operandi of the new west partnership is something to find economies of scale, so to speak, in the procurement orders in order to lower costs, can the minister agree or disagree? Is that not the basic premise in all this?

Hon. P. Bell: That is one of two central themes behind this agreement. The other central theme behind this agreement and TILMA was to allow B.C.-based companies to do business in Alberta originally, and now Alberta and Saskatchewan, on a competitive basis without any cross-border barriers. Of course, the reciprocal of that also applies.

G. Gentner: Indeed, that is the general premise, so to speak. Wouldn't it be easier to promote international trade through the greatest economies of scale to be achieved by all Canadians by combining your efforts through the federal government?

[1505]

Hon. P. Bell: I think it's a bit cynical to try and advocate for free trade internationally when we don't have it internally within Canada. This has been a longstanding agenda item when the Premiers meet, and B.C. decided to move forward with Alberta initially. Saskatchewan saw the results and wanted to partner and become part of that process. Certainly, British Columbia would welcome other provinces that were interested in joining the elimination of internal trade barriers.

While I agree with the member's assertion that international trade is also critical, and certainly we are open and eager to participate in other negotiations that the federal government may take forward on free trade agreements with other jurisdictions, within our control is simply the ability to manage our interprovincial trade relationships and eliminate barriers.

G. Gentner: Is the minister suggesting that he's given up on the partnership of Canada? Manitoba is sort of seen as a western province. How do you do the arbitrary decision to just include three provinces?

Hon. P. Bell: The initial agreement…. I was actually quite involved, when I was Minister of Agriculture and Lands from 2005 to 2008, in trying to remove interprovincial trade barriers.

Various provinces have different views on agricultural subsidies and how that's managed. Initially, B.C. and Alberta found themselves in alignment in their view around a free and open market relationship with the two provinces. Once Saskatchewan saw the results, they expressed an interest in becoming part of it.

We would be open to and embrace other provinces such as Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and certainly the territories to become part of this relationship as well. We would be honoured by the fact that there may be other provinces interested in joining with us.

J. Kwan: The minister said there were no specific consultations with the BCSTA or health authorities. I'm wondering if the minister can provide me with a specific list, then, on who was actually consulted for this agreement.

I know that he referred to some of the groups that were consulted for the Alberta TILMA agreement at the time. Then subsequently in the case of UBCM, there was a refer back to the representative from UBCM on this issue related specifically to this agreement.

In that instance, I would be interested in actually getting a list from the minister specifically on who was consulted, specifically related to this agreement and not just on the assumption that there was consultation done when the Alberta TILMA agreement was brought in place.

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, I would be happy to provide that, but it will take some time to put together.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that. Presumably, it will be perhaps a long list or a short list. As the minister is compiling that list, could I ask his ministry to also provide this information — the comments that were made from the folks that were consulted? In other words, how do they feel about this agreement? What comments did they offer? I'd be interested in getting that information as well.

Hon. P. Bell: We'll provide an outline of the general comments received.

J. Kwan: Last but not least, if the minister could also provide the timeline on when this discussion took place, I would appreciate that as well.

Hon. P. Bell: To the best of our ability, we will — again, not knowing exactly what we have sitting here right now. But certainly, we'll do our best to provide that.

[1510]

The Chair: Shall

section 1 pass?

J. Kwan: Not quite yet, Madam Chair. Yes, further questions with respect to this.

I'd like to actually move to another area, and that would be on the question of exemptions. The agreement provides for exemptions of certain areas to be included in the agreement, so I'd like to canvass that with the minister a little bit.

[ Page 6772 ]

I know that, for example, the Saskatchewan government talked a lot, prior to signing off on this agreement, about the desire to exempt Crown corporations. Yet I see that in the agreement itself Crown corporations are not exempt, except for some of the guidelines that have been put forward around the threshold.

I wonder if the minister can enlighten us around those discussions and what happened there in terms of the issue related to Crown corporations.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite is quite correct. Saskatchewan's initial position in the discussions was to exempt their Crowns from the new west partnership agreement. As we went through the negotiations, they came to the conclusion that an open procurement process was preferable and chose to sign on with a transitional process.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The member says he just gave a great answer. And you're right. In the spirit of cooperation here, I will take his word for it, and I won't challenge him on that.

On this agreement, on the exemptions and related to Crown corporations, because it was one of the areas which caused the previous discussions with Saskatchewan to sign on to TILMA — and now with, I would argue, partial provisions to address Crown corporations…. When did that change with the Saskatchewan government?

In other words, exactly at what point in the discussion with the Saskatchewan government did it change, that they were willing to sign on? Even though, substantively, this agreement is essentially the same as that of the Alberta government, there's really been not that much change — no change, I would argue. So at what point did that sort of switch over?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite will appreciate that there were a number of issues that were ongoing during the negotiation on a variety of items. One of them was the Crown corporation issue. My staff certainly are willing to go back in their notes and try and find a date when we first became aware that it was no longer a key issue from the perspective of Saskatchewan and that they were prepared to sign on with the Crowns, but we don't have that level of detail here with us right now.

[1515]

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can confirm for me, then, that this agreement, the new west partnership trade agreement…. The provisions, as they relate to Crown corporations — how do they differ from the Alberta TILMA agreement? I just want to get it on the public record if they are different at all.

Hon. P. Bell: There is no substantive difference.

J. Kwan: That is by far the best answer that the minister gave so far in this set of estimates.

I just wanted to…

Interjection.

J. Kwan: That was last week.

...cross my i's and dot my t's and make sure that I'm not misreading the agreement and that my memory is not faulty in remembering the Alberta TILMA agreement.

Okay, so we got that sorted out on the Crown corporations.

There is another area about which I know there are some concerns, and that would be local procurements. Actually, we just touched on local procurements a little bit earlier.

Could the minister also put on the public record for me how the issues around local procurements for this agreement, the new west partnership trade agreement, differ from that of the Alberta TILMA agreement? I'm assuming the answer is that there are no substantive differences, but I'd like to get the minister to confirm that on the public record.

Hon. P. Bell: The member assumes correctly.

G. Gentner: Just let me segue right into the Crown corporations, and then I'll surrender the chair to my dear friend from Cariboo North. My understanding of the agreement is that it does not apply to any corporation, partnership established, owned or controlled by either the Alberta Investment Management Corporation or the B.C. Investment Management Corporation, and there is no similar exemption for the Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan. Do I have that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding is that the organization in Saskatchewan is set up differently, and the exemption was not deemed to be required for them, versus the exemption provided to BCIMC or the Alberta investment management organization. My understanding is that it was covered off, it was discussed, but it was not deemed to be required, given the construction of the investment model in Saskatchewan.

G. Gentner: I take it, therefore, that this is one of the examples where the ministry referred to this as TILMA-lite. It just doesn't include those types of Crown corporations from the province of Saskatchewan.

I raise it because on November 10, 2009, sometime thereafter the three provinces got together and decided to discuss a joint regional plan relative to a pension plan. The three organizations I just gave examples of could be used, through consultation, to develop such a plan.

[ Page 6773 ]

Could the minister explain to me: can this TILMA-lite in any way harmonize the standards relative to a pension system for all three provinces?

[1520]

Hon. P. Bell: Pensions and pension plans are outside the scope of the agreement. However, given the nature of the relationship that is developed as a result of the agreement, the agreement could lead to a model where the three provinces chose to work collaboratively to provide a better pension model for their respective jurisdictions. It's outside of scope, but conceivably, given the nature of the agreement and the way the three provinces are working together, it may be possible to see the three provinces develop something that would work for their respective constituent groups.

G. Gentner: I take it then, hon. Chair, that this TILMA-lite or new west partnership creates sort of a

preamble, if you will, to develop a supplementary pension plan amongst the three provinces.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't think the member accurately describes what I said. I simply said that the fact that there is a relationship between the three provinces could lead to an opportunity where they could negotiate something. However, the agreement itself does not refer to any sort of pension management organization, nor is that specific work contemplated in the agreement.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could advise me whether

part V, "Exceptions," under subsection A, general exceptions to the agreement: "Measures adopted or maintained relating to aboriginal peoples." Does this section, therefore, preclude treatied local Indian governments from the agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the

section does not consider the difference between a treaty or non-treaty First Nation, so the exemption would apply regardless of whether the First Nation was in or not in treaty.

V. Huntington: So it doesn't take into account a treaty that requires an Indian government to be subject to the general provisions of the laws of British Columbia. It exempts them from that, an actual local Indian government.

Hon. P. Bell: This agreement, the new west partnership agreement, in no way requires the Tsawwassen First Nation or any First Nation to participate in this agreement.

[1525]

However, I am not as current as the member opposite on the Tsawwassen agreement. There may be a clause in the Tsawwassen agreement that requires them to participate in this or other types of procurement agreements — which would, then, require them to participate — but this agreement by itself does not impose that on a treaty First Nation. I hope that's clear. This agreement itself would not require that. There may be something in the treaty that would require that participation, though.

V. Huntington:

Article 14 of the treaty, then, under "Procurement," subsection (c). You're saying that because local Indian government isn't included in that section, then they're excepted, you believe.

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

B. Simpson: Maybe the minister needs to move down to our end so that he's seen all the time and it's more direct conversation — either that or a little button.

I want to continue with the exemptions, and as a general question, I'm just curious about how the range of exemptions was canvassed. Of course, the intent of the agreement is to try and get some sort of level-playing-field agreement — you know, the unrestricted trade as well as the ability to have all three provinces operate together. Then, of course, you bind the agreement by listing a whole bunch of exemptions to continue to have the public policy initiatives that you want to have in your own province.

To start that off, I have some specific questions, but how is the range of exemptions arrived at?

Hon. P. Bell: The exceptions were largely modelled after the interprovincial agreement on internal trade that other provinces have signed, with the exception of Nunavut. That's where the exemptions came from.

The remaining components of the agreement on internal trade are not as strong, of course, as this. That's the benefit of this agreement. The exemptions were largely modelled after the agreement on internal trade.

B. Simpson: Was there any attempt to take a look at that as a framework and say that there are areas that we may need to upgrade, given that our business climate is changing, given that some of the dynamics within the province are changing? Was there any process that actually looked at those and said: "Let's update them a little bit to reflect more current realities"?

Hon. P. Bell: The agreement on internal trade, as I said earlier, was used as the framework to model these exemptions, but the work that the member opposite was suggesting is exactly what was done. In fact, it was only used as a framework, and then improvements were made to the exemptions on internal trade into this agreement.

[ Page 6774 ]

B. Simpson: I won't canvass the details of that, because the critic for this has tried to scope out what the range of consultations was.

[1530]

Now that these exemptions are in the agreement, if there are areas of public policy that do shift, what would the process be for changing these exemptions, either adding or deleting or changing some of the language in the exemptions?

Hon. P. Bell: The process is that annually ministers convene, the ministers responsible for the act. If there are any further exemptions or changes necessary, they're tabled at that meeting for officials to work on, and then changes would be made by agreement of the three parties.

B. Simpson: I guess there's the rub in trying to get a free trade arrangement with those parties, to giving those parties the ability to constrain public policy changes by, as the minister has indicated, trying to get agreement. I have a couple of examples where I think there may be some traps in there.

Just one for clarification. On one of the exemptions under "Government Procurement,"

section 2(

f) there, "entities which operate sporting or convention facilities, in order to respect a commercial agreement." That isn't compatible with the other areas around procurement in the actual agreement itself.

I was wondering if the minister could explain why that explicit exemption is in the agreement.

Hon. P. Bell: The member may or may not have been in the House earlier on when we were talking about the example of food services being contracted out and the ability to specify a local producer for a food product. The point of difference largely came around resale of that product, and it's a very similar situation here.

These facilities that are being referred to typically, in many cases, are publicly owned facilities that have been contracted out to a private provider, and the contract period could be for a very long period of time. The private provider is not bound by the agreement in the sense that they're allowed to enter into commercial relationships as they see fit. That would be why this exemption applies and why it exists here.

B. Simpson: Under the exemption

section D, "Energy and Minerals," there are two sections to this. One has to do with measures adopted for mineral resources and conservation of energy or mineral resources. The second is promoting renewable and alternative energy.

I'm just curious. On the oil and gas sector, as the minister well knows, we're in a position where often we're in direct competition with Alberta on how royalties and subsidies are structured. It looks like we're going to go through another round where Alberta and B.C. are going to have to play off of each other for the limited amount of money that's around there, particularly in shale bed and coal bed finds.

How would that work in terms of having the exemption? Does it require the parties to come together and discuss what they're doing and to get sign-off, even though the exemption may exist? Do they still have to get sign-off to make any substantive changes to public policy with respect to minerals or oil and gas exploration or development?

[1535]

Hon. P. Bell: The member points to

section D of the agreement, "Energy and Minerals," with two sections and three subsections. I think they're reasonably self-explanatory in terms of the nature of what they exempt.

There's another thing that's important for the member opposite to know, and that is that royalties on minerals or energy products are exempted. Therefore, should one jurisdiction or another choose to have a different royalty regime for a specific mineral or energy resource, they are able to do that without having to consult with another jurisdiction or without coming to any sort of agreement, because royalties are specifically exempted.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister. I was aware of the exemption. I just wasn't sure if there was something that compelled some sort of consultation. Thank you for that clarification.

The next

section I'd like to look at under exemptions is the whole

section on regional economic development. Again, the minister has this as part of his ministerial portfolio. I know he's very well aware, because he comes from the same part of the country as I do, that we've got some areas of the province that are going to go through significant transition — the mountain pine beetle in our area. The northwest is going through transition as it struggles with what it is going to do with its fibre resource, etc.

I guess in this case it starts talking about "regional economic development measures, provided that such measures (

a) are only adopted or maintained under exceptional circumstances." I'm curious how that gets defined. Is that a negotiated agreement on what's exceptional, or does one of the parties — i.e., the province of British Columbia — just simply say that this is an exceptional circumstance; therefore, we are going to do X on regional economic development?

Hon. P. Bell: A couple of things. The first one is that exceptional circumstances need to be time-bound or time-constrained. They can't be a permanent decision. Exceptional circumstances are declared by the governing

[ Page 6775 ]

jurisdiction. If it was in British Columbia and Quesnel was defined as an exceptional circumstance, the province of British Columbia would declare that. If Saskatchewan and/or Alberta didn't believe that that was a fair description, then the dispute resolution mechanism would be used, which is defined in the agreement.

B. Simpson: Just so I'm clear on that point about the time sensitivity, with something like the mountain pine beetle where there's a long time horizon, is the minister indicating that time sensitivity is more of a short time horizon in order to avoid dispute resolution? We may have to have, as the minister knows, a three- or a five-year regional economic development initiative in order to get some of those communities over the hump. Is three to five years too long, given the time constraints the minister is indicating may exist?

Hon. P. Bell: Although the notion of an exceptional circumstance is time-constrained in that it can't be a permanent program or decision, there is no specific time bounding around it. The termination of that declaration would occur when the circumstances change. So in a mountain pine beetle situation, it could be much more than three to five years even.

[1540]

Again, if the other jurisdiction disagreed with that perspective, there is the dispute resolution mechanism that is used in order to resolve that difference.

B. Simpson: It's more the issue of permanence than the time constraint, as long as it doesn't appear to be permanent.

There are two aspects of this — I'll kind of roll them into one for the minister — that I struggle with, with respect to this deal. That is that it's kind of normal practice in regional economic development to do a couple of things — to do local procurement as a strategy to foster local contractors, to build your own internal economy, if you will, in the community. Of course, this has significant restrictions on local procurement.

Is there any opportunity for local procurement to be waived? It doesn't appear that it does, given the descriptions, but I just want clarification from the minister.

If a region decides that one of the best things they can do is really make sure that they enable the local economy to get whatever the dollars are for municipalities, school districts or whatever and want a local procurement policy as part of the regional economic development initiative, is that explicitly forbidden under this trade agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: I have had the unique opportunity as one of the MLAs to have to deal with difficult economic circumstances in the community of Mackenzie. When I look at both the regional economic development clauses as well as the overall procurement thresholds, I have confidence that we would have been able to deliver for Mackenzie in the way that we did without having this particular agreement hamper us in any way. I think the agreement wouldn't have stood in the way of us in terms of the direction we took.

Also, of course, there are the base thresholds that apply regardless. Those base thresholds often, in the case of a small or mid-sized community looking to implement economic development initiatives, would be sufficient to allow for locally procured contracts on an exceptional basis.

Also, if the community were to declare emergency or exceptional circumstances, then of course they'd have the right to do that as well. So there are a couple of tools in the agreement.

As a general rule of thumb, the principle is we're trying to encourage communities as well as provinces to open up procurement so that the contractor in Mackenzie has the ability to work in Grande Prairie and garner the work that is available to them there — which, of course, in that particular circumstance means a much higher level of work availability than would have existed in Mackenzie. So it does cut both ways. We want our contractors to be able to work in other provinces. In order to do that, of course, there's a quid pro quo that comes with that.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point that it cuts both ways, but from the perspective of public policy in B.C., our responsibility is to make sure that British Columbia gets the benefit of the way that it gets cut. It's my understanding that lots of contractors I know — fabricating contracts, etc. — in Quesnel do work in Alberta and Saskatchewan without this agreement. So I'm not sure that the agreement was necessary for our contractors to work in other provinces.

There's another aspect of regional economic development in the exemptions, and the exemptions specifically state that regional economic development measures must be consistent with

article 12(1).

Article 12(1) states that parties shall not directly or indirectly provide business subsidies that provide an advantage to an enterprise that results in material injury to one of the parties, "(

b) entice or assist the relocation of an enterprise from the other party, or (

c) otherwise distort investment decisions."

[1545]

Yet again, part of economic development within the regions is to do some of those things, to create an enticement for a business to locate in your area, to try to attract head offices or regional branch plants or various other things to your area. That is a legitimate tool in regional economic development.

Again, are we not constraining ourselves in this deal with…? It was supposed to be freer trade, but what we're doing now is handcuffing some of our areas that would like to be able to use enticements to actually distort, if

[ Page 6776 ]

you will, investment decisions in their favour. Does this not constrain that and take that away from economic development in some of our regions?

Hon. P. Bell: Since 2001 our government has had a principle of no company-specific subsidies. That continues today, and that's reflected in this agreement.

However, I think the member opposite should have some comfort in knowing that if the community of Quesnel, as an example, decided that they wanted to attract the solar panel business to Quesnel, they would be able to provide some sort of an inducement as long as it was provided to anyone in the solar panel business that wanted to come and locate in Quesnel.

They wouldn't be able to go to XYZ solar panel company and say, "We'll give you something," without making that available to any solar panel producer that wanted to locate in Quesnel. So there are tools available for economic development — not company-specific tools. That comes back to a basic principle that we've had for some time in this government.

Also, from a taxation perspective, they could apply tax relief to a class of properties or to a zone in an area. They could define a zone — as Prince George has with its downtown — that provides special tax incentives to locate in a given area. So there are tools available, just on a broader basis — not company-specific tools. We think that's appropriate.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that clarification, although I do recall that this government did some bank tax relief with an explicit intent to attract some bank headquarters to British Columbia at one point. So there was a specific policy, as I recall, at that time.

I think the minister's explanations are helping me to understand some of the nuances of this deal. With that in mind, I'm curious whether or not regional economic development entities will be apprised of what the nature of this deal is and what some of the nuances of it are. I'm just thinking of the money that went to the beetle action coalitions, for example, as they begin to develop some of the tools that they'll be looking at. Again, the kind of normal practice of procurement, of investment distortion, etc., are some of the tools I know they'll be looking at.

Will there be an education initiative or information package sent out to regional economic development officers and regional economic development entities to make sure they're apprised of what they can and cannot do under this deal?

[1550]

Hon. P. Bell: Just before I answer the question from the member opposite, I just wanted to point to the statement he made a few minutes earlier with regards to the banking sector. I would argue that that policy is consistent with the policy that I described in terms of a local community deciding that they wanted to support a specific industry, to bring that industry. I would argue that that was consistent.

The member opposite asked the question: will there be an outreach program intended to educate organizations such as beetle action coalitions and other economic development organizations that are run by other levels of government? The answer to that is yes.

B. Simpson: This last question here has to do with language. As the minister heard me the other day there, we're moving away from Wood is Good to "Fibre is fabulous."

I just want to read something from PricewaterhouseCoopers' most recent report that illustrates why I think this is important. It states: "While the regulatory picture is still uncertain, one thing is for sure: competition for wood fibre — one of the world's most renewable resources but not an infinite one — will be fierce."

I think the minister is well apprised that the idea of timber or a saw log or whatever…. We're moving quickly away from that. It's one of the traps that you always get into when you try and do

definitions and so on in agreements. The current exemption under "Forests, Fish and Wildlife" uses the term "timber" and "timber procurement" — "requirements that timber be used or manufactured within the territory of a party."

It's a curiosity, I guess, of…. Shouldn't that now reflect where companies like Canfor already indicate that they are fibre managers and no longer timber managers? It's the direction we're moving in. My hope is we're going to see some initiatives around a fibre-based economy. Is it possible for that word to be changed to reflect where we're going and not constrain us to the old timber world?

My question to the minister is: is there a possibility of changing as this thing goes along to reflect the reality that we're faced with today? Here's a classic example of that. Really, timber is one thing to protect. Fibre is the real issue that we have to protect in the future.

Hon. P. Bell: Wood is good, fibre is fabulous, but timber's terrific. The short answer to the member opposite's question is yes. As I mentioned earlier, this document is reviewed annually at the ministers' meetings of the three ministers in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan responsible for this. If that is the type of thing that people deem to be of value….

I think the member is quite correct. The nomenclature of that sort is probably the type of thing that would be worth flagging. I suspect the member opposite will recall that there have been several amendments to TILMA in this chamber already, so something of this nature would certainly be on the table for that discussion.

[ Page 6777 ]

J. Kwan: I know the minister is happy with his answers, and that's all good.

I'd like to ask the minister, though — on procurement practices, actually. I just want to get back to the language a little bit, and that ties into regional economic development initiatives and so on. With this agreement, does that mean to say that all language related to local hire type of language would be contrary to this agreement? That is with the understanding, of course, of the threshold issue. I understand the guidelines around that.

I'm just trying to get a sense of what language, then, would local governments or other entities be able to use if they want to pursue a local hire type of language for contracts. Or would that now be disallowed under this agreement?

[1555]

Hon. P. Bell: As with so many things in life, the answer is frequently yes and no to a question of this nature.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't want to respond to that.

If a jurisdiction like Mackenzie — I've been using it today as an example — were to hire on a contract basis someone to perform a specific function, they would be allowed to do that. That wouldn't represent a problem.

If the district of Mackenzie were to issue a contract to a company that was over the minimum thresholds and they had not declared a specific emergency or other exemption, then they would not be allowed to enter into a clause…. They wouldn't be allowed to insert a clause that required employees to be hired from the area.

However, I will note for the member opposite, before she gets too excited about this, that that actually was stipulated by the agreement on internal trade that was signed. That's the national agreement on internal trade that requires that to be the case.

Just in the off chance that the member doesn't recall the date in which that agreement was entered into, it was actually in 1995, when the member may or may not have been in cabinet. I'm not sure. But anyway, I'm sure the member opposite will remember the name of the Premier who would have signed that agreement.

J. Kwan: Well, 1995 would have predated me sitting in this House, to be sure. Generally, a general election would be pretty significant in the event of who is in this House. That would be before my time, as they say.

[D. Black in the chair.]

So just to follow up on this — emergency circumstances. Could the minister define for me what emergency circumstances might be? Natural disasters — would that be an emergency circumstance? Is that how that's been defined?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair.

The example I used earlier was the caving in of a roof at an ice arena, something of that nature. I think this is one of these things that if a municipality tried to use that as a reason not to follow the rules under TILMA and another jurisdiction thought that that was an unreasonable use, then that would go to the dispute resolution mechanism that's located in the document. That would be the resolution model.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Okay. On the issue around labour mobility. I know that this was canvassed at length as well, or concerns were raised at length, when the TILMA agreement with Alberta was brought forward.

[1600]

Presumably, the labour mobility language here in this agreement and that of the Alberta TILMA agreement — there has been no change?

Hon. P. Bell: There is a very slight change in this agreement versus TILMA, and it relates to the scope of practice and how decisions around procurement are made around a change of scope of practice.

Interjections.

J. Kwan: The Opposition House Leader was just checking to see what kind of progress we are making. I told him that we're making good progress and asking important questions.

The minister said, right at the time when the Opposition House Leader came into the House, that there are slight language differences. Operationally, in terms of…. Maybe I should ask this more broadly speaking. Between this agreement and that of the Alberta TILMA agreement, what's different? Maybe we should do that as opposed to going through, clause by clause, which are the areas that are different.

Maybe the minister can just provide a list for me at this time, then. What is different between the new west partnership trade agreement and that of the Alberta TILMA agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: The new west partnership agreement is substantively the same. There are very minor differences.

[ Page 6778 ]

They were items that were identified over the years of implementation of the TILMA agreement, where minor items were deemed to be necessary to be corrected. The opportunity was used in the negotiation of this agreement.

The one example that I used earlier was scope of practice and how that is defined in order to change a contract or continue the work under the existing contractual relationship. So the changes are not substantial. The agreements are virtually identical, although there are minor differences. If the member wanted a line-by-line analysis, we can certainly provide that. I don't know that it's of huge value, but we could provide that.

J. Kwan: Maybe not so much a line-by-line analysis, but where there are differences in the general scope of it, I think it would be useful to know what they are — right? — so that we can identify it more clearly and to understand it. What the minister might interpret as a minor change could be interpreted differently by someone else in their own read of the agreement and as it applies, perhaps, in their own set of circumstances.

I'm just trying to get clarity on that with respect to what potential changes…. I don't know if that list is readily available at this time. It may be; it may not be. Maybe the minister can advise. If it's not available, I would be amenable to receiving that at a later time just so that I can see what the differences are.

[1605]

Hon. P. Bell: Perhaps we can provide all of the detail to the member opposite, but I'll just provide as an example a paragraph that was added under

part 6 of the agreement.

This particular

section of the agreement refers to business subsidies. As I mentioned to the member for Cariboo North earlier on, generally speaking, the way we define that is that it can be available to an industry sector but not to a specific company within that sector. That's where we draw the line in terms of how we describe a subsidy. So if the sawmilling industry were provided with a certain level of support, then it would have to be industrywide. You couldn't provide it simply to one company within that sector.

Saskatchewan asked us to add a paragraph to the agreement in order to clarify that. They didn't think it was well enough defined in the previous TILMA agreement, even though it was the intent of the agreement, so they asked us to add a paragraph.

The paragraph that was added says:

"A business subsidy does not include a financial contribution made available to entities within a particular industry or group of industries where the measure pursuant to which the financial contribution is made available establishes objective criteria or conditions governing eligibility that are not structured in law or, in fact, so as to make the financial contribution uniquely available to one single entity, whether that entity is structured as one legal entity or a group of legal entities."

So it simply describes it out, perhaps, in more legal terms than my layman's version of: "You're not allowed to give an individual company money."

J. Kwan: That would apply, then, I guess, for all entities — right? — whether it be local governments or elsewhere. So grants from local governments in support of a small business, for example, would be contrary to this agreement if they were somehow to enter into procurement practices with that local government?

Hon. P. Bell: If the grant was an industrywide grant that was available for everyone in that sector, it would be allowed. If it was unique to one specific operation, it would not be allowed.

J. Kwan: With respect to labour mobility, earlier, with the TILMA agreement, there were lots of concerns that were raised by all sorts of entities, whether it be local governments with labour unions, with non-profits and so on, so forth. Could the minister please advise: are those concerns resolved in terms of the issue around labour mobility?

Some of the concerns would be, for example…. The most common one that has been brought forward is the race to the bottom in terms of the standards that are set. As mobility is taking place between provinces, different provinces may have different standards. Therefore, it will generate a situation of a race to the bottom as opposed to maintaining various standards that are applicable to our own situation here.

Maybe the minister can advise: how has the ministry addressed those concerns with respect to labour mobility that have been raised by various entities?

[1610]

Hon. P. Bell: The three governing bodies for each of these respective trades or professions or whatever it happens to be are the entities that get together and by consent try and reach an agreed-upon framework under which that particular profession will be managed.

If one of the jurisdictions, or more than one of the jurisdictions, feels that for some reason they are unique and their particular jurisdiction requires a different view, then that is required to be defined under the exceptional circumstances, and that jurisdiction would have to defend that in front of the dispute resolution system that is in place in the agreement.

J. Kwan: Okay. So the process for resolution is basically that it gets before a panel, the dispute resolution panel, and then ultimately, I guess, the dispute resolution will make the decision. But the parameters in which you can make the argument to even get to the dispute resolution panel would be under the definition of "exceptional circumstances." Is that the only instance where there is

[ Page 6779 ]

actually, I guess, cause for a dispute to take place? That's the only time you can raise those concerns?

Hon. P. Bell:

Article 6, which is entitled "Legitimate objectives," is actually the

section that is most relevant. That's the actual agreement document that I'm referring to, Canada's new west partnership.

The member may not have that in front of her. I'm not sure. She does. Okay. It's

article 6, "Legitimate objectives." A jurisdiction would call into force that

section and would go through the dispute resolution mechanism if it was challenged.

Just in case the member wasn't absolutely certain as to how we determined that that was the appropriate approach to it, we just copied the agreement on internal trade, which the member will recall was signed in 1995.

J. Kwan: Yes, predating me. Could the minister please advise: how do you define "legitimate objective"?

Hon. P. Bell: The

definitions are found on page 38 of the agreement, and I'll just read them into the record. They are for one of the following objectives:

"Public security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal or plant life or health; protection of the environment; conservation and prevention of waste of non-renewable or exhaustible resources; consumer protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; provision of social services and health services within the territory of a party; affirmative action programs" — which I suspect the member knows a bit about — "for disadvantaged groups; or prevention or relief of critical shortages of goods essential to a party."

There's some further language around that.

[1615]

J. Kwan: No wonder I don't have it — page 38. My agreement only ran up to page 36.

Hon. P. Bell: Sorry. In the document that the member opposite has, I suspect it's page 29.

J. Kwan: Oh, yes. Sorry, I see it now — "Legitimate objectives" and the list of the various

definitions of it.

With the Alberta TILMA agreement, does the minister know if there have been any disputes that have been brought forward arising from the TILMA agreement? If so, could the minister advise what those areas of concern are and where it is at with the dispute resolution process?

Hon. P. Bell: To date there have been no dispute resolution mechanisms filed or engaged in.

J. Kwan: I'm going to defer now to my colleague the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows to carry on with some questions. Oh no, it's the member for Delta North — Delta North, right? — who is going to canvass some questions with the minister around this bill.

G. Gentner: The member is quite correct. I am the member for Delta North, although we do overlook Burns Bog.

The government has entered into various western purchasing plans for pharmaceuticals. Those agreements are part of an element of the national pharmaceuticals strategy. I'm wondering: how does this agreement…? I'm looking at some of the exemptions. Can the three provinces, through this agreement, work towards procurement schemes relative to pharmaceuticals?

Hon. P. Bell: The new west partnership agreement is a larger body of work. What we are referring to here is the trade agreement, and the document that we are debating and talking about is referred to as the new west partnership trade agreement.

The broader agreement, or new west partnership, includes other elements. One of those elements is an agreement on procurement, and that's where the incentive lies in order to achieve that agreement. So the piece of legislation that we're actually reviewing today and the actual agreement that we are debating are not directly related to the other agreements within the new west partnership that do encourage joint procurement.

G. Gentner: The whole issue of health care in the province, in the nation and, of course, with the other three provinces is an interesting one. Some time ago, about a year and a half ago, there was discussion between Premier Brad Wall and his Health Minister relative to offsetting or allowing surgeries for hip replacements and knee replacements in the province of British Columbia.

[1620]

It was an interesting debate, because it brought the whole notion that we could be seeing queue-jumping in British Columbia to facilitate the needs of Saskatchewan, which was entering into this kind of relationship. In any way can this agreement foist or encourage these types of agreements among the three provinces?

Hon. P. Bell: Health and health services are outside of the scope of this agreement.

G. Gentner: I had to raise the question because, obviously, it was a quite a thorough debate here in the House a year and a half ago. It was an interesting discussion between the three different Ministers of Health, particularly those with Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

I'm wondering, though, with this agreement, when it comes down to trade, Saskatchewan has asked and is now, I believe, part of a cooperative sharing agreement relative to trade houses internationally. Does this agreement look after…? Is the umbrella to look after those types of new relationships?

[ Page 6780 ]

Hon. P. Bell: My staff are not familiar with the circumstances the member opposite is referring to. It sounds like it is likely a private entity, which wouldn't, therefore, fall under the agreement, but if the member opposite could put a little bit more detail to the question, we might be able to answer it.

G. Gentner: On May 18, 2010, Saskatchewan agreed to pay $255,000 for a new Shanghai trade office now shared with British Columbia and Alberta. The Western Canada Trade and Investment Office of Shanghai was officially opened then by all three Premiers — Saskatchewan's Brad Wall, then Premier of British Columbia Gordon Campbell and Alberta's Ed Stelmach — as the three Premiers continued their joint trade mission.

In the release — and this was, of course, in Canwest news by the Star Phoenix — it suggested that this is what…. The trade agreement amongst the three provinces would help encourage and initiate duplication for all three provinces in the effort to find efficiencies through the trade agreement.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for the clarification. We thought he might be referring to a trade office inside Saskatchewan. So that's helpful.

The actual agreement that we are discussing here today is the new west partnership trade agreement. There's nothing in this agreement per se that requires or causes anyone to participate in it. However, the broader memorandum of understanding that has been signed between the three provinces and really is the new west trade agreement does allow those three provinces to enter into the establishment of foreign trade offices, and the office that the member opposite refers to would be one of those offices.

[1625]

M. Sather: I just wanted to clarify. The minister said — as I heard him say, anyway — that health was not included under the scope of this agreement. I see that there are exceptions for health services and social services under "Procurements." Can the minister just clarify for me what he meant by that?

Hon. P. Bell: What I meant by that was that while hospitals, health authorities and other provincial entities that the province funds are required to follow the act in terms of their procurement and the rules associated with that, there is nothing in this act that requires the province of British Columbia's health facilities to provide services to residents of Alberta or Saskatchewan. That responsibility lies within the Canada Health Act and the principles of the Canada Health Act.

This in no way supersedes or exempts B.C. from adhering to the Canada Health Act, nor is there anything within the parameters of this in terms of providing services to citizens of other provinces.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister to go back to the exceptions under "Government Procurement." There are two parts to that under this agreement that are not in TILMA — that's

part C, "Government Procurement," 3 and 4. And 3 says: "Articles 3, 4 and 14" — those are "No obstacles," "Non-discrimination" and "Procurement" — "do not apply to any procurement undertaken by non-governmental bodies that exercise authority delegated by law."

I just wonder if the minister could tell me: what exactly does it refer to — "non-governmental bodies that exercise authority delegated by law"?

Hon. P. Bell: The example perhaps I could provide for the member opposite is that the Legislative Assembly itself is exempted from the agreement. The independent officers of the Legislature are defined in law and are funded through the Legislative Assembly and, therefore, would be exempted from the agreement as well. So the conflict commissioner, as an example, would not be required to operate under the agreement.

That would be one example. The B.C. bar association — I think it's called — would be another one that is defined specifically under the law and, therefore, has a different set of principles that it must follow.

M. Sather: Okay. Then No. 4: "Articles 3, 4 and 14 do not apply to any procurement of treasury services." Can the minister just explain a little bit more what that is?

[1630]

Hon. P. Bell: This clause was used to prevent B.C. Investment Management Corporation, entities of that nature, from having to publicly disclose information at times when they're in detailed negotiation processes. BCIMC, I'm sure the member will know, is to do with pension funds for public employees in the province.

M. Sather: So why were these two clauses not included under the TILMA?

Hon. P. Bell: When the TILMA agreement was originally established, it wasn't deemed that that was an issue that was necessary. Since the implementation of the agreement, it was one of the areas that were identified that were important and therefore is being added at this point in time.

J. Kwan: I'm wondering. In the previous first Premiers conference there was interest in actually going to a national agreement, as opposed to a TILMA agreement such as what we're debating in the House at the moment.

[ Page 6781 ]

Could the minister shed some light as to why we abandoned a national strategy?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member opposite's characterization that we've abandoned the national process would be inaccurate. In fact, we're still a full participant in it. It was just deemed…. We believed that it wouldn't be timely in terms of its completion, and that's proven out to be true. So we've chosen to also engage in bilateral discussions, initially with Alberta, now with Saskatchewan. If others would like to join us, we'd be happy to have them on board.

J. Kwan: At the first Premiers conference — actually, first ministers, I guess — people actually rejected this approach, in fact. By and large, they rejected it. So the only province left standing at that time was Alberta, which had signed on. Now it seems like Saskatchewan has signed on as well, even though there's been basically no change to this agreement from that of the Alberta TILMA agreement.

So it remains, it seems to me, that the rest of the country is not going to sign on to this. Am I right in that assumption, or is the minister actively negotiating with other provinces to try to get them to sign on to an agreement such as this?

Let's start with Manitoba. Are there ongoing discussions with Manitoba, and is there any indication from Manitoba that they would be interested in signing on to this agreement as well?

Hon. P. Bell: While the province of British Columbia — and, I'm sure, Saskatchewan and Alberta — does get approached from time to time by other jurisdictions with regards to our agreement, I would not suggest that there are any active negotiations with any other provinces at this point in time. Our preference would be to have a national agreement, but whether it happens organically, one province at a time, or across Canada, we are happy with either outcome.

J. Kwan: In the event that a national agreement comes forward, what would that mean for these agreements? Would they be null and void? What would happen to these agreements?

[1635]

Hon. P. Bell: These agreements could coexist with a national agreement, as they do today. There is a national agreement today that has been in place for about 16 years. I know that predates when the member was first elected to this House, as she's advised me on a couple of occasions today. But it could conceivably coexist, or it could be replaced. It just depends on the nature of the agreement, so it would be hard for me to speculate what the outcome of that would be.

J. Kwan: Of course, I suppose in that instance, depending on the language of such agreements, it would also determine what was to proceed.

That said, for

section 1, we're wrapped up in terms of questions around this area.

I simply want to say this, though. I think it's worth reiterating on the public record that I have, actually, concerns around this agreement.

I don't know what the implications are with respect to the TILMA agreement that was signed by Alberta. The minister says that the dispute resolution panel process has not yet been in effect, in the sense that nothing's been brought forward to it. I don't know if that means there are really no concerns. Or does that really mean that we have yet to see what those concerns might be?

I am concerned about the consultation process, although I don't have an exhaustive list from the minister around who was consulted and who wasn't consulted with respect to this agreement, the new west partnership trade agreement, and the fact that, for example, the BCSTA has been left out of the loop on that — which was fairly vocal, actually, I think, in raising these concerns earlier on with the Alberta TILMA. I think there's cause for concern with respect to that.

I think it would be more prudent if in fact we actually went and did an exhaustive consultation process with respect to this and perhaps watched to see what the outcome of the Alberta TILMA might be before we sign on to yet another agreement binding British Columbia to the clauses stipulated in the agreement. That might be more prudent — conservative even, one might argue — in terms of an approach.

In this instance, I would argue conservatism should be the order of the day, because we want to protect British Columbia in terms of potential lawsuits — and other entities, as well, where their voice should clearly be heard and their concerns reflected.

With that, I'm going to vote against

section 1 on division.

Section 1 approved on division.

section 2.

J. Kwan:

Section 2 deals with the prohibition on private cause of action. It stipulates, I guess, the process of the legal proceedings where a private action could be brought about.

I wonder if the minister could just put on the public record and explain to folks who might be listening and others who might refer back to this scintillating debate at a later time

section 2 on the clause on prohibition on private cause of action so that people are fully aware of what we're debating about.

[ Page 6782 ]

Hon. P. Bell:

Section 2. This

section provides for the prohibition of a private cause of action to prevent private parties from initiating claims in any British Columbia court relating to the new west partnership trade agreement or the implementing legislation.

The agreement provides its own dispute resolution process, and it is the intent of the agreement that if a private party has a complaint relating to the agreement, it is resolved in the dispute resolution process under the agreement. So the intent of this

section is to preclude a third party or a private party from filing in a court, instead requiring them to use the dispute resolution process that's identified in the agreement.

[1640]

J. Kwan: How might a private party initiate that process, then — the dispute resolution process as stipulated in this agreement? Do they have the capacity to do that, or is it just the signatories of the agreement that get to do that?

Hon. P. Bell: The short answer to the question is: the normal process would be that an individual or organization would approach their government….

If it was a company in the province of Alberta, they'd approach the Alberta government and register their notice that they are discontent and that they would like Alberta to file in the dispute resolution process. If the province of Alberta refused to do that and the individual or company still felt that it was necessary to move forward, then they could apply themselves. That's identified under

article 25 and throughout the document as such.

J. Kwan: In other words, it's not just the signatories of the agreement that could actually file a dispute resolution or initiate a dispute resolution process. They could do that individually as well. Could the minister advise: who are the parties in this panel to address the dispute resolution, who will be a part of the dispute resolution process?

Hon. P. Bell: As with so many other things in this act, the agreement on internal trade signed in 1995 was used as the framework for this document. Each jurisdiction is responsible, under

article 26(1), for establishing and maintaining "a list of at least five individuals to act as panellists." It is then further outlined in this section.

J. Kwan: I'm glad to hear the minister repeat again and again in this House that the Harcourt NDP government and the work that they had done was actually very useful and helpful for this government — and his work subsequent to that.

That said, in

article 26 it does say that each party "will establish and maintain a list of at least five individuals to act as panellists." In that context, does that mean to say that the respective provinces that have signed on to this agreement would have to provide a list to each other that is kept current with the names of whom they deemed to be appropriate individuals for the panel? Then, when a dispute resolution situation arises, that panel will then be activated and those names will be drawn. Is that how that works?

Hon. P. Bell: There's no obligation requiring the three provinces