2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Tony Hoar

D. Routley

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ike Barber

N. Macdonald

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Tony Hoar

D. Routley

School fruit and vegetable snack program

J. Thornthwaite

Orphaned Wildlife Rehabilitation Society

V. Huntington

Chinese-Canadian donor campaign for stem cell transplantation

M. Stilwell

Prevention of violence against women

K. Corrigan

Cardiovascular health forum and interCultural online health network

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Joint delegation proposal in support of Aveos workers

A. Dix

Hon. P. Bell

Carbon offset costs to SUCH sector

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Public consultation for communities in Interior timber supply areas

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

TransLink governance and transit services

H. Bains

Hon. B. Lekstrom

S. Simpson

Negotiations for RCMP services and RCMP compensation

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

D. Donaldson

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012 (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Reporting of Bills

Bill 21 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012 (continued)

S. Fraser

D. Donaldson

D. Routley

H. Lali

H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

M. Elmore

Hon. J. Yap

J. Kwan

Hon. P. Bell

G. Gentner

V. Huntington

N. Macdonald

B. Simpson

D. Donaldson

[ Page 10737 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: I have the great pleasure today of introducing the parents and aunt of someone who has worked for me for a very, very long time. They are currently contemplating their choices in the next Alberta election, given that they live in Grande Prairie — Joe and Betti Haakstad. And Gail Sherman has visited every provincial parliament in Canada and likes this Legislature absolutely the best. I hope that the House will make them welcome.

D. Thorne: Today I have the pleasure of introducing some special guests to the precinct. I would like to introduce my daughter-in-law Susan Edmondson and her parents, who are visiting all the way from New Brunswick, Susan and George Anderson. I think, so far, we've given them some pretty good weather, and I'd like the members to put their hands together and hope for more good weather for good east coasters.

Hon. J. Yap: I have a few introductions. In the gallery today is a great supporter of China and British Columbia trade and investment and relations, Amy Huang, president of North American Association for Investment in China, along with Agnes Chow, vice-president of Mega Global Marketing Inc.; Vanessa Cheng; and Raymond Chan, who is a constituent of the member for Richmond Centre.

[1335]

They are here today with a delegation of China tourism media, a crew from the cruise travel industry in China, to do interviews with legislators and a bit of a documentary on beautiful British Columbia to broadcast in mainland China.

Here today to do this is Weidong Li, vice–general manager, Guangzhou Yinshi Tourism Culture Media; Zhu yao bin, Guangzhou Yinshi Tourism Culture Media; Luo Lin Mei Ke, Guangzhou Yinshi Tourism Culture Media; and Zhu Feng Ming.

Would the House please offer a warm welcome to our guests.

Tributes

TONY HOAR

D. Routley: In honour of Bike to Work today, I rode my bike from Duncan to the Legislature — but also in anticipation of doing a statement on a hero of mine, Tony Hoar, a cycling legend. I phoned him today just to verify a few facts. He's watching right now.

The reason I'm standing up in introductions is to ask the House to help me console Tony. This 80-year-old retired professional cyclist, while racing a man half his age down the Malahat the other day, took a spill on a corner and spent ten hours in emergency getting X-rayed. He's bruised but not broken.

He's watching now, so if you could help me send our condolences and best wishes for a speedy recovery to an absolute hero of mine, a famous cyclist, Tony Hoar.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. McNeil: I have a number of people to introduce today, but a little bit of a backstory first. The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. holds various fundraising events throughout the year, and in an effort to help out, I donated a lunch with me to the winner and a few friends. The winning bid was from Steve Arnett, CEO of the Nanaimo Youth Services Association.

Steve was professionally trained as a social worker at the University of Calgary, where he obtained his undergrad and graduate degrees. Steve is here today with some very distinguished people.

Rae Shaben will be graduating grade 12 in June. She aspires to further her education and wants to go into either child and youth care or community social work.

Edward Walkus is also set to graduate shortly. He recently began reclaiming his cultural heritage and is enjoying the journey.

Michael Jensen fully completed a Toastmaster's public speaking and business presentation course for youth and community members last year, and his goal is to attend VIU and become a chef.

Finally, Melanie Morton, who works with Steve at the Nanaimo Youth Services Association as program coordinator for the supported-living program. Melanie is a professional child and youth care worker who studied at VIU.

I very much enjoyed my lunch with the five of them today, and I want to wish them all the best for the rest of the afternoon and hope the House will help make them feel welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased today to recognize a group that's here in the precinct. I think they might be in the House up there. I have 22 grade 5 students from St. Francis of Assisi School — along with their teacher, Josie Pauletto — who are here visiting the Legislature and taking a look around the buildings. I wish the Legislature would make them all very welcome.

[ Page 10738 ]

Tributes

IKE BARBER

N. Macdonald: I'd just like to speak for a moment about Mr. Ike Barber, who passed away Friday at the age of 89. I was honoured to meet him as owner of WoodEx, which he started at the age of 83. WoodEx, of course, has its mill in Edgewater just north of Radium.

Mr. Barber, as people would know, was founder of Slocan Forest Products and donated tens of millions to charity. I would just ask the Speaker to pass on the House's condolences to the family of this great British Columbian.

Hon. C. Clark: Like the member opposite, I rise today with great regret to commemorate the passing of a man who was a great Canadian and a real, true son of British Columbia — Ike Barber.

[1340]

For most of his life Ike worked in our province's forest industry, and when many people might have thought about winding down, he started a forest company, Slocan Forest Products, at age 55. During his 24 years at the company's helm, it became a real leader in our forest sector.

But more important than that, he embodied one of life's greatest precepts. He gave back to the community which he felt had given so much to him. He gave back generously, and he gave back selflessly, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support research and education all over British Columbia.

His legacy will live on at UBC's Irving K. Barber Learning Centre, to which he donated $20 million in 2006 — still the largest single donation to a project in the university's history — and the Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences at UBC's Kelowna campus, to which he donated $10 million in 2004.

The last time I saw Ike was at UNBC when we went to open up their new bioenergy plant. He looked at me, with bright fire in his eyes and full of vim and vigour, and he said: "You go get 'em, kid." That was the last time I saw Ike Barber.

On behalf of this House and British Columbians everywhere, I'd like to offer our sympathy and our condolences to his wife, Jean, his three children and his extended family of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who will miss him deeply.

We will all miss him deeply, Mr. Speaker. The likes of Irving K. Barber come along all too rarely, and he will be deeply missed all over British Columbia.

A. Dix: I just want to join with the Premier. Ike Barber is kind of a British Columbia legend and a Canadian legend. As the Premier has said, he contributed a great deal to MacMillan Bloedel, founding Slocan, led Slocan for 24 years, which had an impact, as the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has said, in every part of the province. A winner of the Order of B.C.

I think you see his legacy. You go to campuses, and you don't necessarily expect to see…. You go to a different campus, and you see a different legacy — at UBC, at UBC Okanagan, at UNBC. At Kwantlen College there's the Ike Barber chair for diabetes research, which people with diabetes will know. Ike Barber had a great commitment to that.

He was a great British Columbian. I want to join with the Premier and all members of the House in expressing our condolences to his family. I think it's nine grandchildren; I think it's 17 great-grandchildren. He leaves an enormous legacy to everyone in the province.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TONY HOAR

D. Routley: I rise to speak once more about Tony Hoar, a cycling legend, a pioneer designer and a community servant. At 80 years of age, Tony is still racing, still riding, still crashing and still getting back on. He can still ride the legs off men half his age.

Tony first came to Canada for the 1954 Commonwealth Games as part of the first-place-winning British road race team. He's won stages as a professional in the tour of Holland, tour of Ireland, tour of Egypt and tour of Britain. In 1955 he and his teammate were the first two British riders to complete the Tour de France. The team was plagued by bad tires from their sponsor early on, but Tony persevered. Tony became probably the most famous winner of the Lanterne Rouge, which is the trophy for the last-place rider. He jokes that he's the guy who spent the most time on the bike in the race.

At the end of 1956 he retired to Canada. Tony was a technical engineer who installed technologies in mills for his career around the world. He also designed and built his own bicycles — CBS, Canadian Bicycle Specialists.

Tony worked with Rick Hansen for over two years developing and producing the revolutionary racing wheelchairs that took Rick to two world championships. Now Tony designs and builds bicycle trailers. He won a design award for a trailer for homeless people that folds out at night as a tent-trailer and during the day converts to a recycling binner's trailer.

He designs trailers for disaster relief. Many urban recycling operators use his trailers, including Cowichan Recyclists. Tony designed a trailer for people with disabilities. They can roll a wheelchair onto this trailer, and an able-bodied cyclist can go for a ride with them.

Tony has orders from all over the world. One day recently his website had over 2,200 hits. Tony can't possibly service all the market himself, so he's busy designing a training program that will leverage his designs to pro-

[ Page 10739 ]

vide training and apprenticeship opportunities to others.

[1345]

I think you can see why Tony Hoar is a hero to me, and I think you can also agree that this extraordinary Canadian deserves that status with all of us.

SCHOOL FRUIT AND VEGETABLE

SNACK PROGRAM

J. Thornthwaite: Prior to my life in politics I was a registered dietitian, helping people of all ages choose healthy foods for a healthy life. Naturally, I was pleased with last week's announcement of another $1 million for the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutrition program to further support school children's access to fresh B.C. fruits and vegetables in the classroom.

This is on top of the $3 million announced last year, which will bring the total number of participating schools to almost 1,500 by the beginning of next year, serving B.C. plums, blueberries, apples, tomatoes and carrots to almost half a million school children every other week.

A healthy diet encourages healthy children. It reduces the incidence of today's chronic diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and most cancers. It allows children to concentrate on their studies, leads to stronger academic performance and exposes children to new, yummy choices that they may never have heard of before.

The B.C. school fruit and vegetable program is not only a national leader, but it supports our local agriculture industry by purchasing 6.3 million servings of fruits and veggies from over 800 B.C. growers and supports our local farmers, our food stores and distributors.

I applaud the Ministries of Agriculture, Health and Education, as well as the B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation, for committing this additional funding for the benefit of students in British Columbia.

ORPHANED WILDLIFE

REHABILITATION SOCIETY

V. Huntington: There is an organization in Delta, very dear to my heart: the Orphaned Wildlife Rehabilitation Society or, quite simply, OWL. In 1985 Bev Day started OWL in her living room. Today the complex includes flight cages, hospital and intensive care facilities, pool cages and enclosures for resident birds unable to survive in the wild.

OWL rescues injured and orphaned birds of prey from all over B.C., other provinces and the United States. Staff and volunteers are on call seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Veterinarians from the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council train the volunteers, and two local animal hospitals generously donate their surgical services.

OWL offers unparalleled educational opportunities for Lower Mainland youth. Each year 12,000 Cubs, Scouts, Brownies, Guides and elementary students visit OWL's schoolhouse to learn about hawks and merlins, peregrines and eagles. For 25 years high school biology students have participated in work experience for credits in science and technology.

But it doesn't end there. The Canadian Mental Health Association, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and B.C.'s justice system all partner with OWL to help their clients obtain job skills, training and community service hours.

OWL is an organization that provides a huge return on investment to its sponsors and to the province. Delta has Canada's largest concentration of raptors, and when OWL lost its gaming grants, our community immediately understood its significance. Citizens of Delta stepped up and donated their time and money to ensure OWL kept running.

I hope members will join me in thanking Bev Day and the staff, volunteers and community members who contribute to OWL's amazing work.

CHINESE-CANADIAN DONOR CAMPAIGN

FOR STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION

M. Stilwell: There is a large-scale campaign underway in Vancouver. Its aim is to get members of the Chinese community to become registered stem cell donors. Stem cell transplants are used to treat a variety of potentially life-threatening illnesses, from blood cancers like leukemia to genetic disorders. For many patients, a stem cell transplant is their best hope for survival.

Currently there are close to a thousand patients in the country in need of stem cell transplants. About 32 of them are Chinese Canadian.

A patient's best chance of finding an unrelated stem cell donor is within his or her own ethnic group. Canada's stem cell donor base is made up of 77 percent Caucasian donors. Just 5 percent of donors are Chinese, and when looking at the global database, this number drops to 3 percent. This means that the majority of Chinese patients looking for unrelated stem cell donors will not be able to find a match. Expanding the Chinese donor pool is critical. For those lucky enough to find a match, their probability of survival jumps to about 80 to 90 percent.

[1350]

Last month the nation learned about 17-year-old Katie Chong. Katie goes to school in Ancaster, Ontario, is an accomplished piano player, lifeguard, swimming instructor, runner and volunteer. She is also one of the 32 Canadians looking for a stem cell donor, but because she is half Chinese and half Caucasian, her donor pool is limited. So for Katie and 31 others, I urge the members of the Chinese community to donate. Log on to www.chinesestemcell.ca, and find out how you can save a life today.

[ Page 10740 ]

PREVENTION OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

K. Corrigan: This week is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, initiated in 1995 by the NDP government, which the B.C. Society of Transition Houses says "effectively began a movement to encourage the public to express its commitment to reducing and preventing violence against women, as well as to raise awareness about the unacceptability of violence against women, youth and children in our communities."

If we want to prevent violence, we must heighten awareness and understanding of the pervasiveness and the complex roots of violence against women. It is a long and slow process, but I believe there is increased awareness across the province and across society.

Some important examples include the recent and powerful gathering of aboriginal men standing up against violence towards aboriginal women and children or the We Can B.C. and the Justice Education Society, who are training the Youth Against Violence team to mobilize students.

As another example, this week the Battered Women's Support Services is engaging its on-line community to resist media representations of women and the implicit inequality in that representation as a way to prevent violence against girls and women.

The Ending Violence Association is working to increase awareness about the vulnerability of women in the workplace and the responsibility of employers to keep workplaces safe. There is increased awareness in communities like New Westminster and its Purple Lights nights campaign.

Increased awareness through education and campaigns is important. It is a critical piece in preventing violence, but in the end, it takes more. It takes government commitment to address the great gaps in services and supports that we learned about in the tragic Christian Lee case. But ultimately, the real key to prevention of violence against women is economic, political and social equality.

CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH FORUM AND

INTERCULTURAL ONLINE HEALTH NETWORK

R. Lee: I recently had the pleasure of attending a community forum on cardiovascular health at the Chinese Cultural Centre in Vancouver. The forum allowed medical experts to share their expertise with the public. A speaker panel that included pharmacists, family physicians, dietitians and neurosurgeons provided information on heart disease, its symptoms and effective tips on managing heart health.

The fact that the forum was delivered in Cantonese, with simultaneous Mandarin translation, meant the panel could reach out to members of the public who might be missed through traditional information seminars.

The forum was presented by iCON, the interCultural online health network. The iCON program was established by UBC's faculty of medicine to promote health information for multicultural and aboriginal families throughout B.C. by hosting forums like the one I attended.

I'm very pleased our government supported the iCON program with a $500,000 grant in March. This grant will help iCON continue to support our multicultural families in managing their health and promoting healthy choices for their children.

Oral Questions

JOINT DELEGATION PROPOSAL

IN SUPPORT OF AVEOS WORKERS

A. Dix: Today is actually something of an anniversary for me. A year ago I was elected leader of the B.C. NDP, and what I've learned in that time…. [Applause.]

[1355]

I know I share this with the Premier, who was elected around the same time. You know, in these jobs as leaders, you have good moments and other moments, sometimes good quarter-hours and other quarter-hours.

In that light, I wanted to say that I received a call from the member for Burnaby-Lougheed today. He spoke with great sincerity, I think, in apology. I wanted to say that for me the matter is closed. I accept his apology.

I want to say to all members of the House — and certainly to him — that we'll continue to work together. We're going to disagree all the time. All the time. And that is part of democracy, and it is a good thing. But we can work together to do what we want to do, which is serve our constituents and serve the people of B.C. So I thank him for his apology. [Applause.]

My question is to the Premier. The Premier will know that 356 skilled workers have lost their jobs at Aveos. The Legislature came together just before the break and passed unanimously a motion to work together to support those workers — to work to save those jobs, to work together as a province.

[ Page 10741 ]

to take a favourable position in the sense of the jobs, although they've made some offers to the province.

I want to ask the Premier today if she'll join me, if the government will join with the opposition, in a joint delegation to Ottawa to advocate for those workers — a delegation with those workers and with the aerospace industry — so that we can work to save those jobs in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: Fortunately, this issue was canvassed yesterday by the critic in the estimates period as well, so it is top of mind and fresh. We have drafted and prepared a letter to go back to Ottawa, reinforcing the position that I believe the opposition and the government took in the resolution that was passed. As the member knows, right now we're in the midst of session, so travel would be difficult to go to Ottawa.

I continue to be in discussions with Minister Lebel on this issue, and I don't believe that the government's view has changed at all. It is aligned with opposition's in an attempt to make sure that those 356 workers have all of the protection they could possibly have.

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

A. Dix: I thank the minister for his answer. I just want to say that I think we can put the pressure on more, and I think we need to. There is a lot at stake for our industry, for our workers and for future workers in the industry. The government itself, as you know, has programs to train future aerospace workers. This is a major blow to those programs. So I wanted to ask the minister, because it seems to me what the workers are asking for is a renewed effort here — an effort to get the attention of the government.

I'm sure that, given the session is on here, we could pair and make that trip happen together. Whether the Premier and I go, or the minister and the critic go, or he and I go, it doesn't matter. It will be one and one. It will all work out. So I want to ask the minister….

Interjection.

A. Dix: That would be a great flight. I'd enjoy that flight.

So I wanted to ask the minister if he would take the next step. Join with us. Let's go to Ottawa. Let's make the case for British Columbia, as a united delegation could, and make a difference for those workers.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks very much to the Leader of the Opposition for his generous offer to pair and find a way to make something like this happen. I would be happy to continue to work, whether it be with the critic or with the Leader of the Opposition, as they see fit, in the discussions that we've had with Minister Lebel.

In fact, I'd be happy to have either or both sit in on the conference calls that we're doing with Minister Lebel. If at some point in time it is appropriate for a delegation to go, certainly I'd be happy to do that in a joint way.

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

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I feel like we're making progress here.

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Government House Leader seems to think I'm pushing my luck, but I don't think so. I think that everybody knows — and I think the minister will know, having met with those workers — how important those jobs are, how important the sector is to our economy. It's really at the centre of it.

[1400]

Those jobs, in many respects, are irreplaceable here. They have been here a very long time. They are at the centre of a broader industry.

I appreciate the minister's offer to keep us apprised, to keep us involved, but I think we need to take an additional step, so what I'd ask him to do is to meet with us today — and we'll find a way to do it — have those meetings and plan those efforts so that we can have a joint effort that uses all the resources of British Columbians to save those jobs and to ensure that that sector continues to thrive in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: I am always happy to meet with the critic — or any member of this House, in fact — on this or any issue. Fortunately, I think the critic and I will be spending a blissful four hours together today in the estimates period in the small House. But certainly, the offer to continue to work together is one, I believe, that we've extended, as well, and support the initiative.

I think not only is it important from the 356 workers' perspective, but it's also important from the travelling public's perspective. I think people are comforted by the notion that they have highly skilled and professional workers that are maintaining these aircraft and looking after, particularly, the heavy-duty maintenance, as is associated with the Aveos workers. I think all of us would like to see those people go back to work.

So we'll continue to work together with the critic, with the Leader of the Opposition, to see this file through to the end.

[ Page 10742 ]

CARBON OFFSET COSTS TO SUCH SECTOR

R. Fleming: A week ago this Liberal government was embarrassed into admitting that its mandatory carbon-neutral scheme for school districts was little more than a shell game that transfers scarce tax resources away from classrooms and gives it to B.C.'s biggest polluters. In a press release the Environment Minister granted a concession to schools to finally retain these offset payments in a separate fund so schools can do their own energy efficiency projects.

Since change is in the air and the error of ways is being admitted to, my question today is for the Minister of Environment. When will he also allow — after making this concession to school districts — colleges, universities and hospitals to use public funds to lower their energy costs and achieve real carbon emission reductions in the public sector, instead of continuing to subsidize B.C.'s biggest polluters?

Hon. T. Lake: On this side of the House we are extremely proud of our actions on the climate file. This government has led all of North America in terms of carbon pricing and putting policies in place that have seen real reductions in greenhouse gases in the province of British Columbia. We are the first government in North America to be carbon-neutral, something of which we are extremely proud.

This carbon-neutral government policy is an example of leadership — leadership which is demonstrated to British Columbians each and every day as they go into public buildings across this great province. We provided $75 million through the public sector energy conservation agreement in previous years, which allowed public sector organizations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as well as save hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every year on utility payments.

We will continue to make sure that our carbon-neutral policy is leading edge, and we will continue to look at ways to improve that policy.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Let's have a look at this issue. In just over one year there have been two reviews by the Liberals of the Pacific Carbon Trust, resulting in, now, three different offset schemes: one for local governments, one for hospitals and universities, and now another one for schools. This isn't considered policy-making. This is an example of government making it up as they go along.

Again, I would ask the minister — because he's getting these questions; he's facing these questions from education leaders in advanced education and in the health care sector: why did the Minister of Environment exempt public schools while completely ignoring the plight of colleges and universities, a sector that this government ripped $30 million out of in the budget that they tabled?

[1405]

Hon. T. Lake: This from a member whose party failed to support carbon pricing in the province of British Columbia. Finally, they have come on board and recognized the leadership that this government has shown with carbon-pricing policy, leadership that leads all of North America.

The fact is that a carbon-neutral government demonstrates leadership. Not only that, it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and saves those hospitals, those schools, those public sector organizations across the province of British Columbia hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy bills each and every year. It's good for the environment, and it is good for the bottom line too.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION FOR

COMMUNITIES IN

INTERIOR TIMBER SUPPLY AREAS

B. Simpson: When will the Minister of FLNRO reveal to the public the options the government is considering to increase midterm timber supply in the mountain pine beetle–impacted areas?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite.... I had passed an invitation yesterday. I know we got kind of caught up in terms of the challenges of timing with the estimates process, but I offered to get together to discuss this very specific issue with the member opposite. Not only has he got a keen interest, but I am keenly interested in his views on it.

There is a lot of work going on. It is in the broader mountain pine beetle region. We are likely a month or two away from having a broader public discussion. I think that dialogue is important, and it is a dialogue that we'll be encouraging as we move into the summer months.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The minister may be keenly interested in my views, but I think I'm keenly interested in the public's views on what the government is contemplating in this case.

The technical reports. The reports the minister is indicating and that the real minister for this file — the one that isn't allowed to stand up, the minister of FLNRO — is telling the public are incomplete are on the Internet. All of the technical appraisals are there.

In those technical appraisals it points out that in my area, in Quesnel, we have 1.5 years of commercial timber left and we may see 1,600 jobs lost if mitigation measures are not taken. But those mitigation measures are highly controversial and will completely change the face of for-

[ Page 10743 ]

estry in this province, yet that same report isn't sure if this government wants to consult. The document states that "assuming the government wants to engage in dialogue," decisions have to be made before the end of the year "to avoid conflict with the May 2013 election."

My question to the real minister for this file, the minister with the legal obligation for this, is.... Please tell this House when the public will be consulted on what the government is considering.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite, while he would like to suggest that this government is not interested in consulting, is completely inaccurate. In fact, that's what we need to do.

What has occurred is the need around the Burns Lake environment. Specifically, as it results from the fire and explosion, which was devastating, it has accelerated the need to do that work more quickly. The ministry is doing exactly what it should do right now. They're doing the detailed analysis to determine what the options are. Those options will be presented, and there will be a public dialogue about those options.

TransLink GOVERNANCE

AND TRANSIT SERVICES

H. Bains: Today we heard the CEO of TransLink tell us what we already know. The system is broken, and this government has no plan to fix it.

The commissioner rejected the fare increase request. The mayors responded by saying they will not allow property tax increases for new services. The board members have received ridiculous pay increases in the meantime. As a result, services all across the system, especially south of the Fraser expansion, are put on hold waiting for more reviews, more answers, the answers this government doesn't seem to have.

[1410]

Before you fix the problem, you need to acknowledge that. I ask this minister once again today: will he admit that the structure that his predecessor put in place made it worse, made it unworkable, and will he take the leadership role and fix the problem that his predecessors have caused?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We went through this yesterday. I made a commitment a year ago, when I took on the position and began meeting with the Mayors Council, that I would work with them to find refinements to their governance policy that would help enhance the service delivery that we all are committed to doing for the province of British Columbia and, in this case, the residents of Metro Vancouver. I will continue to do that.

We've had discussions. We've had agreements. We've had disagreements. I actually put a response back to the Mayors Council and their request. The indication from the Mayors Council right now is that they are taking the time to put in writing their response that they would like to see.

We will continue, and my commitment will remain the same — that I will work with the Mayors Council to find solutions for the betterment of the province of British Columbia and Metro Vancouver to ensure that TransLink works in the best interest of all of us.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Despite what this minister says, the public confidence in TransLink and its leadership is in tatters. Services are stalled, and costs are going up. Local governments feel alienated, and the leadership that is appointed by this Liberal government is working in secret, with no plan to fix the problem. So they are looking for leadership from this minister.

The question comes to the minister again: what concrete actions are you taking to put back the working relationship that is needed with the local government and build the public confidence that is needed for a system that you are responsible for?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I've said before, I've committed to working with the Mayors Council and TransLink. I'm doing exactly that. We've had numerous meetings. We've reached agreement on some issues, and on others we haven't. I will continue to work with the Mayors Council to ensure that what we have to do to ensure a sustainable TransLink system is there.

We have a world-class transit system in Metro Vancouver. It has incredible needs. It has challenges with funding. My commitment is that I will work with the Mayors Council. This is not a one-side fix or the other side. This is a combined effort by all parties at the table to find a solution — and I will say this again — that works in the best interest of the people of British Columbia and Metro Vancouver that we all represent.

S. Simpson: When this minister's predecessor chose to blow up the original TransLink model, largely over a snit around differences of opinion with local governments around the Canada Line, he told us at the time that this system would be more effective. That's what he told us.

Well, the results are playing out today. The results are that the chasm between the funding that's available and the funding that's needed continues to grow. We have the mayors saying: "We're not going to pay with property taxes." We have the commissioner saying: "You don't get the fare increase." We have the mayors sending a letter in March to this minister with a number of propositions that were rejected by the minister. And now we have this situation.

Effectiveness is about leadership. Leadership is about bringing people together. This minister hasn't done it.

[ Page 10744 ]

When will he show some leadership on this file?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We obviously differ on some issues here, Member.

I think we have a world-class transit system in Metro Vancouver. Like every system around the world and in everything we do, we hope to improve on what we've done the day before today and in the future. We're going to do that.

But when the member says that the commissioner has rejected, I myself have rejected the request from the Mayors Council, the one group that he forgot to say is that the public has also rejected the issues that have been put forward. The commitment we made was to work together to find issues that work for the Mayors Council, that work for TransLink and work for the public, and we're going to do that, Member.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister would like to go and talk to all those people who live south of the Fraser, who heard today that any expansion of services out there was suspended because of the ineptness of this government on the TransLink file.

You have a board that gets put in place by this model. You have a chair that has a retainer that goes from $75,000 to $125,000 a year over a couple of years. You have directors making more than $2,000 a meeting to be there. They meet largely in secret. The public doesn't have access. There is no transparency to this process. You have a situation where there is a crisis around funding.

Where is the effectiveness? Where is the plan? When will the minister do something besides say, "Trust me; we're gonna fix it," when it's falling apart around his shoulders?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What I will assure the member is that I will fix it by working with the Mayors Council and obviously not the member opposite, with your attitude, Member.

As I've told the member on more than one occasion, we have a great transit system. We have some challenges. We are going to work together to resolve those challenges. We've just concluded, and announced, the Evergreen line, something that the Lower Mainland was after.

What I will tell the member is that it's about balance. It's about finding the right balance. The province injected $583 million into that line, a pretty substantial amount. The federal government put $417 million into the Evergreen line. The Mayors Council and TransLink and Metro Vancouver put in $400 million. That's cooperation.

If we have to work together to find solutions for future expansions, we're going to do that. But what I want to assure the member is.... What they've said today is they're going to put them on hold. We've committed to do an audit. We've committed to work with them. I'm looking forward to that audit, because I do believe there is money to be found, and we'll continue to work for solutions for future expansions as well.

NEGOTIATIONS FOR RCMP SERVICES

AND RCMP COMPENSATION

K. Corrigan: Municipalities around B.C. have expressed grave concerns about the Liberals' lack of, shall we say, attention to detail when it came to signing a 20-year contract with the RCMP. The Liberal Premier said of the increases to RCMP compensation: "That wasn't something that we expected, and it caught the province off guard." The Liberal Justice Minister said the compensation package "included items that were new to us and to municipalities." Yet Stephen Harper's Public Safety Minister said they shared the details with provinces two times.

To the Justice Minister: who do we believe — your government or Mr. Harper's?

Hon. S. Bond: We've been very clear that we worked closely with municipalities for years, in fact, to look at a contract that includes new management tools. Those very tools are the ones that will help prevent this kind of discussion and this kind of communication issue from happening in the future.

In fact, we have been very clear. There was notional information provided about the potential of an increase. I actually think mayors across the province have gone back and looked at the appendix that was sent that included that information.

There continue to be details where additional information is required. We're going to continue to work constructively with the federal government to ensure that those details are provided to municipalities as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: It sounds like an admission that the work wasn't done by the minister in these negotiations.

It isn't just the municipalities around the province that are concerned with this Liberal government's lack of attention to detail. Yesterday the former Liberal Solicitor General and member for Vancouver-Fraserview said he was also surprised his Justice Minister was caught off guard. He said that not only was she unaware, but I understand there are others in government that were unaware that this was actually taking place.

[1420]

Again to the minister: were you unaware, as your colleague from Vancouver-Fraserview said? And I'm going

[ Page 10745 ]

to ask you again: who do we believe — your government or Mr. Harper's?

Hon. S. Bond: What we're completely aware of is the fact that municipalities across this province value the work done by the RCMP, asked us to go and negotiate for new management tools to deal with precisely issues like that. That's what we did. That's the contract that has been negotiated. And we're going to continue to work with municipalities in a positive and constructive way.

D. Donaldson: Because of a negotiating blunder by this B.C. Liberal government, many small communities in rural B.C. face an unexpected increase in RCMP compensation this fiscal year — all because the Justice Minister never asked what level of pay increase was slated for the first three years of a new 20-year contract.

Taylor Bachrach, the mayor of Smithers, says that it all translates into a tax increase that is out of the community's control. Does the minister think it's fair that taxpayers in small towns must cough up for the botched negotiations by this B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the member opposite needs to do some more homework. In fact, small municipalities across the province receive additional support from the provincial government, and there's a cost-sharing agreement which brings policing costs down for all municipalities because we have a partnership with the federal government. Let's be clear. One of the things, in talking to the federal government about the package that was approved….

Let's be clear. To the members opposite: RCMP officers are federal employees, and throughout the course of the budget process federal Treasury Board approved a package of incremental increases. There are items in that package that require further explanation.

But I can tell the member opposite this. The federal government is also making reductions to the RCMP on the administrative side, and we've been very, very encouraged by the comments from the federal government that in fact, at the end of the day, the increases will be mitigated by cost reductions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, let's be clear. This government can't get its story straight within caucus. It can't get its story straight with the federal government. It defies the definition of competence by any standard. A botched implementation by this Liberal government, and communities around B.C. have to adjust their strained budgets to account for the unexpected increase.

As the member for Vancouver-Fraserview said yesterday: "The federal government says they advised, and we as a province said we were unaware of it." To the Justice Minister and chief negotiator on behalf of B.C. municipalities: will you admit you botched the implementation of the contract and communities across B.C. are on the hook for the unexpected increase?

Hon. S. Bond: The last thing that members on this side of the House are going to do is take lectures from members on the other side, who drove the economy of British Columbia to have-not status. We are delighted that British Columbia just had its triple-A credit rating confirmed, when the opposition….

Let's look back at the record of the members opposite. Successive credit downgrades. That's the type of confidence we saw when the members opposite were in power.

[1425]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: I have the honour to rise and report that the government is adding two organizations to the government reporting entity by regulation. The organizations are the Trades Training Consortium of British Columbia and the British Columbia Council for International Education.

Adding these organizations to the government reporting entity is necessary as both organizations have been found to be controlled by government from an accounting perspective but do not meet the Financial Administration Act definition of government organizations. As Crown corporations, both organizations will be required to prepare service plans and annual reports under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House we will continue Bill 21 in committee stage, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012, and then move to second reading on Bill 26 to complete that. The others on the list will follow what I said in the House yesterday. In

Section A, Douglas Fir Committee Room, the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation will continue their estimates.

[1430-1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2012

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

[ Page 10746 ]

section 36 as amended (continued) .

B. Ralston: I want to resume debate on

section 36. Over the lunch hour I recalled some discussion I'd had in the past on various programs that are designed to encourage children to participate in organized sports. I had mentioned the Right to Play, but the other one is JumpStart, which is a foundation sponsored by Canadian Tire, the well-known retail outlet.

In their material they say: "One in three Canadian families cannot afford to enrol their children in sport and recreation activities because of financial barriers — Ipsos-Reid, 2009. This means that many kids are missing out." They speak very strongly of participating in organized sports and recreation increasing a child's chance for success in life. "They discover and participate. They gain self-confidence. They gain self-esteem. They learn leadership skills. Their lives become richer."

The minister referred to…. I don't want to diminish the value of the program that's been initiated in terms of equipping playgrounds at public schools. I think that's a good step forward. But I think what the focus in JumpStart and in the Right to Play is, is to take children who were otherwise not able to participate due to financial barriers and have them get the benefit of organized sports for all the reasons that I just enumerated from the JumpStart program.

The Right to Play scope is even broader. They talk about encouraging understanding, conflict resolution, the benefits that come from being in a team and resolving differences — we in the Legislature may have some experience of resolving our differences while working within a team on occasion, successfully or not — and the opportunity to participate more directly in the community.

I will just close on this in terms of this section. But my concern about the approach that's been taken in this fitness credit is that only those who are able to and make a claim of up to $500 in order to get the maximum credit of $25…. Only those parents who can afford to make that expenditure will be able to get the benefits for their children.

While that's commendable for a certain

section of the population, I think what these programs show is that the benefits of participation in organized sports — and all the benefits that that brings for self-confidence, for social growth, for becoming a good citizen — ought to be extended to everyone.

So in addition to this program — obviously, the minister has put it in the budget — is the minister prepared to consider other avenues where these kinds of benefits might be more broadly shared across all the children in our community?

[1440]

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for what is a very thoughtful question.

First of all, let me say that the organizations like JumpStart and Right to Play are doing exceptional work in ensuring that kids from underprivileged families receive the same opportunity to have access to the kind of equipment that is necessary to be able to engage in sports activities.

I want to state for the record just the exceptional work that those organizations and their corporate sponsors have done. I've attended fundraisers myself to support those initiatives, and I believe very deeply that what they are doing is absolutely the right thing.

I also want to acknowledge what the member says. As I said in an earlier answer, I accept that the premise of this program…. By mirroring the children's art and fitness tax credits with the federal program to maximize the benefit to families and parents in British Columbia, we are by its very nature subjecting it to the same rules that apply under the federal program. Indeed, you have to be paying income tax to be able to receive a tax credit under the program.

The bottom line is that the member is making the reasonable point: will government consider other avenues to support those that do not have the ability, because they're not paying income tax, to take advantage of the benefits that are laid out there under this particular program? And the short answer is yes. I would be open to that.

As a former Health Minister, I am keenly aware that the social determinants of health are important factors in determining the kind of healthy communities that we're ultimately going to have. Those social determinants can be particularly acute in lower-income neighbourhoods.

The good news, as I've alluded to earlier, is it is not the only thing we're doing in government. It is just one part of a large suite of issues that are underway to help deal with the issue that the member has talked about.

We touched on some of them: the investment in playground equipment; the new requirement that playground equipment be mandatory for every new school now constructed in the province of British Columbia to put an end forever to parents having to do fundraising, etc. — something that's been going on for a long time in the province of British Columbia; also, the mandatory physical education program; the fruit and vegetable program — which Canada is a leader in, as was pointed out in one of the MLA statements today — to ensure that healthy food options, fruit and vegetable options, grown in British Columbia are made available to children throughout the province.

All of those things each take a small piece of the puzzle and help build what ultimately, I hope, will be greater engagement in physical activity. But, Member, I think that I would be very open to suggestions on how we can look even beyond what we're doing here to try and achieve the same purpose that is trying to be recognized in both JumpStart and Right to Play.

[ Page 10747 ]

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for those responsive comments. I might say, just parenthetically, that in the brief research I did to renew my acquaintance with Right to Play…. The Ontario government partnered with Right to Play in northern Ontario aboriginal communities, judging from the news release, at a very minimal cost, to bring a couple of hundred aboriginal kids into a program that was designed specifically for them and sponsored by Right to Play.

Just to return, though, to the child arts credit, I would make similar comments. I won't rehearse them again, but similarly, I think one recognizes, in early childhood development, the importance of an exposure to the arts in promoting creative thinking and general intellectual ability and, also, some sense of emotional stability — whether we see, in some more extreme cases, through things like music therapy, the powerful effect that the arts can have upon people's emotions and their ability to function more effectively as citizens of society.

A similar critique would apply to the child arts credit as well. While it may work for those parents who are able to spend the money, it doesn't work for a broad

section of the population. I know that the member for Vancouver–West End raised this earlier.

[1445]

It doesn't seem as though, beyond the wish to mirror the federal program — the kind of research about other alternatives — the tax expenditure that will result…. I believe it's $9 million a year. There might have been other uses that that $9 million could be put to in a more effective way.

Having said that, I don't know whether the minister wishes to respond, but I think that would conclude my comments on those two sections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just briefly to the member's comment around the value of art and what is a growing sector, actually, of art therapy. I would agree with the member that there can be some real, positive outcomes by utilizing art to deal with physical or other impairments an individual may be dealing with.

It is worth noting — and I'm reminded by staff — that if a child is eligible for a disability tax credit, they can qualify for an additional $500 credit under this program. So there is an enhanced ability for children that are registered already or are eligible for the disability tax credit to receive an enhanced tax credit under this program.

Section 36 as amended approved.

section 37.

B. Ralston:

Section 37 amends

section 4.5(1) "in the description of 'D' by striking out 'the smaller of $10 000 and'." I understand that previously placed a limit on expenses that could be claimed for dependents. This removes that limit. Perhaps the minister could just confirm that the cost of removing that limit is expected to be minimal.

Hon. K. Falcon: The cost is certainly minimal in the scope of things for government, but it is obviously very significant for the individuals that benefit. What we're doing here is harmonizing to a similar change that's been made to the federal medical expense credit.

I think for the families that benefit, this will be very significant. I think for government, it is fair to say that cost-wise, it will be insignificant.

Section 37 approved.

section 38.

B. Ralston: This proposed amendment is to

section 4.51 of the British Columbia Income Tax Act. It proposes to amend subsection (2)(b) "by striking out…." And there are some references to some other sections. So I take it that these are consequential amendments based on the creation of the child tax credit that we've spoken of earlier.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's a very sort of technical issue that's taking place here, but I think the best way to summarize it is by saying that without this amendment in place, an individual's disability transfer amount could actually be inadvertently reduced by the amount of the child fitness credit and the child arts credit that are being claimed by the dependent. This is to ensure that that untoward event does not take place.

Section 38 approved.

section 39.

B. Ralston:

Section 39 proposes to amend what is entitled "Unused tuition and education tax credits" in

section 4.62 of the act. In subsection (1) there again seem to be consequential amendments. Similarly in subsection (b). Perhaps the minister can just confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is more of the same kind of thing. These are consequential amendments, too, in this case. Again, without the amendment, an individual's tuition and education carry-forward amount may be inadvertently inflated by the amount of the child fitness and arts credits that they're claiming.

[1450]

This is to ensure that in fact, that does not take place. So it's consequential again, but trying to deal with the same kinds of unintended consequences.

Section 39 approved.

[ Page 10748 ]

section 40.

B. Ralston:

Section 40 refers to the…. It's entitled "Transfer of unused credits to spouse or common-law partner." There's a formula where "A + B - C." There's a proposed amendment to the description of "C" in the formula. Can the minister briefly explain the purpose of this amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, it's similar to the other ones that I've been mentioning. It's a consequential amendment.

The purpose, again, is that without the amendment in this case, an individual spousal transfer amount may be reduced by the amount of the child fitness and arts credit that could be claimed by a spouse. In order to ensure that that doesn't take place, this consequential amendment takes care of that.

Section 40 approved.

section 41.

B. Ralston: Similarly, in

section 41,

section 4.66(

a) is amended in the description of "B" in the same formula, I believe. Can the minister briefly explain the purpose of that amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, these are consequential amendments. They're really not of any consequence. That's, I suppose, why they're consequential amendments.

But in this case this is referring to an individual's tuition and education transfer amount that could be inadvertently inflated by the amount of the child fitness and arts credit that is being claimed. Again, as a consequential amendment, we want to avoid that untoward event taking place, and this will do so.

Section 41 approved.

section 42.

B. Ralston: This

section I propose to discuss a little bit more at length. It's a change to

section 4.69 of the Income Tax Act — that's the British Columbia Income Tax Act — and that refers to the dividend tax credit. What happens here is that the amendment would increase the percentage applied in determining the dividend tax credit.

I spoke of this at second reading briefly. The minister will know — and his staff will have advised him — that the dividend tax credit decreases at a net tax paid on dividend income. The basic principle is that since a corporation would pay tax on its income, in order to avoid double taxation, there's an attempt to do what's called integrate the subsequent payment of dividends out, since the income from which the dividends are drawn has already been taxed.

The question that I wish to pose to the minister is: why is the decision being made to raise this tax credit when taxes on Canadian companies are declining with the federal tax rate, which has gone down from 16.5 to 15 percent on January 1, 2012. And of course, as the minister will well know and is very familiar with, the general corporate tax rate on B.C. companies also has declined.

Why is this tax credit being raised?

Hon. K. Falcon: The increase to the dividend tax credit rate was necessary to offset some recent reductions to the federal gross-up rate that is used in calculating B.C.'s dividend tax credit.

[1455]

The federal gross-up has declined from 45 percent in 2009 to 38 percent in 2012, resulting in a lower provincial dividend tax credit each year, despite the province keeping its dividend tax credit rate constant over this period of time. So given the reductions to the federal gross-up, a slight increase to the provincial dividend tax credit is necessary so that our credit remains constant.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps the minister could just take me through the decline in the federal gross-up. My advice was that the effect of this amendment would be to essentially favour a dividend income at a lower rate of taxation over those who pay income tax based on their wages.

So the integration policy would, as part of a basic fairness approach, seek to equalize the income tax on dividend income and on income from wages. In fact, the result of this approach is to favour, in the result, a lower level of taxation on dividend income.

Will the minister…? If he's not prepared to confirm that, can he at least clearly deny that or point out to me the misunderstanding that I may be exhibiting?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's a reasonable question for the member to ask.

The fact of the matter is that even with this change, you will still be paying a higher rate of tax receiving dividend income than you would under wage income — in fact, at the top marginal tax rate for dividend income. So if we look at both corporate and personal income tax, it'll be 44.17 percent dividend income rate at the top marginal rate, compared to 43.7 percent for wage income on your personal income tax.

B. Ralston: In 2006, when the enhanced dividend tax credit was introduced, the Ministry of Finance provided an explanation explaining the process and making the comparison between income earned from corporate profits and income earned from wages and salaries. Such an analysis was provided with their explanation.

The research done on my behalf was unable to locate a

[ Page 10749 ]

similar explanation in support of these changes. Will the minister commit to providing an explanation similar to the one provided in 2006 at the creation of the enhanced dividend tax credit?

Hon. K. Falcon: In 2007 the dividend tax credit was 12 percent, at a time when the corporate income tax rate was also 12 percent. We're talking about the provincial portion of the corporate income tax rate. In 2009 the rate was reduced to 11 percent to mirror the 11 percent provincial portion of the corporate tax rate.

[1500]

Here again, what we're doing is simply the same thing of just mirroring the fact that our general corporate rate is now 10 percent, and thus, the dividend tax credit will also be 10 percent. But I'm happy to get the information that the member requested to the member.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that, and perhaps that's something that can be arranged at a subsequent briefing between myself and ministerial staff that he may choose to make available.

I want to, then, just to close on this…. This may be something that we can deal with in that discussion, but just for the record here, can the minister, then, explain what the combined top marginal income tax rate on wages and salaries with the dividend tax credit will result in? My advice is that it's presently 33.5 percent and the amendment will lower it to 32.5 percent. Can the minister either confirm or dismiss that claim?

Hon. K. Falcon: We haven't got that split out, Member. It'll take some calculation, but we'll be happy to forward that to the member upon doing that.

B. Ralston: I'm going to close on this

section now, given that we'll have further discussion. This is difficult to discuss this level of detail in this particular forum, but I think the general concern is that the effect of these rules is to reduce the amount of tax paid compared to the tax that is placed upon wages and that the operation of this enhanced-dividend tax credit favoured those who received income in the dividend form, which is contrary to the basic principles of tax fairness. Therefore, that's the basis of the concern that I'm raising.

However, I'll pursue that further with the minister at a later date, given what he has offered. With those comments, that would conclude my remarks on this proposed amendment.

Section 42 approved.

section 43.

B. Ralston: I'm advised that the purpose of this proposed amendment to

section 4.74 of the Income Tax Act is to restrict "the amount of the child fitness and arts credits that may be claimed in the year of bankruptcy." Perhaps the minister can confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is to mirror the federal approach to dealing with bankruptcy issues to ensure that a taxpayer cannot claim more than the legislated amount of the B.C. child fitness credit because, of course, if an individual goes into bankruptcy there's a deemed disposition. So you could effectively have the opportunity to claim twice.

[1505]

This mirrors the federal approach to ensure it can only be claimed a single time.

Section 43 approved.

section 44.

B. Ralston: This proposed amendment to

section 4.76, I'm told, "restricts the amount of the child fitness and arts credits that may be claimed by an individual who is not resident in Canada for part of the taxation year." Perhaps the minister can confirm that

interpretation.

Hon. K. Falcon: The reason for this amendment is that those that are living part-time in British Columbia can still claim the credit, but the credit will be prorated for the amount of time that they're actually a resident in British Columbia. This is to ensure fairness. I expect it probably follows the federal legislative requirement. And it does.

Section 44 approved.

section 45.

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to

section 4.78 of the Income Tax Act. I'm advised, somewhat elliptically, here that it provides for the deduction of the child fitness and arts credits "when computing the tax payable by an individual in a separate return of income for a particular period." Can the minister confirm or explain in an alternate way the purpose of this amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: In this case, this consequential amendment provides for the deductions to be permitted in a separate return if an individual passes away or dies. As I read it, this would allow the estate, I would assume, although I can confirm that….

Their estate can still claim the credit, even if the individual has passed away.

Section 45 approved.

section 46.

[ Page 10750 ]

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to

section 4.79 of the British Columbia Income Tax Act, which is entitled "Order of making deductions." Can the minister explain the purpose of this amendment? I assume it places the two credits within the order in which tax credits may be deducted. There's a long list. It looks to be some 15 proposed deductions which must be applied in a prescribed order.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. This is consistent with the federal credit, so we follow the same order to ensure there's consistency between the federal and the provincial approach.

Section 46 approved.

section 47.

B. Ralston: The proposal here is to amend

section 80 of the Income Tax Act. It refers to amendments to the film tax credits and proposes to allow tax credits for eligible "interprovincial co-production." Given that fairly complicated term of art, can the minister explain what the purpose of this amendment is and how it might impact a qualifying corporation?

[1510]

Hon. K. Falcon: The proposed removal of the copyright grind on interprovincial co-productions is to allow eligible interprovincial co-productions to claim the full basic tax credit. Now, before this change the interprovincial co-productions were subject to a reduction in the credit when the corporations owned less than 100 percent of the copyright.

So this, I believe, will be recognized as a positive change. It is a fairly technical, industry-specific sort of issue, but my understanding is that this is a good thing.

B. Ralston: The minister is, I think, referring to page 56 of the budget, and that's the description that's given in the budget document of this proposed credit. On page 56 it says it will increase the cost of the Film Incentive tax credit by $2 million a year. Perhaps the minister could confirm that, and perhaps he could, just for the purposes of clarity, explain more fully the copyright grind that is referred to. Just what does that mean?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct in pointing out, on page 56, the $2 million a year.

There's a description on page 59 — it's actually not too bad a description — of what it actually does. It says — and I'll just read directly from it: "Under the Film Incentive B.C. tax credit, interprovincial co-productions are subject to a reduction in the credit when corporations own less than 100 percent of the copyright. This copyright grind is removed, and copyright ownership requirements for interprovincial co-productions are amended for productions with principal photography starting on or after January 1."

In other words, you can co-produce with others interprovincially where you don't own 100 percent of the copyright and still receive the full benefit of the credit.

B. Ralston: Given the dollars involved, some $2 million, what's the policy reason for doing this? One might well say, "Well, it's entirely appropriate that it be prorated. If you don't own 100 percent of the copyright, why should you get 100 percent of the benefit?" and prorate it accordingly, given your percentage of copyright ownership in the production.

Can the minister explain the policy reason behind making this change, given that the tax expenditure here, the loss to the treasury, is $2 million a year?

[1515]

Hon. K. Falcon: This is something that was of some importance for our domestic British Columbia film industry that wants to partner with other Canadian production companies. But all of the spending will remain here in British Columbia, so they wanted to have the opportunity to create those co-productions with other Canadian production companies and not be penalized for doing so. I must confess that I'm not the minister responsible for this, but I have a recollection that this was viewed as something that was quite positive for domestic film production in the province of British Columbia.

B. Ralston: I don't think it's technically in the legislation, but I believe that on page 59 in the budget there are tax credits clarified for what are called cutscene productions. I'm told that the definition of "cutscene" is "non-interactive animated or live action scenes included in a video game to provide storyline, character development or context."

There's a change proposed by regulation that's related to this legislative change, so perhaps the minister — although it's strictly not part of the legislation — could clarify what's proposed in the way of amendments to regulations.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is to help clarify a situation having to do with a film tax credit and a digital media tax credit. There has been some confusion in the past, apparently, and this is in an effort to try and deal with that situation. I'm advised by staff that this is a fairly complex technical element that probably requires much more of a discussion than we can do on something unrelated to the legislation we're talking about.

So maybe the easiest thing to do is that if the member wants to pursue it further, we can arrange for a briefing. I had a briefing on this some time ago, but I must be honest. I've forgotten the detail. I just remember it was complex.

[ Page 10751 ]

Section 47 approved.

section 48.

B. Ralston: We now move to a different

section of the Income Tax Act and the proposed amendment to

part 8, the book-publishing tax credit. This is an amendment to

section 111(1) that's proposed. I understand from the advice I've received that it proposes to extend the book publishing tax credit by five years and updates the definition that references the federal program, which has changed its name from the book publishing industry development program to the support for publishers component of the Canada book fund.

I don't think there are any other changes proposed in this amendment, other than those ones. Can the minister confirm that that's accurate?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

Section 48 approved.

section 49.

B. Ralston: These appear to be consequential amendments to the

section that we just passed, similarly updating a reference to the federal book publishers program. Can I just confirm, then, with the minister that other than extending the tax credit by five years, there's no change to the actual credit itself?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

[1520]

Section 49 approved.

section 50.

B. Ralston: Once again we've moved to a different

section of the Income Tax Act. This is

part 9, "Training Tax Credits." This proposal is an amendment to the

definitions section, in

section 116, which adds

definitions for "government assistance" and "non-government assistance" at the beginning. Can the minister explain the purpose of those amendments and the reason why they are necessary?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is to take the

definitions and apply those

definitions broadly under the training tax credits, which is in

part 9. They will apply to the overall training tax credits.

Section 50 approved.

section 51.

B. Ralston: This proposes an amendment to

section 117 of the same section, and this is entitled "Division 2 — Tax Credits for Individuals." These are training tax credits for individuals. This proposes to extend the application of that division to taxation years ending before January 1, 2015. I think that's relatively straightforward. Perhaps the minister can confirm that that's accurate?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. It extends the current training tax credit program for individuals for an additional three years, to expire on December 31, 2014. It expired on December 31,

Section 51 approved.

section 52.

B. Ralston: This proposed amendment would also amend the definition of "applicable period," similarly extending it to the end of 2014 — concerning training tax credits for employers. I take it that it's the companion amendment to the one previously, which referred to individuals. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: Correct.

Sections 52 and 53 approved.

section 54.

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to

section 124.2 It appears to make it clear that an employer may not claim both the regular training tax credit and the industry training tax credit — can't claim both. Likely, the employer would claim the industry training tax credit because it's more generous. Is that accurate?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, it is.

Section 54 approved.

section 55.

B. Ralston:

Section 55 adds a division 3.1 to

part 9 of the Income Tax Act, which refers to tax credits for shipbuilding and ship repair industry employers. Obviously, this is occasioned by the landing of the federal shipbuilding contract which will create employment here in the province.

There is some comment on pages 58 and 59 of the budget. Perhaps, just for the purposes of explaining it, the minister could briefly summarize that.

[1525]

Hon. K. Falcon: Madam Chair, this is a case where, as you know — and for those that are listening, paying

[ Page 10752 ]

attention today — the country, the federal government went through a national shipbuilding procurement strategy, undertaking the largest shipbuilding procurement ever in the history of the country. And certainly, British Columbia wanted to ensure, given the sometimes rocky history of contracts being awarded on a strictly best-bid basis…. There was a lot of effort and leadership made by the Premier of the province to ensure that we, in fact, are going to do everything necessary to secure British Columbia's share of the contract award.

So the introduction and the commitment to the shipbuilding and ship repair industry employer tax credit was to ensure that we gave our industry, and particularly Seaspan, the greatest possible opportunity to be competitive in the bid process. Of course, we know the successful outcome of that has resulted in — well, I believe it's well over $10 billion now with the recent federal budget — multiple billions of dollars of investment into the province.

What this does is add a new division, as the member pointed out — 3.1, which is "Tax Credits for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry Employers" — to

part 9 to provide for refundable tax credits for eligible employers in relation to employees that are in the Red Seal or non–Red Seal training programs. It also provides that the new tax credits will be effective between a prescribed date, which will be set in regulation, and up to December 31 of 2019. It requires that employers whose principal business is the construction, repair and conversion of ships will be eligible for the tax credits provided by the new division.

So it is, broadly, to try and capture the entire shipbuilding and ship repair industry employers who qualify in accordance with the definition therein.

B. Ralston: And the credit is available to employers, I believe, up to a maximum of 20 percent of wages, up to a maximum of $5,250 per apprentice per year, and that's to the employer. The definition of "eligible apprentice" is, according to the B.C. Income Tax Act, the same meaning as subsection 127(9) of the federal act. Can the minister just confirm that by "eligible apprentice" in that definition, that means someone enrolled in a program that would lead to a Red Seal qualification and not any other form of training that doesn't meet that standard?

Hon. K. Falcon: We are, in fact, providing employer credits to those that are involved in Red Seal programs, which are the interprovincial programs that follow national standards and are typically eligible for federal incentives that are available for apprentices and employers, but we are also covering non–Red Seal programs that follow provincial standards and would not be eligible for the federal incentives but would be eligible for the provincial incentives laid out herein.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, perhaps give examples of those eligible trades that would be covered and meet the federal definition of "eligible apprentice" and contrast that with those trainees that would qualify or meet the provincial definition and perhaps explain the difference?

[1530]

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the best way to probably go through this, rather than to eat up a lot of the member's time in reading painstakingly from the list…. There is a Ministry of Finance tax bulletin on line that has the training tax credits for employers and breaks out which are federal and which are provincial.

For the purposes of the gist of what the member is looking for, I believe at the federal level it would include things like carpenters, electricians, concrete finishers, welders, electronics, technicians, plumbers and that kind of thing. I think there are up to 50 others, but I won't use up the member's valuable time going through them.

On the provincial level there would be things like tower crane operators, plasterers, marine engine mechanics. Again, there's a list that the member can find on line at http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/rev.htm. So maybe that will give you the gist of it, and then if you want to look at the list in full, you can find it on line.

B. Ralston: In the same proposed section, 126.3(3), there's what are called completion credits.

[1535]

Can the minister clarify that these are credits that the employer would earn, and that there are separate credits that the individuals can earn upon achieving, I think, completion of what are called level 3 or level 4 programs? So can the minister confirm that there are both incentives to both employers for their employees to complete those levels and companion or complementary programs to incent individuals to complete higher levels of training as well?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is yes. For the existing non-shipbuilding program, both employers and employees are eligible for the credits that are in the current B.C. training program. For the shipbuilding sector, however, just the employers qualify for these credits, though it's important to point out that all of the employees can qualify under the existing apprenticeship program and training program that's currently in place.

B. Ralston: Just as perhaps a slightly broader policy question…. Obviously, these tax credits are targeted to shipbuilding and ship repair industry employers. As a matter of policy, is there any consideration being given to taking this scheme…?

The credits for employers are slightly more generous and, in some respects, for employees are slightly more generous — although, as the minister has pointed out,

[ Page 10753 ]

the completion, really, is simply eligibility for the existing provincial program. Is there any consideration being given to extending this targeted approach to other industries in the province?

As the minister is well aware, there's a real skill shortage in many sectors, and one might well imagine that employers seeking assistance or further apprentices in order to train their own future workforce might welcome this kind of targeted approach to their industry. Is there any consideration being given to that?

Hon. K. Falcon: In fact, we've done that with the extension of the existing program. The existing credits have now been extended to eligible apprenticeships, and I should keep emphasizing that. So it is for eligible apprentices under the current program. That has been extended and is available to B.C. employers and employees that, of course, meet the requirements set out in the form I referred to earlier.

It is true that in the shipbuilding sector we…. The Premier made really clear that she wanted to ensure that we did everything we could to be competitive for the B.C. industry, so it is an enhanced shipbuilding sector credit for employers, to be sure. But again, we wanted to ensure that we would have our industry be as competitive as possible in a very, very closely watched and highly competitive procurement that went on.

I'm pleased to say that the result of that was, indeed, very successful, with well over $10 billion of federal investment into our local shipyards with the successful awarding to Seaspan and all the employment that will flow and result from that. We're very pleased by that.

[1540]

B. Ralston: I'm advised that the estimated incremental cost of this program for shipbuilding employers is $3 million per year. I appreciate that it's an estimate and there may be some variations, but can the minister confirm or give some rough estimate of the likely cost of this program in future years?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct in that on average we'll be looking at about $3 million a year, but again, it will differ in different years depending on how quickly they're ramping up or what have you. I do think it is worth underscoring that this is also an employer credit that is available to the entire sector, broadly speaking. Though Seaspan clearly will be the major beneficiary here — as they are going to be undertaking, I'm sure, the vast majority of the work here — it is open and eligible to the entire shipping sector broadly.

Sections 55 and 56 approved.

section 57.

B. Ralston: We are now moving to proposed amendments to the Land Tax Deferment Act — perhaps not cited too often.

Section 57 proposes some changes — to add new

definitions of "actual value" and "deferrable value." Can the minister explain the purpose of these amendments?

Hon. K. Falcon: The current provision defines terms used in the act, including "assessor." The proposed amendment is to add a definition of "actual value," as the member pointed out, in relation to an eligible property and to improvements on that property.

It also adds a definition of what is called "deferrable value" in relation to a property. Deferrable value is the actual value of the entire property minus the actual value of any improvements which are not covered by fire insurance. It is a fairly definitive definition. Again, deferrable value is the actual value of the entire property minus the actual value of any improvements which are not covered by fire insurance.

It then goes on to remove the definition of "assessor," which is not required, given that the new

definitions refer to the Assessment Act, not to the assessor.

B. Ralston: I just want to be sure that I understand this, in order to understand the proposed amendment. There is a provision in the act for homeowners with the minimum amount of equity to be able to defer their property taxes. There is presently a requirement that they have fire insurance in order that the deferred taxes can be retrieved by the Crown in the event that the property is destroyed by fire.

This proposed amendment will remove the fire insurance requirement — as I understand it — and involve a calculation of the minimum amount of equity that an owner must have in order to qualify for that. I suppose that, ultimately, it's a cost saving if there is no requirement to have fire insurance.

Can the minister confirm if I'm on the right track in my understanding — or perhaps augment that with a further explanation?

[1545]

Hon. K. Falcon: The new

definitions will allow a modification of the requirement to have fire insurance. That modification is going to follow coming up in

section 59. So maybe if the member is comfortable with that, we can move on, and then we can get onto 59, where we talk about how it will work in practice.

Section 57 approved.

section 58.

B. Ralston: Before we get to that anticipated answer to

section 59, which I'm sure people are waiting for, I want

[ Page 10754 ]

to ask some questions about

section 58. This appears to offer an amendment to deal with the issue of deferral of taxes on what is Crown land and leaseholders. Can the minister explain the purpose of this amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: The nature of this amendment is to clarify that leaseholders on Crown and municipal lands are not going to be eligible for the property tax deferment program. So what the proposed amendment is doing is preventing the minister from entering into any new tax deferral agreements with leaseholders on Crown or municipal lands. Leaseholders with existing deferral accounts will not be affected.

Why are we doing this? Well, the property tax deferment program is essentially a loan from the province to a taxpayer to pay the current year property taxes. A central feature of that program is that the province must be able to secure the loan in the event of a taxpayer default. Clearly, you would not be able to do so under the arrangements that I have described above.

That is the purpose of the amendment that's in place here today.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that clarification.

Can the minister say whether this is to respond to the hypothetical prospect of default, or is this a situation that has arisen where the province has been unable to claim deferred property tax from existing leaseholders?

Hon. K. Falcon: What we are attempting to do here is just be very clear that it is not to apply to leaseholders on Crown or municipal lands. This is not being driven by a situation. We haven't had any of them yet. We're talking about an extremely small, potential group. But as the member would know, these deferments can go on, literally, for decades. This is just really providing clarity here to ensure that we are not into a situation where the province is unable to secure a loan because they haven't got access to proper security.

Section 58 approved.

section 59.

B. Ralston: This is the

section the minister referred to, and he offered to provide an explanation when we arrived at this point. This refers to the requirement of a homeowner who has applied for the property tax deferral program to have, or have not, valid fire insurance. Perhaps this would be the opportunity to explain that.

[1550]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I go through these things, I'm trying to find simple ways to explain them for the benefit of myself, the member opposite and those listening. In this situation, what we're trying to do here is ensure we are not excluding people that we want to be able to have access to this program.

What can happen…. Under existing provisions of the Land Tax Deferment Regulation all of the value of the improvements on the property must be covered by fire insurance. But there are often cases where you will have a property, a home in very good shape, good security, etc., on the home and the land, but they may have an old, beat-up improvement somewhere — a collapsing barn or whatever the case may be — that is uninsurable.

What we want to do is…. Under the existing rule, that excluded some of those kinds of properties, which provided good security through the land and their principal residence but also contained one uninsured improvement or uninsurable improvement. So we are trying to make sure we do not continue to exclude those people from the ability to be eligible under the program.

Section 59 approved.

section 60.

B. Ralston: At this point we initiate a series of proposed amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act. It looks as though the minister has the correct staff there to assist him.

There are a number of proposed amendments. Perhaps we can begin at the beginning and deal with the changes that are proposed to the

definitions section.

One would appear to be an amendment to "purchase price," which removes references to repealed provisions, which I think would qualify as housekeeping. There are also amendments to the

definitions of "retail dealer," "vendor" and "wholesale dealer." Can the minister explain the purpose of those amendments?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have good news for the member opposite. This follows on the discussion we had on the prior amendments related to fuel imported into B.C. by ship that had to do with the carbon tax. This is essentially doing exactly the same thing, but instead of carbon tax, it's applying to motor fuel tax. Every other element of it follows along the same discussion we had on the Carbon Tax Act.

Sections 60 and 61 approved.

section 62.

B. Ralston: There's a reference in this…. I appreciate the minister's comments. Given the fairly detailed explanation that was given in our discussion of the amendments to the carbon tax and the fact that these are really companion amendments dealing with the same change in legislation….

I do have a question. It refers to a "licensed carrier." Is

[ Page 10755 ]

there a definition for a licensed carrier that the minister could provide, or at least an explanation of what a licensed carrier is in this context?

[1555]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that this typically applies to these 18-wheeler tractor-trailers that operate in multiple jurisdictions. They're specifically licensed under an international fuel tax agreement that provinces and U.S. states enter into. It just prevents a situation where each jurisdiction would be having to try and figure out, or provide, a taxing authority on these licensed 18-wheeler vehicles that are doing business in multiple jurisdictions.

We're part of an international fuel tax agreement that all the provinces, I understand, and U.S. states are part of. It just allows for the appropriate and rational and reasonable way of dealing with tax owing.

Sections 62 to 79 inclusive approved.

section 80.

B. Ralston: We're now moving to a proposed amendment to the Police Act. The measure is described as streamlining the approval of the police tax administration fee by the revenue minister, but really what it seems to do is simply remove the requirement that the order be made on or before April 10.

Perhaps the minister could just explain what the police tax administration fee is and what the purpose of this amendment is.

Hon. K. Falcon: Municipalities receive an administration fee from the province for collecting the police tax within their boundaries. Currently the minister authorizes the fee each year, even though the fee has not changed since the tax was introduced. Under the proposed amendment, the minister will have the ability to only authorize changes to the fee and not have to keep making this authorization every year even though nothing has changed.

B. Ralston: Just for clarity, the police tax, as I understand it, is a property tax that's levied in unincorporated areas and communities of less than 5,000 population. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

Section 80 approved.

section 81.

B. Ralston: We've now moved to the proposed amendments to the Property Transfer Tax Act. The proposed amendment is to

section 14(3) of the Property Transfer Tax Act, which provides for an exemption from the payment of tax in respect of "a transfer of a life estate" in specified circumstances, which would appear to be — and I think is by definition — a fairly technical amendment.

Can the minister confirm that that's the appropriate

interpretation and explain, perhaps, why it's necessary at this time?

[1600]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'd like to take this opportunity to put out a plea to the professional staff in the buildings to relax their rules on only limiting us to water during these debates. I find coffee would be exceptionally helpful as we get into this fascinating detail associated with some of these things. I just put that plea out there, and hopefully, one day it will be realized. Then I promise you that my answers would be much sharper and more focused.

The issue here, as best I understand it, is referring to the issue around life estate. Essentially, what we are doing here is that the property transfer tax currently applies if the life estate is re-registered. Let me back up for a second.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Currently if the property owner wishes to register a mortgage against their property and there is a registered life estate against the title, the land title office requires that the life estate be removed before the mortgage is registered against the title to give the mortgage priority over other interests in the property. That is currently the situation.

What we are attempting to achieve here…. The proposed amendment will provide an exception where a life estate is re-registered under the…. The property transfer tax currently applies if the life estate is then re-registered on title. The proposed amendment will provide an exemption where a life estate is re-registered under those circumstances. Did that make any sense to you? Oh, good.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that explanation. It's an exemption where the mortgage requirements require it to be removed and then re-registered after the mortgage is registered on title, and it has priority over the life estate. That is, I think, a relatively rare occurrence but a correction to…. I thank the minister for that explanation.

Sections 81 and 82 approved.

section 83.

B. Ralston: This is a single proposed amendment to the School Act which I gather will be dealt with later in the bill in sections 86 to 89. If that is accurate, then I'd

[ Page 10756 ]

be content that we deal with it when we come to those proposed amendments. Perhaps the minister could just confirm that that is accurate.

Hon. K. Falcon: I can confirm that.

Section 83 approved.

section 84.

B. Ralston: We now move to proposed amendments to the Small Business Venture Capital Act. The proposed

section 84…. I'm looking at my notes here, if I could just have a moment.

The Chair: The staff is changing, too, if you want to take a moment, Member.

B. Ralston: That will give me the moment I require to examine my notes. I don't have the benefit of staff immediately available to me.

[1605]

Hon. K. Falcon: The

section 84 amendment to the Small Business Venture Capital Act is to introduce and allow eligible new businesses that are less than two years old — so quite specific towards startups is, I guess, the best way to describe it — to access a new $3 million addition to the small business venture capital program targeted to direct investment in small businesses, oftentimes referred to colloquially as angel investors.

It's to really focus on encouraging that particular investment in startups. If there is full takeup on the $3 million, I'm led to understand that that would result in $10 million of new incremental investment to new small businesses in British Columbia.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that explanation. Just so that I'm clear, then, an eligible new corporation…. There are some qualifications. It can't result from "an amalgamation or merger." But is the definition, aside from that qualification, that an eligible corporation is one that's simply newer or younger than two years old and subject to it not resulting from an amalgamation or merger of existing corporations? Or are there other conditions that are prescribed to determine eligibility?

Hon. K. Falcon: The eligibility criteria, in terms of the different sectors that businesses that are eligible would be doing business in, has not changed.

What has changed is that we've just very specifically said: "This additional $3 million tranche that we've put into place is only going to be for those eligible companies that require the approval to raise capital, under the program, within two years of incorporation." They are the only ones that will be able to qualify, so it's specifically targeted to new startups — that they will be aware, that there is $3 million made available under the small business venture capital program. The belief or the hope is….

What we've heard is that it will benefit and encourage so-called angel investors to make the investments in these eligible new small businesses that are less than two years old, and we're hopeful it will achieve its aim.

B. Ralston: Just dealing further with the issue of eligibility, in the proposed subsection (3), the prohibition doesn't apply, as I understand it, to a business that was "previously carried on as…a sole proprietorship, partnership or joint venture for 90 days or less." In other words, if you come together, start a business but within 90 days convert to a corporate form, then you're still eligible. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that.

Hon. K. Falcon: That does, indeed, provide a grace period so that those conditions in section (2) do not apply. So it does provide that 90-day grace period.

B. Ralston: The minister has referred to availability of $3 million. Perhaps just for the sake of understanding this a bit better, what's the maximum benefit that an eligible business corporation could receive from this fund? Is there an upper limit? Is it required to be matched by the third-party angel investor or just…?

[1610]

I'm not looking for a detailed explanation but just, in the context here, some ability to understand a little bit more broadly what's being done.

Hon. K. Falcon: I believe we may have got the answer here. The aggregate of all the amounts received by that eligible business corporation from all eligible investors, directly or indirectly, must be less than $5 million. Greater clarity, if the member wishes, can be provided.

Sections 84 and 85 approved.

section 86.

B. Ralston: We've now moved to the new statute, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. I don't know whether the minister needs different staff, so perhaps I'll just wait for the staff to arrive.

[1615]

Hon. K. Falcon: The proposed amendment clarifies the longstanding intention that the exemption only applies in respect of land and improvements held by the Crown in trust for a First Nation. I understand that this amendment also ensures consistent administration of this exemption and the exemptions provided for property within a municipality that the Crown holds in trust for a First Nation.

[ Page 10757 ]

B. Ralston: Just so we're clear, then, that would be an exemption from the property tax that would otherwise be due under this act. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, and the exemption, I'm advised, flows through to other acts.

Sections 86 to 88 inclusive approved.

section 89.

B. Ralston: This authorizes regulations providing for partial tax exemptions for property owned in part by the Crown or Crown agent. Is this related to property held in trust for a First Nation, or is this a more broad power of regulation relating to any property owned by the Crown?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's the latter. It is not First Nations. It's any property that may be owned by the Crown.

Sections 89 and 90 approved.

section 91.

B. Ralston: I believe these repeal provisions of the act that are not in force. This would appear to be a housekeeping amendment.

Then, after that, we have the following sections that are transitional provisions, which I have a couple of questions on.

Perhaps the minister can just confirm that this is simply a housekeeping amendment to repeal provisions that are not in force.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

Section 91 approved.

section 92.

B. Ralston: The next and to the end of the bill are simply what are called transitional provisions which would explain or regulate when provisions come into force. So the Carbon Tax Act transition will take effect assuming and when the statute passes and is proclaimed on May 1, 2012.

Perhaps I can just go through them all, and then the minister could confirm or not.

Section 93 would come into force by regulation, Motor Fuel Tax Act transition, May 1, 2012. The Taxation (Rural Area) Act amendments, the date of royal assent, and there are certain provisions that apply to Taxation (Rural Area) Act transition, retroactive regulations. The date of royal assent and commencement would be the date of royal assent.

I'm simply reading from what I've been advised here, and I assume that that's accurate. So perhaps the minister could confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct.

Sections 92 to 97 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: Shall the bill pass as amended?

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 21 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2012

Bill 21, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. K. Falcon: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2012

Bill 21, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call continued second reading of Bill 26, intituled Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Member for Alberni–Pacific Rim continues where he left off. [Applause.]

S. Fraser: Thank you to those applauding.

I'd like to retake my place in the debate on second reading of Bill 26, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

[ Page 10758 ]

Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012 — a difficult thing to say, actually.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Just to recap where I started off yesterday at the end of day, and I note the time here. I've got — I'm not sure — probably 25 minutes left or close to. I was expecting a lot more from Bill 26. Here's an attempt, right now, to correct numerous errors that should have been addressed in Bill 26, so we have some tinkering around the edges on forestry.

The Auditor General's report was just out a month ago, and it's a scathing indictment of a failure to manage our most valuable resource. The conclusion — I'll just throw in a quote from the Auditor General: "We conclude that the ministry has not clearly defined its timber objectives. Without clearly defining its timber objectives, the ministry cannot ensure that its management practices are effective." The Auditor General has cited that this government is failing to manage our resource.

Now, you go back in history to tree farm licences being created in the '40s and the Sloan Report in the '50s that talked about the importance for the wealth of our province of our forest industry, and the management in perpetuity of that was an integral part of the tree farm licence system. It was certainly identified many, many decades ago, and that's been respected by and large by every government since — except this one.

So Bill 26. Here we are, a month after the Auditor General's report. A chance to amend, start making the changes key to starting to manage our resource again, and it does not address any of the key issues.

I'd like to give a real-life example of just what it means to mismanage this forest resource for British Columbians. The example I know best is in the Alberni Valley. There's an instance happening right now. Currently there is no public control of the entire Alberni Valley, the forest resource circling the entire Alberni Valley. The entire central Island, for the most part, is now all outside of the tree farm licence control.

TFLs, TFL 44 in this case, is how the public used to control the resource, to manage it for future generations, for workers, for the jobs, for the community, for the industry, for the environment, for the watersheds. That was stripped away by this government — that level of control.

[1625]

All the private lands were removed from TFL 44 in 2003 and given to Weyerhaeuser for free, and that has led to job loss, a degradation of the environment. And in the real world what it means right now is that the new private managed forest entity that has cropped out of the removal of those lands, the privatization of that resource, Island Timberlands, is planning on cutting McLaughlin Ridge.

Now, McLaughlin Ridge is the most valuable ungulate winter range territory there is. It's a wildlife habitat zone that's incredibly important. We used to have control of that. It's also the key part of our water supply for the entire city of Port Alberni, so it's important to have control of such things.

The previous owner, Weyerhaeuser, when it was in the tree farm licence, made an agreement. They recognized the good work that the Ministry of Environment had done back in the '90s about the importance of this habitat on McLaughlin Ridge — beautiful old-growth forest, nothing like it left in the region. It's key to so many species and to the future of the Alberni Valley in many ways, including the water supply.

Weyerhaeuser got the land from this government out of the tree farm licence for free. There were very few stipulations that went with that, but here is one that happened. A letter of agreement was signed between the provincial government and Weyerhaeuser. And Weyerhaeuser said here:

"We recognize that the

schedule A lands within Weyerhaeuser's limited tree farm licence, TFL 44, contain important habitat for ungulates and other wildlife species. The parties also recognize that the company has demonstrated commendable environmental stewardship through the preservation of critical ungulate winter range and other conservation areas on public and private lands within the TFL.

"The purpose of this agreement is a statement of intent on the part of the parties" — which are Weyerhaeuser at the time and the provincial government — "to support Weyerhaeuser's planning process for development of long-term protection of this critical habitat. The goal of the process is to develop and implement protection measures to maintain grandfathered ungulate winter ranges and wildlife habitat areas while facilitating the removal of all the

schedule A lands from TFL 44."

This was supposed to go with the lands that were taken out of public control by this government and given to then-Weyerhaeuser. Even Weyerhaeuser recognized the importance of protecting these lands for all of the values of the Alberni Valley. Now this is part of the management scheme that was a betrayal by this government of the public interest. Now we have a private company that doesn't seem to think that this applies to them, even though that was the intent at the time.

There's a real-life example of a failure to manage the forest resource in my constituency in the Alberni Valley. And we have Bill 26 before us, which could've started addressing some of those critical and key issues for the protection of our forests and the management of the forest resource for future generations. That example is interesting because there will be virtually no value achieved for the people of the Alberni Valley that are the stewards of this area.

All of these trees are going to be exported, so no value added. That is the management scheme of the Liberal government on forestry. It is knock 'em down. We're up to 5½ million cubic metres a year now. Knock down the trees and ship them. This has skewed, perverted, the market for our forest resources — forest industries small and large, mills, shingle mills, veneer plants. You name it.

All of the operations now on the coast and on the

[ Page 10759 ]

Island are having a hard time getting fibre because all the trees are being cut for export market. That is the priority. The 5½ million cubic metres that are being exported — raw logs, no value added — have perverted the market for local mills and the value-added operations that haven't been decimated already under the Liberal failure to manage the forest industry.

[1630]

This started right at the beginning in 2002 — so the Liberal government — when they were dealing with silviculture, the replanting of our forests. Kind of an integral part of managing the resource is to make sure that it's replanted. In 2002 this government removed the legal requirement to replant, and cut the budget by 90 percent on silviculture.

That legacy is continued to this day. We have record-low levels of replanting in this province — on the coast, all over the province — when we have the greatest need for replanting, when we have the issues of the beetle wood and such.

We have a lot of problems in the forest sector. We've had 35,000 jobs lost — good-paying, family-supporting jobs — in the forest sector under this government, and just in the last few years, over 70 mills shut down.

There are mills on Vancouver Island that would run…. Coastland in Nanaimo — a very, very efficient veneer operation — would run a whole other line, employ more people, support more families. But they can't get access to fibre because the only plan of the Liberal government, the single thing that they have planned for the forest industry and managing the industry, is to cut down the trees as fast as possible, to facilitate cutting down the trees as fast as possible, take them all out of public control — 80,000 hectares removed from tree farm licences under this government, just on the coast — and ship them away.

No doubt, it makes short-term money for a very few entities — large income trust companies that have acquired the forest holdings of British Columbia. On the coast, most of the land is held by these private managed forest land companies. Of course, as soon as the government handed over the lands for free to the companies…. They didn't have to pay back any of the considerations. They should have paid back hundreds of millions of dollars to communities like Port Alberni, to the taxpayer.

The minister of the day gave to it them for free and didn't require any payment back. There was a betrayal there, and then we lost control of the resource, a resource that isn't being replanted in any kind of a rate for sustainability and a resource that is exiting the province so fast that it has led to the record number of job losses that never happened before in the province.

We have a bill that has come out a month after the Auditor General has confirmed, basically, the failure to manage the resource. You can't manage a resource…. The baseline for managing any resource is: what have you got?

What do we have in British Columbia? Well, the Auditor General, I believe, estimated the value of this resource, the forests of British Columbia, to be at about a third of a trillion dollars — probably, I would assume, the most valuable of our resources.

So you want to make sure that you have a rate of cut in all of the regions of the province that will be sustainable and a level of silviculture and replanting that will ensure the sustainability of that resource for future generations, for all the values. It's not just for the jobs, not just for industry — that's important — not just for the communities — absolutely important — but for the health of our planet, for the protection of our water and water supply systems and our watersheds and, of course, for the sustainability of all the other creatures and plants that we share this great province with. All of that is gone.

Every other government has managed the resource. The Socreds managed the resource. This government abandoned the resource, and they abandoned the communities like Port Alberni that built the economy of this province by managing the resource. That has been taken away.

[1635]

A month after the Auditor General blows the whistle on the failure of this government to manage the resource at all…. The Auditor General is an independent body, for those that may be watching. This is an objective body; it's not a political body.

The Forest Practices Board. They've said the same thing too, over and over again. The government is failing the people of British Columbia in managing its most valuable resource — or not managing its most valuable resource or mismanaging its most valuable resource. Forest professionals have spoken to this too. They are trained, obviously, in forestry.

It's a big problem when you have every independent group that oversees the forests in the province say the same thing: this government has failed to manage the resource and is failing to manage the resource.

The response to all of that is Bill 26, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012. It's tinkering with a broken system, with a resource that will not be there, at this rate, for our future generations.

There is a

section in the bill which I find particularly curious. It's around revenue collection — stumpage fees. The bill actually calls for clarification on language to the licence holders, to say that they have to provide correct information to the government about what they're cutting, so the province can charge appropriately for that resource — the stumpage fees.

Now, under this Bill 26, it's suggested that we're going to change things so that the licence holder will now have to provide true and accurate information. So what were we getting before under this government? I mean, they deregulated everything. And then they were not requiring true and accurate information? I mean, by default, I

[ Page 10760 ]

guess that's what happened.

Right now 53 percent of the stumpage in this province is at 25 cents per cubic metre — a cubic metre, like a telephone pole. A quarter is what that is, bargain basement. This isn't even enough to cover the vague costs of the Forest Service in this 100th anniversary of the Forest Service. It's been basically dismantled. Happy birthday, Forest Service of British Columbia.

We're getting no value added from the forests under the Liberal government. They are exporting — that's the plan — as fast as possible, perverting the markets. The companies are cutting for export, denying the needs of the few mills that are still running, the few value-added operations that are still running in the province.

There's no value added there — minimum benefit to any communities, a few trucking jobs and that sort of thing. Yes, it's important, but it's a small part of what should be extracted from this resource to benefit the people of British Columbia, to pay for all the things we need. We're not getting anything there. We're getting a wholesale exodus of the resource to benefit the manufacturing operations in other jurisdictions.

Stumpage. The one thing we could be getting was stumpage fees, and 25-cent stumpage doesn't even cover the administrative costs for the Forest Service, so we're extracting a loss from our forests. As they're being harvested and exported, we're subsidizing that with 25-cent stumpage.

Well, I guess the government needs some money, so now they're bringing in a rule in Bill 26, which says: "An applicant who is required under this Act to submit information to the government must ensure that, at the time the information is submitted, the information is complete and accurate."

[1640]

Well, what was it before? Were we getting incomplete and inaccurate, untrue statistics? And that has led to a 25-cent stumpage on over half of the trees cut in the province? What did we lose to the treasury?

This is an admission. Bill 26, instead of fixing the fundamental problems, the failure to manage the forest resource in the province…. Instead of fixing that, we find an admission that the government has not even been requiring the licence holders to provide true and accurate information.

Well, the last Auditor General report that I saw on forestry, before the one a month ago that pilloried this government's handling of the industry and the resource, was around the TFL 28, I think it was Jordan River lands. This government, without consulting with the capital regional district took, again, a whole whack of land — 28,000 hectares — out of the public control of the tree farm licence and gave to it Western Forest Products for free. No repayment of consideration. Again, a betrayal to the taxpayer by this government.

The Auditor General came in to review that. I asked the Auditor General if in that review they could include the huge amounts, back in 2003, that were removed from TFL 44 in the Alberni Valley, in that area, where I represent. While it was cited, the Auditor General said it was too complex, too far back to actually do a very detailed study. But he certainly looked over…. They looked over all that information too.

What they determined was that in the removal of these lands — in this case it was the Jordan River lands — the government forgot to take into account the public interest, was the statement from the Auditor General.

Well, not as a partisan thing. You can be a right-wing government. You can be a left-wing government. You can be a centre government. Whatever kind of government, you do have to take into account the public interest. That's kind of the baseline for government. You know, you want to protect the constitution. You want to protect the public interest. That spans all…. Whatever political stripe you are, that's a given that you're going to protect the public interest.

The Auditor General confirmed that there was no protection. They forgot to protect the public interest, to consider the public interest when it came to forestry and the removal of the lands from tree farm licences.

Now we're learning, in Bill 26, that the government failed to ask the licence holders, who basically they gave complete control of the resource to, and dismantled the Forest Service on this 100th anniversary of the Forest Service…. They failed to require the licence holders to provide accurate and true information so that the treasury could benefit, so that somebody could benefit besides just some company. That's what we get in Bill 26.

When are they going to start fixing the resource? When are they going to start fixing the failure to manage the resource? That is missing in Bill 26.

You were given guidance. The government was given guidance a month ago by the Auditor General, guidance by the Forest Practices Board, guidance by their own forest professionals, that they need to start managing our resource. Otherwise, we won't have a resource — the most valuable resource in the province.

Whether it's McLaughlin Ridge in the Alberni Valley, which is now at threat because of this government's