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)

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. B. Penner

Bill M204 — Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2011

B. Simpson

Bill M205 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2011

S. Chandra Herbert

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Motorcycle awareness

H. Bains

E. Foster

First Nations treaty celebrations in Kyuquot

C. Trevena

Asian-Canadian heritage

R. Lee

Mount Pleasant Community Centre

J. Kwan

Mental health and work of Nancy Hall

M. MacDiarmid

Oral Questions

Cost of government information on harmonized sales tax

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Impact of harmonized sales tax on families

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. K. Falcon

Job creation projections for harmonized sales tax

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Falcon

Shellfish aquaculture and environmental review

C. Trevena

Hon. D. McRae

Impact of proposed Vancouver Island coal mine on shellfish industry

C. Trevena

Hon. D. McRae

S. Fraser

Premier's announcements during by-election campaign

D. Routley

Hon. S. Cadieux

Government position on supervised injection site

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

WorkSafe B.C., annual report, 2010

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation (continued)

D. Routley

Hon. P. Bell

S. Fraser

G. Gentner

B. Simpson

J. Kwan

J. Brar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued)

M. Sather

Hon. D. McRae

G. Coons

L. Popham

[ Page 6681 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: For my curious friends across the way, I'm going to say the names of my guests first. I have Sebastian and Damien here visiting from Germany, along with my husband Jon.

They've joined our family for the next little while because of an amazing program called WWOOF, which stands for Willing Workers on Organic Farms. It's a program that is offered to travellers around the world if they want to come and incorporate themselves into your family life and share in a little bit of farming, eat meals with your family and sort of learn about our culture. It's a fantastic program. By the end of the stay they usually are part of our family.

Welcome to the House.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 54 students from grade 5, our future leaders who are visiting here from the Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers Mrs. Nancy Bakken, Mrs. Sue U-Ming and Mrs. Sharon Van Dijk as well as 21 parents and volunteers who have taken time away from their busy

schedule to accompany these kids. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: It gives me great pleasure to inform the House that today marks the International Day of the Midwife, an occasion that is celebrated in over 50 countries around the world, including here in Canada. In recognition of this, I am pleased to inform the House that here in British Columbia the province has proclaimed today, May 5, as British Columbia Midwives Day.

In our province midwives are highly trained, university educated and publicly funded and regulated. They are an important contributor to our health care system and deliver over 10 percent of the 40,000 babies delivered every year in British Columbia. Midwifery care improves health outcomes and is evidence-based. Midwives are deeply committed to the health and well-being of mother, baby and family.

To help celebrate British Columbia Midwives Day, greater Victoria midwives, their supporters and little ones are walking from Clover Point to the front steps of the Legislature today beginning at four.

Joining us here in the gallery today we have two midwives: Kelly Hayes, who practises midwifery on Saltspring Island, where 100 percent of the babies are born into the caring hands of midwives; and Michele Buchmann, who is a longstanding midwife in greater Victoria, where approximately 30 percent of the births are assisted by a midwife.

Would the House please join me in giving a warm welcome to their visit to the Legislature.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I am pleased to introduce to the House today the recently married staff person in the Premier's correspondence branch. Her name is Julie D'Argis. Will the members please congratulate her and make her welcome.

C. Hansen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two special guests who I had the pleasure of having lunch with today in the dining room. One is a very charming young lady by the name of Ellie Girard. She is nine months old, and she showed me during lunch today how she learned to clap very nicely. And of course, all politicians appreciate British Columbians learning that at a very young age. She is accompanied today by her mother Devon Girard, who was such a great help to me as executive assistant in the years that I served in Economic Development and Finance.

I hope that all members, with our clapping, will show Ellie and Devon how much we appreciate them joining us here today.

E. Foster: Joining us in the House today is a longtime friend of mine and the mayor of Vernon. Would the House please make His Worship Mayor Wayne Lippert welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

[1340]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 7, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. This bill amends the following statutes: the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act; the Clean Energy Act; and the Ministry of Environment Act. The bill also

[ Page 6682 ]

makes a number of consequential housekeeping and clarifying amendments to other statutes.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M204 — FALL FIXED ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

B. Simpson presented a bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2011.

B. Simpson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

B. Simpson: This act amends the Constitution Act in order to bring greater transparency and accountability to the budgeting process surrounding British Columbia's fixed general election date. Moving the general election from May to October will ensure that the provincial budget cannot be used for political purposes every four years.

Having elections in the fall will require the governing party to introduce a budget that accurately reflects the state of the government's finances and program priorities in the spring. Moving the election date from May to October would also ensure election year budgets are scrutinized by the opposition and the public and are passed into law, providing certainty to the public service and organizations that are dependent on government program spending. Fall elections would also allow the public to access the comptroller general's assessment of the government's finances presented to Public Accounts in late June.

This bill proposes that the first fall election be held on October 11, 2012. The current fixed election date is May 14, 2013, and it would be reasonable to hold the first fall election in October 2013.

However, there have been some indications from both the Premier and the opposition that an earlier election date is desirable. My hope is that October 11, 2012, will be soon enough for both parties to seek new mandates while still respecting the principle of having fixed election dates.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M204, Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

bill m205 — Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2011

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2011.

S. Chandra Herbert: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to ask each and every member of this House for their support for the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2011.

This is a bill for renters who've withstood incredible odds and an imbalance of power to fight to stay in their homes. It's a bill for residents of the Seafield, who withstood attempts to jack up rents 73 percent through the geographic area increase clause and the same landlord's attempt to drive them out through phony renovations. This is a bill for the residents of Emerald Terrace, where they had to fight fake renovation attempts again and again just to stay in their homes.

It's a bill for thousands of British Columbians who are unknown, who've been forced out of their homes because of a few landlords who abuse loopholes in the legislation. Also, they can get around the law and drive up rents. It says no to massively jacking up rents for renters. It puts into law what is there in spirit. It says no to big landlord companies who try to evict long-term tenants under the pretext that it's for use of a landlord, when there are actually other suites available.

This bill says yes to the vast majority of landlords and renters who do follow the rules and maintain long-term relationships based on trust, a home based on peace and quiet enjoyment, and a steady income for the property owner. It follows some of what the Ontario Liberal government has had in place for years to protect renters.

As members will know, there are a number of other steps needed to balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, but this bill is a good first step. It could be passed into law this week or next week to immediately protect long-term tenants who are currently living under the threat of mass eviction or massive rent hikes because of an unbalanced and unfair Residential Tenancy Act. I hope members of this House will think of their constituents and unite to pass this bill.

I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of this House after today.

[1345]

[ Page 6683 ]

Bill M205, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS

H. Bains: May is Motorcycle Awareness Month. To kick off Motorcycle Awareness Month today, the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists organized their 21st annual MLA Ride. This public awareness campaign started May 1 to convey the importance of being aware of motorcycle drivers who share our roads.

As the weather warms up, we are asking drivers to take extra caution and watch for motorcyclists. In urban areas crashes involving motorcycles often occur at intersections involving an oncoming vehicle. In rural areas there are more single-vehicle accidents where motorcyclists lose control and run off the road due to higher speeds.

When driving we must be extra cautious of our surroundings, especially when turning at intersections. Always be alert to see if there are motorcycles in traffic. Keep in mind that motorcycles are smaller than cars and trucks and more difficult to see. We must be extremely vigilant at this time of the year when motorcyclists are starting to join us on roads and highways.

We need to put ourselves in the same mindset as, when our students go back to school in September, we retrain ourselves to slow down in school zones. Motorcyclists and their associations are reminding themselves to remember to abide by the posted speed limits, as they know that unsafe speed puts you at a greater risk.

Slow down and watch other traffic in intersections. Be sure that traffic sees you. Do not drive in their blind spots. Wear bright clothing and reflective material and keep your headlights on at all times.

Please join with me to thank the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists for organizing the MLA Ride to kick off Motorcycle Awareness Month. It certainly will bring awareness to drivers to be extra careful of their surroundings. It will save lives and reduce injuries to our motorcyclists in British Columbia.

E. Foster: I rise today to discuss a very important matter, which has just been brought up. May is motorcycle safety month in British Columbia. As a longtime motorcycle owner and operator, I certainly applaud the initiatives of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. They do a tremendous job in bringing awareness to the general public regarding motorcycle safety.

Motorcycles are growing in popularity around the world but perhaps especially so in B.C. According to ICBC, there are over 90,000 motorcycles registered in British Columbia, a number that continues to rise. This is why raising awareness of motorcycle safety is vitally important. Motorcyclists are seven times more likely to be killed in a crash than other road users.

Today many of my fellow members from both sides enjoyed a brief tour around downtown Victoria and James Bay. The British Columbia Coalition of Motorcyclists was good enough to come out each year and take everyone for a ride and let everybody experience what it's like to be on a motorcycle. This annual event gives MLAs and their staff a glimpse of the passions they have for their amazing pieces of machinery.

The BCCOM does great work advocating for motorcyclists' rights in our province. This is a membership-driven organization, and they have become instrumental in promotion of motorcycle safety, education and awareness in British Columbia. BCCOM has worked hard to raise the profile of the motorcycle community from simply driving in and between the cities all the way to racing and off-road riding.

Most important, however, is their excellent and ongoing work to promote safety. I hope all members of this assembly will join me in thanking the BCCOM for the great work they do for motorcycle enthusiasts and their families in British Columbia.

FIRST NATIONS TREATY CELEBRATIONS

IN KYUQUOT

C. Trevena: On a wet spring night several hundred people sat in a school gym at Kyuquot watching the clock until midnight. The day had been spent with dancing, the sharing of family songs, speeches, gift-giving and feasts.

At midnight on March 31 going into April 1, silence descended. Babies were hushed, and children and their parents, aunties and elders watched as hereditary chiefs and elected councillors of the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nation signed their first piece of legislation, which took them from subjects under the Indian Act to people with the ability for self-determination.

[1350]

It was the effective date for their treaty. When asked by the elected chief councillor whether anyone wanted to speak, one councillor simply said, "I'm free; I'm free." It was a refrain which echoed around the room and then, through the coming days, through the community.

The celebration moved outside, fireworks were set off, and as people left the hall, they were given a page from the Indian Act to add to the flames on the bonfire. A few hours later the waters of Kyuquot Sound and 70-plus kilometres of the logging road to Highway 19 were busy as the community moved almost en masse to Port Alberni, where there was a celebration for all five Maa-nulth Nations to mark their treaty's effective date.

[ Page 6684 ]

It had been a long time coming. Years of negotiations resulting in 2007 with Bill 45 before this House, where we agreed to their treaty. Most here will remember the historic occasion when the chiefs of the Maa-nulth Nations addressed this Legislature. There were celebrations in the community too — which, as the now Minister of Health will attest to, were joyous and moving. But none of us who were at the school gym in Kyuquot will forget the power and emotion of a people who are now free.

The Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' know they still have a long way to go, but the dynamic is now different. They're working for their own future, their own way. It is a journey, they're all in the canoe, and they are paddling together.

ASIAN-CANADIAN HERITAGE

R. Lee: Back in 2001, a Senate motion officially designated May as Asian Heritage Month across the country. Asian Heritage Month is a time to celebrate the long and rich history of Asian-Canadian communities and the contributions that members of these communities have made to British Columbia and to Canada.

Our province is home to hundreds of thousands of Asian Canadians who trace their origins back to countries from the Black Sea all the way to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. The cultural backgrounds of these citizens are diverse and rich. The traditions and festivals that they have brought with them have enriched cities and towns throughout B.C. As Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and as someone who immigrated to this great country, I feel it's important for us to celebrate this.

It's also important to reflect on the tremendous economic advantages we derive from multiculturalism. The connections and cultural understanding that so many of our citizens possess are extraordinary advantages for B.C. as we compete in the global marketplace. This is another reason to celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, every year in Metro Vancouver the explorAsian Festival celebrates Asian Heritage Month with events for everyone. Presented by the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society, the theme is "Many cultures, many languages, one celebration." This is not only a great description of the diversity of Asian communities in British Columbia. This is also a great description of British Columbia itself — a place that truly celebrates diversity.

MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY CENTRE

J. Kwan: I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the first anniversary of the official opening of the new Mount Pleasant Community Centre in my constituency.

The centre is an innovative and shining civic centre that brings together our community's residents for a range of valued activities and services. This unique mixed-use project, completed by the city of Vancouver, combines several community facilities with market rental housing in a tower above. The centre opened to the public in December of 2009 and replaced the old centre on West 16th Avenue.

I was pleased to attend the official opening ceremony about a year ago and since then have been bringing my children there to enjoy the centre.

Several important community services and activities are together under one roof at the landmark site of 1 Kingsway, including a multipurpose community centre, a branch of Vancouver's public library, a fitness centre and a state-of-the-art daycare centre. The community centre features a gym, climbing wall, dance studio, multipurpose rooms and rooftop outdoor community space. The second-floor daycare has access to secure outdoor play space with wonderful views.

[1355]

During its first full year of operation, there were over one million visits to the centre. The community centre opened and reportedly had 525,000 users, double the number of the users at the previous centre.

The fitness centre is active and well-used throughout the day, drawing attendance of over 126,000 people in one year. The daycare has been at capacity since it opened on its first day of operation. The library has seen an average of 1,500 patrons per day, which is nearly double the number of patrons at the library's previous location.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pleasant Community Centre on its first anniversary and wishing the board and staff continuing success in the future.

MENTAL HEALTH AND

WORK OF NANCY HALL

M. MacDiarmid: Hon. Speaker, May 1 to 7 is Mental Health Week in Canada. This year is the 60th anniversary of Mental Health Week. This week is a time for all of us to learn, talk, reflect and engage with each other on the many issues relating to mental health.

We've made some great strides in the past decades, yet there is still a lack of understanding of mental health, and for some, there is a stigma attached to having a mental health problem. We need greater understanding and acceptance, and we can all play a role in that. Any one of us or a family member could be affected by a problem with mental health. One in five Canadians will have such a problem in their lifetime, and the impact can be profound.

Today I want to honour a dear friend and one of my constituents who was an untiring and devoted advocate for people with mental illness. Dr. Nancy Hall died in

[ Page 6685 ]

March of this year. She has left a great legacy and is a stellar example of how one person can make a difference. She's greatly missed.

Nancy had a wonderful spirit, sense of optimism and incredible drive. She connected people in a marvellous way and worked tirelessly for what she believed in. Always generous with her time and her knowledge, one of her great gifts to me was to help me better understand mental health problems and what they can mean to people and families who are affected.

She was filled with humanity and compassion. She had two beautiful children who lit up her life. She was a loving mother, daughter, sister, aunt and friend, and the celebration of her life was truly a joyous occasion.

In 2010 Nancy was honoured by the Canadian Mental Health Association when she received their highest award, the C.M. Hincks Award. Nancy was a spectacular person who made this world a better place. Her hope and love for family and friends, her optimism and her life that demonstrates how one person can make a tremendous difference — these are some of the gifts she's left us as a legacy. It was a joy and a privilege to have known her.

I ask the House to join me in celebrating and acknowledging the life and contributions of Dr. Nancy Hall.

Oral Questions

COST OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Finance, and that question is about the initiative, the HST, the tax formally known by the B.C. Liberals as the single most important thing we can do for the B.C. economy, now exposed as a $1.3 billion tax increase on B.C. families.

Now, the minister has had a week. Perhaps he can tell us how much public funds…. It's bad enough that families have to pay this thing. Can the minister tell us how much they have to pay for him to provide misleading information about the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: I told the Leader of the Opposition that as soon as I get that number, I'm going to present it publicly and make sure that everyone in this House and outside knows exactly what that number will be. But I'll tell you what we won't do. I will tell you what we will not do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: We will not do what the Leader of the Opposition did when he was chief of staff under the Glen Clark government. He went out and said that they were going to have a $2.3 million campaign to promote the Nisga'a agreement and actually spent $7.8 million. That's what he did when he was the architect of one of the worst governments in the history of the province of British Columbia.

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, it's surprising to me that the Minister of Finance would intentionally bring up one of the most shameful moments in the history of the Liberal Party — their lawsuit against the Nisga'a people, where the B.C. Liberal government decided that the B.C. Liberal Party wouldn't have to pay their costs. It's shameful.

Now, my question to them is this. The wizard of the accounts over there can surely tell us, since the report has rendered his assumptions about the HST inaccurate…. That's what the report did yesterday. They said that all the things that he's been using public funds to tell the public about the HST are essentially wrong — a $1.3 billion tax increase on families. Surely he can tell us how much it's going to cost. Surely he doesn't spend money first and budget later.

Hon. K. Falcon: I've told the member opposite, on numerous occasions now, that that's exactly what I'm going to do, and the moment I know that, I'm going to let the member know.

But I'll also say this. Last night one of the things we were doing was engaging in a listening exercise with British Columbians to see how we might improve the HST, to see how we might reduce or even eliminate some of that impact on families. In fact, last night, myself and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation and the Minister of Transportation collectively held telephone town hall meetings with over 78,000 British Columbians who participated.

What that tells me is that actually British Columbians are very much engaged in wanting information and wanting to talk and listen to their ministers and to provide input on how we can improve the HST. That's exactly what we are going to do on this side of the House.

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

A. Dix: The minister is phoning up the public on their dime. He's not paying for it. The B.C. Liberal Party isn't paying for it. He's phoning up on their dime to give them misleading information about the HST. That's what's going on here — a $1.3 billion tax increase on families, his previous assumption…

[ Page 6686 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …a burning pyre on the ground. That's what's happened here. The people of B.C. know. To put it in hockey terms, he's on the side of the owners, and we're on the side of the fans with respect to the HST.

Surely there was a budget. There was a budget when the government…. I mean, B.C. families….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, a 50 percent increase in hydro rates, three consecutive increases in MSP premiums on families, massive increases on ferry fares, vulnerable seniors paying more in long-term-care fees and now a $1.3 billion tax increase on B.C. families. Families first? They call this families first? Why don't you tell B.C. families how much they're paying for your propaganda campaign on the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, isn't this rich. The architect of the worst government in B.C. history, that had the highest tax rates in North America, trying to pretend he's on the side of families. Well, that is really rich. So let me just….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just sit down for a second.

It's your time, Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: Boy, it is rich to listen to the Leader of the Opposition pretend he's on the side of families when it comes to tax burden. All the member has to do…. I know they never read budgets, but just go into the 2011 budget in appendix A3. It actually compares the total tax burden. That includes HST. It includes personal income tax, child benefits, property taxes, consumption taxes — all included.

Here's what it was for a senior couple earning $30,000 under the NDP in the 1990s: $3,391, all taxes in. Under the B.C. Liberals in 2011, that same senior is earning $30,000: $2,417. For a family of four earning $30,000, all taxes in, under the NDP and under the B.C. Liberals, a 44 percent reduction in overall taxes. And that was the architect of the worst government in the history of the province of British Columbia.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON FAMILIES

S. Chandra Herbert: The HST report released yesterday claims the average family will pay $350 more under the HST, and that number was spread far and wide in the media. But as with everything with the B.C. Liberals, you have to read the fine print. It turns out, down at the bottom of the report, that it says a family could be defined as one person — a family of one person paying, on average, $350.

My question is to the Finance Minister. Isn't the report really saying that the average cost is $350 per person? So an average family of four could be paying $1,400.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll try and make this simple for the member. That is an average. That means it will be less for those that have lower incomes; it will be more for those that have higher incomes. News flash for the NDP: if you earn more money, you're probably paying more HST. I thought that's what the NDP always cared about — that the rich people should pay more. They do under a consumption tax. It was pointed out in that same report that 40 percent of the HST is paid by people earning over $100,000 a year.

But I'll tell you that what I'm really interested in is the other part of the independent panel report that they haven't been talking about — that is, if we go back to the Leader of the Opposition's choice, which is going back to the PST, that blows a hole of almost $3 billion over the next couple of years in the provincial budget. I'd like to know how they are going to square that with their promises to increase spending in every single ministry of government, still balance the budget and do it with almost $3 billion less revenue. That's what I'd like to know from the NDP.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Member. There are other people that want to ask questions.

Member, continue.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I can understand why the Finance Minister doesn't want to answer the question. Statistics Canada refuses to acknowledge a family of one. Only the B.C. Liberals would say family first was really me first. That's the B.C. Liberals' version of family first.

[ Page 6687 ]

Again to the minister. It says at the bottom of the report, in fine print, a family can be defined as one person. So basing that on that statement, is the real cost per person $350, on average, as the report asserts?

[1410]

Hon. K. Falcon: Another uncomfortable fact for the NDP. Even with the introduction of the HST, as I mentioned, if you look at total tax burden, and I think it's appropriate to do that — MSP premiums, property taxes, income taxes, HST, total tax burden on average families in British Columbia — what you will find…. Don't take my word for it. It's in the budget. They can go read it. They never do, but they should read the budget. You will find the second-lowest overall tax burden in the country right here in British Columbia.

Now let's be clear what the choice of the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP is. They have what I call the tax trifecta.

(1) They want to go back to a PST, and they're going to have to explain how they're going to do all their spending with $2.7 billion less income. That will be fascinating to watch.

(2) They want to raise small business taxes by 80 percent and general corporate taxes by 20 percent.

(3) They want to reinstate the corporate capital tax, one of the worst job killers in the history of taxation.

That's the NDP plan. That's a job killer.

We're about growing the economy, growing jobs, growing revenues and supporting social services. That's what we're doing on this side of the House.

JOB CREATION PROJECTIONS

FOR HARMONIZED SALES TAX

J. Kwan: I'll tell the minister an uncomfortable fact. That would be the Jack Mintz report. It turns out the government's own HST guru, Jack Mintz, is wrong. He's not just a little bit off of his job projections; he is off by 88,000 jobs. And the Liberal cabinet ministers and backbench MLAs have been misleading British Columbians with their misinformation from the Jack Mintz report. That would be another uncomfortable fact.

Even today, though, it doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop there, because even today in the government's own supposedly impartial and factual websites, those websites still provide for those misleading figures. Why is the minister still continuing to mislead British Columbians about those figures?

Hon. K. Falcon: So you've got one highly respected independent economist, Jack Mintz, that's talking about the potential for 113,000 jobs to be created. We have a second independent panel report that comes out and suggests that there could be over 24,000 new jobs created. But I will say this. I don't know whether it's 24,000 or whether it's 113,000, but I do know one thing.

I do know that under the NDP plan to go back to the PST, the only new jobs created will be the 300 tax auditors that the province has to hire to go after British Columbians, investigating PST audits. That's all that's going to be happening under the NDP.

We are about creating private sector jobs. They want 300 civil servants hired, at a cost of over $30 million a year, to do the paperwork on PST so that we could reimpose $150 million in compliance costs on small business to do the paperwork for the PST and the paperwork for the GST. That's the NDP approach. That's not our approach.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister would like to do this math: 24,000 jobs over ten years, at the cost of $1.33 billion to the consumers per year. That's over $54,000 per job for the consumers per year.

[1415]

Now, I like to see new jobs created in the economy. The problem is the minister doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't trust him, and neither will British Columbians, with these incorrect facts.

Will the minister at least do this? Will the minister correct the misinformation on his own government website and tell British Columbians the truth for a change?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's a little tough to take job creation advice from a member who was part of a government that was an economic wrecking crew in the 1990s. I mean, let's be clear. The Leader of the Opposition was the chief of staff who led a government that took B.C., for the first time in our history, to have-not-province status — meaning we had to take money, transfer payments, from other provinces because our economy was doing so badly. I am not going to take any economic advice from those folks across the aisle.

What I will do is celebrate a tax change that will generate tens of thousands of new jobs in British Columbia, that brings hope to families, that grows our economies, that grows revenues to support important social services like health care, like education, like all the things those members opposite purport to care about.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE AND

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

C. Trevena: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. His primary role in shellfish aquaculture is assistance in marketing B.C. shellfish products. I'd

[ Page 6688 ]

like to know whether the minister agrees that a healthy shellfish aquaculture industry requires a rigorous environmental review.

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to thank the member opposite for giving me the first opportunity to stand and respond to a question in these very distinguished chambers.

I'm incredibly proud of this province's environmental standards that we've put forward in the last ten years. It is so refreshing to have a province that respects the environment, does the best to make sure we encourage economic growth at the same time. It is the complete opposite of what the members opposite did during their ten years in office.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members.

The member has a supplemental.

IMPACT OF PROPOSED VANCOUVER ISLAND

COAL MINE ON SHELLFISH INDUSTRY

C. Trevena: Having given the minister an opportunity to have his first question, I'd hoped that he'd give the House his first answer too.

I was asking the Minister of Agriculture about environmental standards on shellfish aquaculture because there's a proposed coal mine in the minister's own riding five kilometres from the richest and most prolific shellfish beds in B.C., in Baynes Sound. There are legitimate concerns about the impact of heavy metals from the mine leaching into those beds.

As MLA, he has ignored the issue, and it's now his ministerial responsibility. So will he continue to dismiss the demands of the residents of the Comox Valley, who want a full, independent and rigorous environmental review?

[1420]

Hon. D. McRae: It is nice to know that the member opposite, who is my constituency neighbour, is basically acknowledging the good repartee we have going here today.

First of all, you're right. Baynes Sound is one of the most important aquaculture places, not just in British Columbia but in this nation — hands down. With $24 million going out of the Baynes Sound into the economy of British Columbia, it is something that we are desperate to protect in this province, and I'm committed to doing that. I'm not about to play politics with the environment.

Right now, that project is at the pre–environmental assessment phase. It isn't even, I'm sure the member knows, within my ministry at this stage. At this stage I'm not going to prejudge what's going to come out of that. It is before the environmental assessment review panel, and we're going to make sure that we don't play politics.

If it goes forward for the coal mine, it is something that the applicant can do as they go through the process. But no, not for one second do I want to see the shellfish industry in this province prejudiced by actions like you're implying.

S. Fraser: And I'm the MLA bounding the southern edge of your riding, hon. Minister.

The livelihood of hundreds of families in the shellfish industry in Baynes Sound is at risk. I would think that the minister would want the most rigorous standards of environmental protection put in place because of that.

All local governments within his riding are demanding an independent expert review panel with public hearings. Any heavy metals released from the proposed coal mine would kill all shellfish export from Baynes Sound, would kill the industry in Baynes Sound. Why has he ignored his mandate as minister responsible to market shellfish?

Hon. D. McRae: It's funny. As an MLA, the B.C. Shellfish Association, which actually is based in my riding, didn't come to see me. However, when I became the Minister of Agriculture, I was proactive, and I decided that — you know what? — since they're not coming to me, I'm going to them to hear their concerns. I made an appointment, I saw their executive director, I've heard their concerns, and I am listening.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I'm sure they were very happy with the outcome of that meeting. I have attended five standing-room-only public meetings in this minister's riding, and he was absent at every one of them, even with…. He's been ducking this issue as MLA; now he's ducking it as a minister.

We're talking about the richest shellfish beds in British Columbia, and we're apparently talking about a B.C. Liberal government that has no interest in protecting them, to say nothing of the hundreds of jobs that support the families in his constituency.

Now, will the minister commit today to ensure that a significant industrial project that could have grave impacts will not go ahead without a full public hearing and a rigorous, independent, expert review panel?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite well knows that we're in the pre-consultation period for the environmental assessment. You know, I feel like I'm sitting up here answering a question which the members opposite obviously know is not to do with my ministry.

[ Page 6689 ]

However, don't think for one second that I don't have the belief that the agriculture industry in my region, as in all parts of British Columbia, is hugely important. This is an industry which is sustainable, provides jobs — tens of millions of dollars for families across this province.

We will protect this resource with the highest environmental standards possible. It is absolutely essential. These are sustainable jobs that will last for generations, and I am committed to protecting those jobs and that industry for as long as I'm around — and my children.

[1425]

PREMIER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

DURING BY-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

D. Routley: Candidate Clark in a by-election in Vancouver–Point Grey has made a number of announcements in that constituency. Yesterday in estimates for the Ministry of Citizens' Services, it became clear that public servants were used in the planning and implementation of those events. This candidate also happens to be the B.C. Liberal leader.

My question is for the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. Did she or any other minister seek advice from Elections B.C. as to whether those government resources should be costed as part of her election campaign?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, the Premier, as she should, is fulfilling her obligations as the Premier and making announcements that benefit all of British Columbia, including things like raising the minimum wage, eliminating parking fees in parks and support for Ronald McDonald House. These are fabulous things for the people of British Columbia. Government is making great announcements, and of course the Premier of the province is making those announcements.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: These announcements are occurring in a riding, in a constituency, where she is a candidate in a by-election. Given the serious ongoing concerns regarding a previous B.C. Liberal campaign in Vancouver-Fraserview, I would think an abundance of caution would be in order for this government.

To the Minister of Citizens' Services: if advice was not sought from Elections B.C. on whether government resources should be used in the Premier's by-election campaign in Vancouver–Point Grey, why not?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Premier is making announcements on behalf of government, as she should. She is the leader of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Our professional public servants in government communications and public engagement are responsible for ensuring that British Columbians receive accurate information about these announcements, and they're going to continue to do so.

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

SUPERVISED INJECTION SITE

M. Farnworth: The previous Minister of Health was very supportive of Insite in Vancouver. After the recent federal election, statements by the….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: There have been a lot of you. But for once, despite there being a lot, they did have a common position: that Insite is an important part of health care delivery in the province of British Columbia.

The day after the election in which the Conservatives achieved a majority, the statements from senior B.C. MPs were that the federal government is going to take a long, hard look at Insite to see whether it's in the best interests of the community.

My question to the Minister of Health is this: (1) is Insite still part of the government's health strategy, and (2) what specific steps is the government taking to inform the federal government that Insite is a key part of health delivery and strategy in dealing with addictions in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the hon. member for the question. I can assure him and members of the House and British Columbians that the position of the government of British Columbia has not changed insofar as discussions that may occur and will occur with the federal government.

I suspect that I will at least await the appointment of a federal Minister of Health, and those discussions will commence. But he can be assured that the position of this government has not changed.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Cadieux: Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the annual report…

Interjections.

[ Page 6690 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Cadieux: …of WorkSafe B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House, in the Legislative Assembly, we will continue with the estimates of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, and in Committee A we will continue the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

JOBS, TOURISM AND INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $236,513,000 (continued).

D. Routley: Before we ended this debate for our lunch break and for question period, I asked the minister a question about the E&N Railway and the fact that the roadbed and track has come to such poor condition that passenger services have been suspended. I asked him if he thought it was a wise use of the Islands Trust money to upgrade stations and other accessories and adornments along the rail line without addressing the core fundamental health of its capacity to move passengers — its safety.

[1435]

I realize that the minister needs to be acquainted with the history of the railway and the current history of the management of the railway to really give a wholesome answer. But I would ask him that passenger service on Vancouver Island provided by the E&N Railway — whether he perceives that as a high value in terms of marketing tourism and whether he would be prepared to join the advocacy that is seeking funding from all levels of government to repair the railway and restore passenger rail service.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. There are some tremendous success stories around railway tourism here, particularly in British Columbia. The Rocky Mountaineer has been an incredible success. But that is based on a specific product, a specific quality of product, and the need to make sure that it can be provided consistently to the consumer.

It has been early days in my entry into this position. I have been following along the issue of the E&N Railway, and I have met with Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, who is lead on this particular file. I think a properly run railway corridor can add to tourism values, whether it's here on Vancouver Island or in other parts of British Columbia as well.

D. Routley: The railway is a spectacular piece of B.C. history. It is the railway that was never new. Dunsmuir built it to service the coal mines. The bridge over Niagara Canyon here in Goldstream was recycled from Cisco in the Fraser Canyon where the two railways crossed, when traffic became too heavy there.

It was the first place on the CPR where diesel locomotives were used and also the last place where steam locomotives were used. It has a long and proud history, and it is essential to our tourism industry.

When I ride it, I meet people from all over the world on that railway, so I think it's essential that it be restored. Now that it is owned by the Island Corridor Foundation — which is a coalition of Island communities, First Nations — it is really important to those of us on the Island that it be restored.

I would ask the minister one more time if he would actively join as a petitioner and add his weight to the effort to lobby all levels of government to bring the necessary funding to restore the passenger rail service. It is not an extraordinary amount of money. It's estimated to be between $15 million and $20 million to restore the trackage. If that is accomplished, we will have the opportunity for commuter rail as well as servicing more options, such as along the lines of what the minister has described. It would service tourism more.

Hon. P. Bell: Just before I try to respond to the question, I should reintroduce my staff. To my immediate left is my deputy minister, Dana Hayden. To my immediate right is acting Assistant Deputy Minister Gordon Borgstrom, and to his right is Exec Director Greg Goodwin.

Again, to answer the question, first of all, I do believe that rail tourism is an opportunity and something we need to build on. I've seen success stories. I've also seen failures, frankly, on rail tourism that have been unsuccessful for a lack of capital and a lack of quality of product.

It's pretty clear to me that kind of a commuter low-end rail service is not something that will be successful and attract tourists to it, but a properly developed business plan around a rail system that is attractive certainly has lots of potential.

The member describes some historical references with regards to the E&N Railway. I think those are some of the good reasons why one should contemplate a detailed economic strategy around how a high-end tourism-related product can be built. I don't actually think that's what is currently envisaged by the proponents. I am only

[ Page 6691 ]

basing that on media reports, not on any information that I have beyond that.

Perhaps in the coming weeks the member opposite and I can find some time for coffee, and he can fill me in a bit more. Obviously, he has a very good understanding of the E&N rail lands, and if there's something I can do to help support a business strategy that would lead to a high-end, good-quality tourism product, I'd certainly entertain that.

[1440]

D. Routley: I certainly welcome that invitation.

Some of the plans that are underway regarding the E&N were things like to offer steam excursion and dinner trips that are along the lines of what the minister has described in conjunction with the B.C. Forest Discovery Centre perhaps, which operates steam trains on its property. They have been asked informally by the Island Corridor Foundation whether they would be willing to participate in that sort of engagement. I look forward to being able to speak to the minister about that.

Another concern regarding tourism that has a transportation component to it in our island communities is the issue of the small ferry runs. I realize that is not directly related to this minister's portfolio, but my constituency has the most ferry terminals of any ferry constituency. Most of them service our small islands, and those islands are heavily dependent on the ability or the attractiveness of that transportation option in order to develop their tourism businesses.

Many of my constituents who operate small businesses on the small Gulf Islands are suffering because of the increased ferry fares. Has the minister considered any options that his ministry could assist in addressing some of those obstacles to developing tourism businesses?

Hon. P. Bell: This question was canvassed by an earlier member, but I'll just try and repeat my answer. I understand there is great concern amongst island businesses as well as residents on some of the smaller islands, as well as some of the major routes, about ferry fares.

I can, I believe, confirm for the member opposite that the Minister of Transportation has been engaged with the ferries commissioner in talking to the ferries commissioner about the costs associated and if there are ways to mitigate increasing costs over time. More detailed responses would be better pursued with the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. But certainly I've met with the minister, and we've discussed the situation, and he knows my concerns.

D. Routley: Thank you, Minister. It's funny that on Vancouver Island, most of our tourism alternatives involve some form of transportation. There's the railway, and there's the Island Highway. There are the ferry options, but there's also an extensive network of trails.

The Trans Canada Trail is an integral part of our outdoor tourism option that we offer to people. So I would ask the minister what programs are being offered to develop and support the trail infrastructure on the Island.

Hon. P. Bell: The specific operational issues as it relates to trails and trail management lay with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. But I will tell the member opposite, as I've stated previously in the House, that we're currently looking at the tourism product that we offer here in British Columbia to try and better understand what makes us unique, what makes us different and what the major international selling features would be.

Pretty clearly, beautiful B.C. and the wilderness that we have is one of the key elements of that, but we want to make sure that we build a better package, working with industry and creating specific interests.

I think trails, back-country tourism and some of the associated features will probably be one of the areas that is very important from a B.C. tourism perspective, but it is still in the early days of my responsibility for this portfolio. So we are doing that analysis right now.

For this summer it'll be status quo. The level of activity on our trail systems, the systems that we operate them under in terms of Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, will continue. But we certainly are contemplating this as one of the opportunity areas. As we move forward over the coming months, I'll be happy to keep the member opposite informed.

[1445]

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and your staff. I'll try to be very brief here. I've got two issues, both dealing with trusts — sort of different issues, though.

The first one. The Skeetchestn Indian band has a significant problem. Their location, their traditional territory, is within the boundaries of the Northern Development Initiative Trust. However, they could arguably be within the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust. But they seem to be in neither.

The issue has been brought up apparently previously by the band. They seem to be caught in the middle of an interjurisdictional problem. It could be very awkward if their traditional territory that's in the Northern Trust boundaries is not recognized as such. That severely hinders their chances for economic development, and indeed it appears to already.

They did put in an application a couple of years ago now on a value-added incubator. As the minister notes from his previous portfolio, small scale for basic lumber production is very important in the region for the band. They were turned down, it looks like at least in part, because of this interjurisdictional boundary problem.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any solutions or if he'd be willing to look into this on behalf of the band.

[ Page 6692 ]

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have any information on that specific issue, but I'd be happy to look into it and report back to the member opposite.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

The second and final issue is…. It's dealing with, I guess, it could be all the trusts, but specifically the Island Coastal Economic Trust. I'm just curious. The new Premier has stated that she's looking to review these trusts — how they they're run, how they're organized, what their criteria are. I'm curious as to what that will cover.

I'll get to a specific issue that I found of great concern. There was an initiative in Port Alberni that was being proposed, and they applied to the trust. I'm on the advisory committee. As the minister knows, the MLAs are all on the advisory committee. This was for the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences in Port Alberni that was being proposed at the time.

Port Alberni, as you know, has had significant economic downturn — 5,000 people once not that long ago in the forest industry down to less than 1,000 now. So this economic diversification, a potential university — very exciting. It was one that was agreed to by all sides of the House, I am pleased to see, in a bipartisan, non-partisan way a couple of years ago.

So they went to the Island Trust for money. They put in a proposal. Significant work and resources were used to do that. It was a unanimous decision by the advisory board to endorse this very enthusiastically. I've never seen that level of support before. The entire advisory committee said yes and move it forward post-haste.

It didn't get post-haste. It got mired for over a year. The proponent actually ended up spending a quarter of a million dollars trying to meet a never-ending moving set of goalposts, and eventually it failed. We can argue about that, whether that was good or not, but the proponent lost a significant amount of resources as opposed to gaining it.

It was contrary to the net economic contribution that the trust has mandated to do. But it gets worse. The building was…. Part of the funding was coming from federal money. The most stringent criteria for application acceptance under the KIP proposal federally…. They accepted this one. The university is now at the point where it's just about up and running. The building is in place. It's a wonderful thing.

The economic development that will flow from that — not as much as if they had got the support of the Island Trust, as we thought would happen — would fit into every criteria that the Island Trust had. It was supported by the mayor and the regional district and everything else, but it failed.

Is there any ability to scrutinize and review this from the minister's level when something goes wrong? There doesn't seem to be a methodology to address what appear to be some pretty significant inconsistencies in how the trusts are adjudicated, how the money is doled out.

[1450]

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member for his question. The purpose of the commitment made by the Premier really is to try and have another look at issues like that and find out if the current model of the trusts is meeting the test of helping support community economic development and whether good decisions are being made or not.

As the member opposite knows, there are a number of different trusts around the province. Each is operated completely at arm's length from government under a governance model that is prescribed. It's more similar to an authority model where the positions on the body continue to be renewed depending on the nature of positions held and that sort of thing — mayors, MLAs, but also other individuals that are appointed to the board.

Government, the minister, does not have any authority to overrule decisions by trusts, by the nature of the legislation under which they were founded. We will, as part of the work that we do, look at the nature of the trusts, the way they're established, the legislation, and whether they are achieving the goals that they were set out to achieve in the first place. We'll consult broadly on that — obviously, with members of the boards, which would include opposition members, as well as the public and other key stakeholders in it.

Earlier on I stated that I've not yet taken terms of reference to cabinet. I need to do that prior to being able to disclose any information on the exact nature of the reviews. But my hope is to have the review completed by the end of the calendar year. Then I, of course, would make that review public at that time or at the time that it was completed.

I think the point that the member makes is a good one. I appreciate it. I think that's exactly the type of decision that we'll be looking at and trying to better understand. If the decision was not made in a way that perhaps reflected the spirit of the original intent, if there are changes necessary, we'd certainly be willing to pursue those changes.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the fact that he's answering these questions so forthrightly and quickly with the time that we have — it's very limited — and considering he's brand-new in this position. Thank you for that.

To finish this off, then, I just wanted to make a comment. I hope that we will have the ability to be able to review some of these things. I mean, the actual work that was done by the staff of the trust to analyze and review this project showed a very, very strong economic benefit.

[ Page 6693 ]

As we know, universities like UNBC, University of Vancouver Island — these institutions actually provide huge economic benefit and the potential for diversification of economies in communities like Port Alberni, which is so important.

I would hope that we have an ability to have some oversight, that indeed the terms of reference that a net economic benefit will accrue, as opposed to…. In this case it was an economic loss not just to the university but to the community of Port Alberni and, I would submit, to the province and to the world. Sixteen nations in the world have actually adopted the platform and the programs of this university. So it's a shame that our own trust was the only one that didn't seem to deem it necessary to support it.

G. Gentner: Yesterday during estimates I learned from the minister that InterVISTAS was a successful bidder of an RFP for conducting a study of proposed foreign trade zones for British Columbia. Now, the RFP clearly states that the feasibility study would be conducted by "an independent consultant." So I asked the minister if it was affiliated with the group lobbying hard for the foreign trade zone — the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council. The minister responded that they were "independent of that group."

But the company has worked for the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, amongst other entities related to the port development — B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail and, not surprisingly, another independent corporation, Omnitrax.

[1455]

The company has stated that it was "retained to develop a new vision for the greater Vancouver gateway." So why would the minister say that InterVISTAS was an independent consultant when it has already been engaged with studies for the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council and other entities of the province?

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding is that the ownership of InterVISTAS is independent and distinct from the foreign trade zone steering committee members. That's the advice I've been provided, and I believe that to be the case. While they may have provided services to individual members, I don't think in any way that connects InterVISTAS to the company. It is only logical that a company with that sort of information would provide services to a variety of groups and individuals.

G. Gentner: Well, in the RFP it clearly states that the successful bidder will not be a company that would be involved in any association or previously of that of lobbying. It's quite clear. It says here: "The proponents must not attempt to communicate directly or indirectly with any employee, contractor or representative of the province, including the evaluation committee and any elected officials of the province or with members of the public and the media."

It's clear to me that the province is also very much involved with the organization of gateway, and there is a close association with the province and of course the gateway committee, including the consortium that is pushing hard for the foreign trade zone made up of these members.

Again, is the minister suggesting that there is a defined independence from this company with that of the operation of putting forward a foreign trade zone?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll repeat my previous answer. To the best of my knowledge, InterVISTAS has no ownership relationship with anyone within the foreign trade zone committee or the provincial government. It is an independent entity that provides services on a contract basis, and while it has worked for government and for others from time to time, I don't think that in any way it creates a connection between the province and InterVISTAS.

B. Simpson: I want to make a quick opening comment. We're going to be talking about FII later on, but this is my first opportunity to make a public statement to the fact — because the minister has raised it a number of times….

I wanted to give kudos to the minister for his leadership on the China file. I have mills operating in my constituency that are operating because of that shift to China. Now having said that, we will talk about what needs to be done in that China strategy, but I did feel compelled to make that statement. I have a lot of people in my riding who are currently working because political leadership was shown, and we have a bigger presence in China than we ever had. My respects to the minister for that.

I want to just canvass very quickly — because we are time-sensitive, as we always are in estimates — the softwood lumber agreement and some questions for clarification, based on some folks that I've been dealing with.

First off, we're at a phase where the options — option A, option B — I believe, are available to be adjusted or changed at the request of British Columbia, and I believe that some folks down in the southeast at one point were asking for a change of options. If the minister could clarify whether that discussion is happening.

[1500]

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for his very kind words.

The deadline for the decision point of changing from option A to option B or staying with option A has expired. We did consult extensively with the industry. There are always different views, but the overwhelming sense amongst licensees was that option A was serving us well and to continue with that option.

[ Page 6694 ]

B. Simpson: The next question has to do with the status of negotiations. As we all know, it takes a while to figure out where we're going to go. The softwood lumber agreement does have an expiry in the out-years, but are there negotiations just now underway with the United States around renewing the softwood lumber agreement or doing something different?

Hon. P. Bell: There are no active negotiations at this point with the U.S. government or with industry in the U.S. on the renewal process. However, we have started consultations with industry as well as with the federal government. As we complete that work over the next number of months, we'll then be taking that advice and contemplating what we should do going forward. Whether we should request the extension of two years with no changes, whether we should look to have some changes in the agreement or whether we should let the agreement expire would be the three options.

B. Simpson: The reason I raise the issue of where we're at with negotiations is that the minister will remember that many people characterized this as a political deal at the time. There was some fast-tracking that occurred. There were sectors of the forest industry that believed they were shortchanged because of the nature of the fast-tracking and, in particular, some unfinished business that was supposed to have an ongoing dialogue around the secondary manufacturers, non-tenured producers who got pulled into this deal and had to be part of the tax regime.

Then of particular note in terms of log export debate, in terms of manufacturing on the coast, is the issue of lumber or tariffable products produced from private logs. My question to the minister is: is there a sense that those particular issues…? People felt this deal unfairly treated certain sectors of the forest community. Are they going to be part of the dialogue leading into the new deal?

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to take a few seconds here. One of the items that the member opposite mentioned was that non–tenure holders got dragged into the agreement. In fact, non–tenure holders are exempt from border tax. They are entitled to ship into the U.S. without any form of border tax. There's a criteria around that that must be met, of course, but that's the case.

It's a bit of an awkward relationship in terms of how this all unfolds. The federal government clearly has responsibility and authority over international trade deals, so the U.S. federal government is technically only allowed to talk to the Canadian federal government. However, British Columbia represents about 60 percent of the industry, so we're the largest stakeholder, and the federal government has been very good in working with the provincial government, allowing us to participate in that level of discussion and making sure that we're actually at the table. But the technical discussion takes place, as I'm sure the member is aware, between the two federal governments.

We have encouraged the federal government, and the federal government has made attempts to raise these issues with the American government. The American government has been unwilling to pursue discussions around some of the things that the member has mentioned to this point in time. However, in a renewal period of the nature that the member is contemplating, certainly that creates some levers. If the U.S. is interested in pursuing an extension, there may be an opportunity to talk about some of those additional items that are important to his constituents, to my constituents and to all British Columbians.

B. Simpson: Thanks for the minister's answer and the clarification. As the minister knows, if secondary manufacturers are associated in getting wood from tenured manufacturers, and so on, they did get lumped in. Some of them got lumped in, in a way that they didn't before, but the minister is apprised of that and knows that that's an issue that needs to be addressed.

[1505]

In particular, though, the private log issue on the coast is one that I think really did get lost last time and really needs to be addressed. If we're going to be able to get lumber manufacturing from those private logs on the coast, we need to have a fair playing field with the Americans, and I would hope that that would be one of them.

I had to chuckle as I recalled the debate around the softwood lumber agreement as to whether B.C. was driving the bus or was the big dog at the table or all of those things that the previous minister was using as language as we did debates in the House. I understand it's a Canadian deal.

There is one thing that British Columbia has that could avoid a future softwood lumber agreement, and that's the issue of tenure reform. I'm wondering. I know it's not within the minister's direct control, but because the minister has a softwood lumber agreement…. There was, when he was Minister of Forests, a paper circulated within the ministry about tenure reform. I believe, and the minister knows this from previous debate, that tenure reform may be the way that we actually avoid a softwood lumber agreement or B.C. participating in a softwood lumber agreement in the future.

Could the minister state whether or not a serious look at tenure reform is occurring, either as a result of trying to avoid an SLA or within the ministry's and the minister's area of responsibility?

Hon. P. Bell: I may think about tenure reform in a slightly different way than the member opposite does. A tenure reform is something that kind of rolls off the tongue very easily. But there are 85 members in this

[ Page 6695 ]

House, and if we asked everyone to write down on a single piece of paper what they thought tenure reform meant, I suspect we'd get 75 different responses and ten pieces of blank paper. It is a very complex issue.

We've gone through extensive tenure reform in terms of the 20 percent takeback originally, which is now sold competitively or provided to First Nations community forests. We went from one community forest to 41 community forests in the time since 2001, increased the number of woodlots, and so on. Receiving licences I consider to be a form of tenure reform, commercial forestry, so there was lots of work going on.

I think what the member is probably more referring to is perhaps another large-scale takeback, something of that nature, that creates a more competitive playing field. But I'll leave that to him to describe.

I actually believe that the answer to the softwood lumber deal with the U.S. is China. I think that as we grow the Chinese market….

The growth rate has been tremendous — last year 2.9 billion board feet. I haven't seen March's numbers yet, but as of the end of February, we were at double the pace again for the first two months of the calendar year against the previous year. That might lead one to believe that we'll see something perhaps around five billion feet. That may be optimistic; I'm not sure. A couple of years ago when I set a goal of four billion board feet within two years, everyone thought I was crazy. In fact, I'm sure we'll exceed the four billion board foot mark — no question about that.

Given that we produce about 15, 16 billion board feet in a big year in British Columbia and have traditionally tried to sell ten, 11, perhaps 12 billion board feet into the U.S., as we displace that volume into the Chinese market — or perhaps Korea and India and others as well…. It could be a variety of markets. As that volume is displaced, B.C. will be less reliant on the U.S. marketplace.

While tenure reform could be part of the equation, I think there are other reasons to do tenure reform. Certainly when I was minister, I was pursuing a goal of incremental tenure reform as opposed to broad, sweeping reform. The current minister I can't speak for. I'm sure the member opposite will have an opportunity to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations what his intent is.

[1510]

My belief is that the SLA will go away the day that we are no longer heavily reliant on the American marketplace. My goal always was, and will continue to be, to make that happen through the Asian marketplace.

B. Simpson: The minister's characterization of the tenure reform debate, I don't disagree with. I think he's being kind with only ten blank sheets of paper if the House was canvassed, but be that as it may.

We're already seeing China influencing price in the U.S. market. It's not bottoming out where it otherwise might as a result of China's presence, so I take that point. But as the minister does know, tenure and putting a public resource in the hand of private companies and all of the associated benefits that that comes with — in terms of how we price timber, in terms of credits for silviculture and roads and various other things — of course is the root of a big part of the U.S. challenge against our interference in the marketplace.

That's what I mean by tenure reform. Often it's around 50 percent or the 51 percent mark that has to be in a truly free log market, etc., and that's where the debate comes. But I'll canvass the tenure part with the appropriate minister.

Having mentioned timber pricing, the minister is aware that there is an arbitration underway just now. I found the arbitration claim from the Americans but couldn't find Canada's response so that I understand the argument. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of when Canada will be making its response public.

Hon. P. Bell: The response from the Canadian government that, of course, we were involved in was provided to the tribunal around mid-April. We don't have the exact date with us here. But if it was not posted, for some reason, on the Internet, we're happy to provide the member opposite with a copy, because it is public documentation. So I'll endeavour through the miracles of the legislative television network to have someone somewhere magically produce a copy of that and provide it to the member opposite.

B. Simpson: So my final question is on this. I may have just missed it on the Canadian website. I just couldn't find it. My final question on this. It's my understanding the time frame will be the appointment of the panel. The panel is appointed out of the United Kingdom, but the hearings or whatever will be held here. That independent panel is supposed to rule within 180 days, it's my understanding.

My question, however, is because…. There's time sensitivity associated with this. I have had individuals approach me about concerns that — and this is a hypothetical — in the event that there is a ruling against us in this case…. They're concerned that the incremental tax that Canada used in the Ontario and Quebec situation — across-the-board increment tax — to deal with the so-called damages….

In British Columbia there are some companies that have actually not benefited from the practice in question, and they're concerned about the process that will be used by British Columbia and Canada for determining what the actual punitive damages will be and what the government will do to address those.

So my question to the minister is: will there be an opportunity post–the arbitration ruling for a discussion in British Columbia about the best way to address whatever that ruling is so that people who didn't bene-

[ Page 6696 ]

fit or participate in the practice are not punished by a flat, across-the-board increase in the tax, as Quebec and Ontario did?

Hon. P. Bell: In the current softwood lumber agreement and in the arbitration process there's no mechanism for a differential penalty to be applied. So if there was to be any sort of a differential penalty applied, it would have to be a negotiated agreement that all parties, including the Americans, would agree to.

[1515]

Just to be clear, in the actual construct of the agreement as it stands today, there is no opportunity for a differential penalty.

B. Simpson: I understand that. My question, though, to the minister was…. B.C. is particularly under the gun on this particular claim. The concern is that British Columbia needs to actually address the issue that the minister is speaking to, to determine whether or not there is a position to put forward to ask for some kind of special circumstances. So the question actually is: will there be a process engaged in post…?

Hopefully, Canada wins, but failing Canada winning, will British Columbia be able to actually take a very reasoned look at some options and then make the determination whether they want to go and try and fight for some kind of differential penalty as opposed to across the board?

Hon. P. Bell: We are convinced that we will win this arbitration. So we certainly start from that premise and believe that to be the case. The legal advice that we have we are comfortable with and confident that, with our response to the initial filings, we should win the case. So I haven't presupposed what might happen in the event that that's not the case at this point.

J. Kwan: Seeing as we are sort of on the theme of wood, I'm going to carry on and ask the minister some questions about the dream home initiative. This is the Canada Dream Home initiative.

The last update that we got that was on the public record about the dream home initiative actually came from the former Minister of Forests, who is now the Minister of Health. At that time it was reported that the dream home initiative…. The total cost of the exhibit was $12 million. The dream home initiative, I believe, is ongoing. Although I'll have some further questions about it later, I'd like to see if I could get an update from the minister on the total cost of the dream home initiative to date that British Columbians had carried for this initiative.

Hon. P. Bell: Joining me to my immediate right is the CEO of the Forestry Innovative Investment, Ken Baker. Ken has a plethora of spreadsheets available to us, so hopefully I'll be able to answer all the members' questions.

The actual cost of the construction of the facility was $3½ million. We still occupy that facility today. But we've had an extensive number of employees in China. We continue to invest heavily in things like the Sichuan earthquake zone rehabilitation project and the like. I just need a little clarity from the member opposite in terms of what she includes in the dream home project.

The actual physical construction of the dream home project was $3½ million, but I wouldn't want to suggest that…. We still occupy the building. It's our office in Shanghai. We have about 40 or so staff, between the Canada Wood Group and FII China, in that particular facility. We use that as our primary facility to house the office and market wood in China.

Just need a little more clarity in terms of the number that the member opposite is looking for.

[1520]

J. Kwan: Actually, I'm looking for pretty well all the numbers — right? My next question was going to be the breakdown of the project's budget. It includes, obviously, the operating part of it in terms of the operating cost, in terms of the ongoing cost to finance this initiative. So what was the startup, then? Is the startup that the minister is saying $3½ million — for the construction of the dream home itself as a demonstration site, and then afterwards the ongoing cost, and is that each year? It's not just the one-time cost; it's an ongoing cost as well. So it's a cumulative cost to the treasury.

Hon. P. Bell: I think probably the best thing is that I'll arrange for a copy of the spreadsheet to be provided to the member opposite, because there's a fair bit of detail in terms of expenditures. This spreadsheet starts in 2008-09 and goes forward and assumes the '11-12 fiscal year. There are four years included, but of course, Dream Home was built a number of years prior to that. We'd have to go back and pull that data together.

The average '08-09 was $8.8 million, and then we bounced up to about $14 million this year. Because we've completed the Sichuan earthquake reconstruction

[ Page 6697 ]

projects, we're down to $10.7 million. That's total federal government industry dollars, trade association dollars as well as the provincial government. I'm happy to provide a copy of this to the member opposite.

J. Kwan: I would be very interested in getting that, because I know that's getting into all the various details, and presumably the spreadsheet will provide for federal breakout and then provincial breakout and then industry costs, etc. If I need to go back further, I'm sure that I can get that from the ministry's staff. He has many spreadsheets. Weirdly enough, I like to look at them too. Okay, that would be great if I could get that information from the minister, and thank you for that.

I would like to get the minister's view on the Dream Home initiative. With the completion of the earthquake natural disaster that China had faced…. The cost, presumably, that the minister has just outlined is included in that. Beyond that, what was the project able to generate for British Columbians? That is to say: what other initiatives did China take up that they pay for themselves, that utilize the Dream Home initiative to do construction they required that was not paid for by the taxpayers?

Hon. P. Bell: The Dream Home China project was our first foray into the Chinese marketplace. It was interesting, and it was probably the right idea at the time. But it really didn't end up, I think, reflecting the vast majority of the Chinese construction market and the opportunity that exists for wood-frame construction.

There were a number of villas built in and around China on a commercial basis as a result of people coming and seeing Dream Home China and seeing what it looked like. They liked the style of construction, so they went on. I can't provide a number to the member opposite. It certainly is not in the tens of thousands. It may be in the thousands; I'm not sure. But it wasn't a huge component of the growth that we've seen.

[1525]

It has been a good project from the perspective of demonstrations of what you can do with wood in China. The fact that it's been there for, I guess, about eight years now also shows that wood-frame construction is a good style of construction that can last for a long period of time. There's no degrading of the building. It's still in very, very good shape today.

I typically visit it once a year while I'm over there. It largely at this point in time houses our office staff — all of our staff, in fact, in our FII operations as well as the Canada Wood Group operations. That could be somewhere else, actually. There were two buildings, and I think one of them has been re-leased and is now a pub, if I'm not mistaken. Some of the area where it was built has been attractive, and it is used by the developer now as another type of facility.

The initial project was our first foray into China. It probably wasn't the best style of construction, but it allowed us to learn from the project. The real development in terms of the Chinese marketplace has come from those learnings.

As we've pursued other opportunities — and I'll use wood roof trusses as an example around that — we entered into some agreements where we would build two, three or four wood roof trusses for a developer on the conditions that we were able to demonstrate affordability and also sustainability of the roofing system and that the developer would then go ahead and build some other wood roofs on their own.

Typically, that's been kind of in the neighbourhood of three to six roofs that we would build. The developer would build 100 to 150 roofs. That would be kind of normal. We have done other demonstration projects. In fact, we just completed a project where we built a three-storey apartment building that had three apartments per floor in front of the Beijing conference center. That was the purpose of my most recent trip into China.

For that particular project we provided the lumber, which was a little under $100,000 for the project, as well as some technical expertise, but the developer actually paid for everything else in that building. The cost of the building to the provincial government or to FII was about $100,000 plus another $100,000 to have it transported and set up in front of the Beijing conference center.

We're seeing a shift taking place where we no longer have to contribute $1 million or $2 million to do a demonstration project. In most of the demonstration projects now, if we provide the lumber and some skilled expertise, typically a developer will put in the rest of the associated costs.

We have a project that's going on right now in the Tianjin Economic Development Area that's a four-storey building. We went out as a result of a memorandum of understanding signed with the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development a little over a year ago, actually, to build a multi-storey apartment building.

This facility is just under construction. The foundations were in when I was there in March. I believe it's started to be framed at this point. It will be the first multi-storey wood apartment building of this nature.

In that particular case, again it's the case that we provided lumber for one building. They are actually building, I think, five all together, if I'm not mistaken, out of wood. They liked what they saw, so they're expanding.

We've really shifted gears, and it's not just around wood frame. That certainly is one of the elements, but furniture is another element. Concrete forming we know about. Everyone is aware of that — the wood roof systems, doors, windows. I think we are at a place now where we will continue to see that very, very significant growth in China.

[ Page 6698 ]

Was it perfect from the beginning? I say absolutely not. I think lots to learn from it. One of my jobs in this new portfolio is to take the learnings from FII and the processes we've gone through since 2002 or '03 and try and apply them to other industrial sectors in the province. The member may have some other questions, but I hope that kind of gives her an outline of the process so far.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister for that, because the website actually lists the number of different demonstration projects as well. So I appreciate that.

[1530]

Many of these questions that I have are fairly detailed. I wonder, with this spreadsheet, if the minister could also ensure that he provides me with each of the demonstration projects — the list of them; where they are and what the province contributed in terms of those demonstration projects; the cost of those demonstration projects for the province of British Columbia; and if it's in kind, such as wood; and the techniques that are being utilized for the development. If the minister can list those things out and cost it out for me, I would appreciate it.

Also, provide what the matching dollars are — coming from the developer, from the Chinese government or whoever else is involved with those demonstration projects. I would be much obliged.

Segueing from that, if I could also get a spreadsheet — I'm sure the minister's staff has loads of them — that will then tell us…. Presumably, the ministry is tracking, out of those demonstration projects, what it is yielding by way of a return investment for us in terms of the Chinese government or developers in China that are now utilizing these techniques that they've learned and the demonstration initiatives that they have picked up on, in building their own projects at their own cost. Then, if we can get an estimate of the value of that in terms of revenue generated for British Columbia, I would really appreciate it as well.

I know that the roof trusses were part of the thing that came out of the Dream Home initiative. In fact — back in 2005, I think it was — I and the critic for Health travelled to China. Actually, we went to visit the Dream Home initiative to see what it looked like and what it was doing and how it was generating potential revenue and economic activity opportunities for British Columbia.

In looking at the site, I must say, I was dumbfounded, because in China there is a huge population base, as we all know, and there is a scarcity of land. Therefore, density is the order of the day, and single-family dwellings such as the dream home are not the order of the day. And I thought: "How are we going to really generate these opportunities in return?"

I'll be interested out of that…. As the minister says, it didn't generate that many houses or villas or projects as such, but rather it might have paved the way for something else. I'd be very interested in knowing what those things might be.

One of those things, I know, would be those roof trusses. Again, I know that British Columbia also provided for and built roof trusses, etc. The cost of that, in terms of the roof trusses to our treasury by way of demonstration and, again, the return of how many trusses we managed to sell to China, I guess…. I would be interested in getting that figure. If the minister can provide that to me, I would really appreciate it.

Hon. P. Bell: Just before I respond to that question, I want to correct the record. To the member for Cariboo North: I had indicated that the option to change from option A to option B had expired last year. In fact, it was in June of 2009 that the option expired. However, there is a second option, and the second option is January of 2013 for a decision. I just wanted to correct the record and make sure that's clear.

To the member's question, we would be happy…. I'm thinking three years. Most of the demonstration projects have taken place in the last three years or so. We'll provide the spreadsheet data that the member is requesting for the last three years around demonstration projects.

I do want to say to the member opposite, though, that tracking the specific sales related to those projects is very difficult because developers typically purchase from their mainstream suppliers. They don't necessarily tell us after the fact whether or not they have done other projects that we're not aware of.

We are aware of…. For example, in Shijiazhuang, I believe, in Hebei province, we signed an agreement for half a dozen roofs or so — and we'll provide the exact data — with a commitment to build an additional 100-some roofs. We certainly can track that and provide that data. In Shijiazhuang, the last time I was there, there were many, many more roofs going up — far too many that we could count — and would have directly related to the demonstration projects, because they were never done there.

[1535]

I think the easiest, best number to count is really the total volume of lumber that's moved into the marketplace. If the member opposite would like a graph or would like the total volume since we've started our efforts in China in 2002, I'd be happy to provide that.

J. Kwan: Well, I appreciate the information that the minister is going to give me, so I'll be looking forward to receiving the graphs and spreadsheet, particularly on the breakout of the demonstration projects, the actual costs and so on, and then also on the Dream Home initiative itself.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how much this investment was from British Columbia and what the yield was in return. Now, by way of measurement in return,

[ Page 6699 ]

I would argue, though, that's kind of measuring a little bit like apples and oranges. If we look at raw logs, how much we were able to export to China as a measurement, I don't think that's a fair measurement of this initiative at all.

Why I say that is this. Unless the minister can provide to me out of that figure the breakout of how much of that actually went into these specific areas of development…. Or did the raw logs go into China, then, to be utilized to build furniture and so on? The reason why I ask is this. I think there's an opportunity here for British Columbia to see how we can extend our economic opportunities by adding value to these logs, therefore giving value to job opportunities right here in British Columbia in terms of furniture production, door frames and so on.

I'm just wondering how we can maximize the job development opportunities in British Columbia — have we done that? — in trying to get a sense of this initiative and its value to B.C. in terms of the taxpayers' point of view.

I want to ask another question of the minister. We know there is some interest from the Chinese government in looking at building the lower, six-storey-type buildings in China — residential buildings, although some commercial, I guess. That's something the minister is embarking on. If the minister could tell us how that is going and whether or not there are going to be issues around fire code related to that, which the Chinese might be looking at with these six-storey wood-frame constructions.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to provide some approximate data here, but more detailed data certainly is available if the member opposite would like it.

In terms of the value of shipments into China of logs versus lumber, typically logs are representing something less than 10 percent of the total value going into the Chinese market. Lumber is something over 90 percent. It does fluctuate a bit, but it's kind of in that range.

That's quite different than other countries. Our experience in Washington State is on the order of 50 or 60 percent log and about 40 or 50 percent lumber. If you look at New Zealand, it's much higher to log again. Russia — virtually exclusively log now.

[1540]

I think British Columbia can be pretty proud that the majority of our shipments into China is lumber, and it is because we've stayed very, very focused on lumber. I know the sensitivities around the exportation of round logs. Certainly, my goal — publicly stated many times as Forests Minister; I continue to state that position — is to see us shipping lumber, not logs into the market. So I think we have a good credible story to tell around that.

The memorandum of understanding was to develop a joint working group on wood-frame construction for China. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development is responsible for all housing in China. In China over the next five years we're anticipating about 86 million units of housing. That would include about 36 million units of affordable housing and then 50-or-so million units — about ten million per year that occur on an annual basis. That's how you get the 86 million units.

Vice-Minister Qiu and I in our meeting discussed how we might move forward on the project and how we might advance the agenda around wood-frame construction. He grew up in a wood-frame house, is quite comfortable with wood-frame construction and has been provided with the objective from central government to see them reduce their carbon footprint on the landscape, particularly as it relates to construction. The Chinese government has mandated that in their 12th five-year plan to reduce their carbon intensity by 17 percent.

Vice-Minister Qiu and I and the federal government signed this joint memorandum of understanding to establish a committee, which is working on an ongoing basis — it's a technical committee — as well as pursuing a demonstration project.

The demonstration project I referred to earlier in the Tianjin Economic Development Area is the project that was chosen by MOHURD and ourselves to move forward on, and that would be the first four-storey wood-frame building in China that is built under the new code that's available.

The member's question, though, is: will there be challenges around fire codes, building codes, as we move up from four to five to six storeys? Undoubtedly. Vice-Minister Qiu in my meeting with him about two weeks…. In fact, two weeks ago today I was with him here in British Columbia. Vice-Minister Qiu came on our invitation and spent a day with us in Vancouver.

He's keenly interested in hybrid construction. He thinks a combination of concrete and wood is a good option so perhaps a couple of floors of concrete and four floors of wood, or three and three, or five and one. I'm not sure where we'll end up on it, but the technical committee continues to work away at this initiative. The first building is physically under construction in Tianjin and is scheduled for completion as we move into the fall months.

So I think to the question the member asks: yes, lots of work to do on fire code, lots of work to do on build-

[ Page 6700 ]

ing code, but a very promising marketplace if we're able to create the appropriate codes that give the Chinese the confidence necessary.

J. Kwan: Is there any indication from the Chinese government on the 86,000 residential units that they're trying to build, that these are going to be in the framework of, I guess, low- to midrise-type buildings, or is it going to be highrises?

The reason why I ask this is that when the current critic for Health and I went back to China, shortly after that, the Chinese government — I believe it's the central government — actually put out an edict for all the provinces in China that talked about construction and particularly residential construction. Because of the density issue, people were not allowed to build low-density-type buildings.

[1545]

I'm just wondering: in terms of that 86,000, the opportunity there in terms of wood construction — is that really real? Or is it really going to be more like the highrises? Even when we talk about the mixed-hybrid-type building, mixed concrete and wood structure buildings, I'm not even sure if that is meeting the density requirement of the central government. Maybe the minister can shed some light on that.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite dropped three zeroes on the number of housing units being built in China. However, I've been known to jump from billions to millions as well. So just to correct the record, it's 86 million, not 86,000. It's actually such a large number that it's hard to fathom that that many housing units would be built, especially given that the United States in a big year builds two million. Biggest market and hard to believe.

I should also say, just for the record…. The member didn't ask this question, but I often do get asked this question: how big are these units? Typically about 800 square feet would be a normal housing unit that is built, so probably half the size of what is built in the United States but very similar to what we're seeing constructed in downtown Vancouver or downtown Victoria here. In fact, my daughter and her husband just moved into a place that I would say is very similar in size, and it is a very high-end condominium unit in downtown Victoria. So size-wise, about 800 square feet.

The member asked about the density levels and the direction provided by the central government on that. The member asked: is it going to be highrise or mid-rise or low-rise? The answer is: all of the above.

In speaking with Vice-Minister Qiu just two weeks ago today, actually, he advised that he expects somewhere around 70 percent of the units that will be built out of the 36 million affordable housing units will be six-storey. Those are typically in second-tier cities. Second-tier cities in China tend to be cities of under seven million, eight million, nine million in population. Those are often considered small suburbs in China versus the first-tier cities that are larger populations — ten-million-plus people. In a place like Shanghai it is unlikely that you will see significant six-storey structures.

The target market for wood would more likely be in the strapping market there, where they build the units out of concrete, and then when they drywall them, they need to strap them with wood in order to apply the drywall or panelling or whatever product is used. So there's a lot of strapping material. There's also a lot of concrete forming material as those buildings get built. So there's lots of opportunity for wood, but it's a different opportunity.

In the second-tier cities is where the six-storey walk-up tends to develop. Those, I'm advised by Vice-Minister Qiu, probably represent in the order of 70, perhaps as much as 75 percent of the total number of units to be built. It is different depending on where you're located in China.

We're focusing our efforts — and this is important as well, I think — on northern China — really, Shanghai and north. In southern China, because of the moisture in the air, wood is probably not the best product to use. So we're really not focusing on the southern half of the country. We're focusing our efforts on the northern half of the country. Clearly we're not going to build 86 million units of wood, but if we can continue to expand and grow that market, we think it would be a good thing.

J. Kwan: The minister is right. I did drop three zeroes. I meant million, and I think I said thousand and 36 million, so you're correct.

I'm now going to pass the floor over to the independent member, who is just hopping in his chair.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the opposition critic. Speaking of dropping zeroes, one of my estimates debates as Forests critic was in a roundabout way to point out that the B.C. Timber Sales had booked their spreadsheet in the millions when it was supposed to be in the thousands. It took a little while for the minister to figure out that he was not playing with that much money. So other people drop those zeroes easily as well.

[1550]

I want to stay on FII — a couple of questions, in particular the B.C. Wood First component of FII. FII has responsibilities for looking at implementation and driving that, and yet there is no stated objective or performance measure or target. My question to the minister is….

This is an explicit initiative of government to drive uptake of wood to be used in construction and various other building, and yet I don't see a measure here. I'm wondering if the government did a baseline and is track-

[ Page 6701 ]

ing against that baseline how successful the uptake is on the government's B.C. wood initiative.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks very much to the member for his question. B.C. Wood Specialties Group is an organization that represents the broader value-added sector and typically kind of the high-value producers in the wood manufacturing industry. FII has a number of contracts with FII.

According to my very quick calculation here, there are six individual contracts, and the total value of those contracts for fiscal '10-11 is a little over $1.5 million. They include the Global Buyers Mission, which is maybe not quite the biggest single endeavour, but it's almost $500,000 into Japan, $400,000 into the United States and then some smaller programs that are associated with it.

I'd refer the member opposite to page 19 of the service plan, where we do measure incremental sales generated in B.C. in the B.C. non-residential market in terms of millions of board feet, which is typically the place where these companies would sell their products into.

B. Simpson: I guess what I'm getting at is the caution of so much energy being spent in China on trying to expand wood growth in China when we may have a huge incremental market here in British Columbia. It's a matter of focus. So I'll take from the minister that that is being tracked.

I do think it's important as a benchmark for making sure we maximize our domestic market, because as the minister knows, that also maximizes our community economic development opportunities, keeps things in British Columbia. It addresses climate change if we're not shipping wood all over the place.

Speaking of performance measures, I would refer to page 21 of the FII service plan and just ask for clarification on what appears to be a bit of a strangeness in this performance measure.

[1555]

"Percentage of customers who feel that choosing products from B.C. is a good choice for the environment" is, in '09-10, n/a; '10-11, 100 percent; 2011-12, n/a; 2012-13, 90 percent; 2013-14, n/a. I'm not sure if that's a typo or if there's something strange with tracking whether or not people think that we're producing environmentally sensitive lumber products. I wonder if the minister could just clarify that.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to answer the second question first and then come back to what I think may or may not have been a question. It might just have been a statement, but I do want to touch on it.

So this measure in terms of the international recognition for B.C. as the leading supplier of environmentally superior forest products. The survey is done every second year, so that's why the member will see it. We think that although we perhaps had the initial lead in this area, we're going to have to work hard to continue, and 100 percent is hard to build on. Perhaps we've given ourselves a little more room than we should, but we think 90 percent is a reasonable goal.

The member opposite, though, talked about his concern of us focusing too much on the Chinese market and not on other opportunities associated with the forest products industry. I think that I would just have him turn his mind to the work that's been done on the Wood First Act, because I happen to agree with the member opposite that we need to have multiple avenues for the use of B.C.'s forest products.

I have always believed that the two biggest single opportunities — at least in terms of volume and to a lesser degree value as well — are China, certainly on the volume side, and in terms of volume and value, the non-residential sector. To that end, when I was Minister of Forests I created the Wood Enterprise Coalition and provided $1.75 million in funding, and they're doing a tremendous amount of work in terms of advancing the agenda around wood-first construction.

I attended a conference held by Wood WORKS! perhaps three or four weeks ago in Vancouver. They've held them now for about five or six years, I think. They have produced an architect's kit for the use of additional wood in large commercial and institutional buildings. It turned out that at that conference I believe there were about 1,100 or 1,200 architects and engineers. It was incredible the turnout at that particular event given that if you go back four, five or six years, it was like pulling teeth to get eight people out. So certainly the industrial-commercial community has turned their mind to building buildings.

[D. Black in the chair.]

We also commissioned a study on how high you could actually go with wood, especially with the new products that are coming out — cross-laminated timber as well as other products. Although I've yet to receive the report on my desk — I think it may be coming through staff at this point — I saw a speech by Michael Green in Australia where he was suggesting potentially upwards of 30 storeys could be built out of wood. Now, I am an optimistic guy and think that might be a bit on the optimistic side, but I do know there's a building in London, England, that is nine storeys, manufactured out of cross-laminated timber.

I would dearly love to see British Columbia exceed that record and look for taller opportunities.

I think there are tremendous opportunities in the commercial-industrial sector. I think those were demonstrated through the Olympics with the Richmond ice oval, with the Vancouver Convention Centre, with the Trout Lake arena, with the Whistler events centre, with

[ Page 6702 ]

all of those wonderful venues that showed the world what B.C. can do with its wood products.

I share the member's passion and interest around expanding the use of forest products and much higher-value uses than what we've traditionally used them for.

B. Simpson: Because of time constraints, I'm going to truncate, with the minister's forbearance, my final couple of questions here. The way that FII is structured, as I understand it — and it's explicit in the documentation — China is the focus. It says it right in the documentation.

[1600]

The way that it's structured, it's about 80 percent taxpayer funded. The leveraging from the federal government of 42 percent; B.C. contributes 38 percent with their funds to FII; 42 percent from Natural Resources Canada; the federal government about 20 percent from the forest industry. Yet as the minister has already indicated, and there are indications in here, some of the FII money actually comes back into industry associations — Council of Forest Industries, Coast Forest Products Association, etc.

When I look at this, coming out of the industry and the company that I worked for — we were in China very early; we were in Japan early; we were in India early — for the most part, we just saw it as good business that we needed to grow there. At that time there weren't government programs like this to do that.

I look at what FII states, where its market outreach communication is to explain B.C.'s forest practices. I get that. I think that's a legitimate government job, to go and say that we log environmentally, etc.

But market research to unearth potential opportunities and create new market demand, I would argue, is the job of the industry. Marketing resources for general use by the industry, such as publications on wood, etc. — that's the industry's responsibility.

Market development programming in China where, as the minister has already indicated, looking at alternate ways to grow the business…. I guess that if it's a risky venture, which is the argument, where you are trying to get the inroads, you're trying to get that beachhead, there's an opportunity for government to be involved in that. But now FII is going to structure a China board, a FII China subsidiary that has, for the most part, the CEO, who's sitting with the minister, and five, six other board members from the industry, which is going to be underwritten for the most part by taxpayer dollars in that function.

I guess where I'm going to with the minister is: do we still need to be so heavily vested as taxpayers? Have we not formed a beachhead, and isn't it the responsibility of industry now to take advantage of that beachhead, do that work and, with the limited amount of taxpayer dollars that we've got, shift priorities to another emerging industry? The minister knows where I'm going with this — major priorities on the bioeconomy.

A brand-new report today from PricewaterhouseCoopers, and this is the language that I'm reading everywhere. This is from PWC: "Business as usual" — i.e., the normative traditional industry, panels, pulp, lumber — "cannot get us to sustainability or secure economic and social prosperity. These can be achieved only through radical change, starting now."

It strikes me that FII and the tax dollars used there would be better positioned to do the exact same thing that the minister and the government did in China, and that's create the beachhead here in British Columbia. The report goes on to state that what's missing is that leadership. Because of a time sensitivity, that's a lot to say.

My point is: haven't we spent enough taxpayer money developing the Chinese market? Industry should now be taking it over as part of their responsibility to grow it, to secure it, to make sure we have a presence there. Taxpayer money gets spent on a whole new industry, which is a $200 billion industry that the world has yet to really discover and that B.C. could be first on. Can't we shift those dollars over from FII to do that?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the answer to his question is not quite yet, in my view. I think the member opposite makes a good point in that there should be a point in time where the work is largely done and where the bulked-up level of funding that we currently have in the Chinese market — and we've had there for the last three years, as long as I was responsible for the file — could be pulled back and reallocated into other areas. I think it would be risky to back out of the market at this point. I think there's still a need for us to probably be there for another two, maybe three years or so.

To that end I should point to the member opposite that we've created a new funding allocation system within FII. Prior to this year we typically offered funding at a consistent percentage of industry participation across the spectrum of FII programs.

[1605]

This year we created two levels of funding — one for building new markets and one for sustaining existing markets. The company contribution increases significantly as you go to sustaining existing markets. Building new markets we provide 90 percent of the funding; industry, 10 percent. Maintaining existing markets is 50-50 funding.

I think the notion that the member opposite is bringing forward is one that we agree with and, in fact, have moved on already in terms of creating a variety of partnering levels, and perhaps more work needs to be done. I won't suggest that…. This was the first year we did it. Obviously, industry had some concerns because it was a change to them. It is one way of directing fund-

[ Page 6703 ]

ing, perhaps, into newer markets versus maintaining existing markets.

To answer the member's question, I think it would be risky to back out. We've really only had the level of funding there for the last three years that we are living on today, and I think there's more work to do. I think that if we did back out at this point, we could easily be displaced by one of our competitors.

China is a different market than virtually any other market in the world. The Chinese government typically operates under a model where they expect to see industry and government holding hands in endeavours, and that's the model of business that they do in China. Many of the companies are state-owned companies in China. So when we go to China, the ability to go there with a minister of the Crown as well as the CEOs from industry I believe is the appropriate model.

I think we're a couple of years, maybe three, away. But I've already had that discussion with the CEOs. I think most of them agree with me that that's about the timeline we should be on.

I do want to jump over to what the member opposite refers to, which is the bioeconomy. I'll call it green tech for now, but you could use a variety of titles. I share the member's view that green tech, or the bioeconomy, has big upside potential. I think it is early days still in that particular industry, and I think we need a thoughtful, well-reasoned plan to how we could support that industry, where we could invest dollars in a way that will allow that industry to grow.

We've done some of that through the ICE fund already as a government. We've had, I think, two or three levels into the ICE fund of $25 million per time. The phase 2 call for bioenergy and things like that have started to increase the amount of bioenergy that's being produced. I know that's a relatively simply form of the bioeconomy, not the more complex one that the member opposite envisages.

I do think that there's an interest in that. As we are pursuing our various options for economic development in this ministry and as we're considering what our options will be, the bioeconomy, or green tech or clean tech, is one of the ones that we're considering. I think it would be opportune for the member and me to find some time over the next few weeks or month to have more discussions on this. It is one of the areas that this government, Premier Christy Clark, believes has a big upside potential, and we're considering some action in terms of helping support or develop that industry.

B. Simpson: I have to close off my part of the debate, but I do want to put this on the record. I guess I struggle with the fact that risk is being absorbed by government. The very definition of entrepreneurship is to take that risk, and then you get the benefits from that. The minister's comments about holding hands…. You can go on a date and hold hands; you don't have to pay the tab. I think industry has an obligation now that the beachhead has been formed.

The reason I want to get it on the record is because I do believe that early adopters are going to win in this biotechnology. It feels to me that it is a field that is just about to flame up. The FPInnovations report points out that Europe is heavily vested. They are the largest investors. They will subsidize it. They will make it happen. My fear is that by continuing to put our limited resources into China instead of asking the industry now to pick up the slack there, diverting that now, we will no longer be early adopters. We'll be in a position where we'll be behind what I think is going to happen very rapidly.

[1610]

I take the minister's point, and we've had ongoing conversations. One of the things that I've asked, as the minister is well aware, and I've asked the opposition leader as well…. I think an easy way for us — and the FII funds are there as well as other opportunities — is to hold a leader's summit or a Premier's summit of some kind in this province on this particular new emerging economy and simply ask the experts to give us advice as to whether our priorities are right or not and maybe use the FII sooner than the minister envisages.

I won't make the minister go on the record about that, but I did want to say I don't agree with the minister about the time frame. I do think we need to put some resources in sooner rather than later to this. If the minister cares to comment…. If not, I'll sit down and let the opposition critic take over.

Hon. P. Bell: Just to be clear, I didn't want the member opposite to think that I don't believe we need to start investing in the green tech, clean tech industry now or shortly. It's simply that I think we need to continue to invest in China for another two or three years perhaps in order to solidify that market before we can reduce our impact.

As the member pointed out in some very early comments, there are thousands and thousands of people in this province working as a result of the China market, many of them in the member opposite's riding. So while I appreciate his ideology in not want