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)

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 6

[ Page 8041 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

STEVE JOBS

Hon. P. Bell: Yesterday, when Steve Jobs passed away, the world lost one of its greatest innovators. He was only 56. He was adopted, and he leaves behind a widow and four children. In addition to being a visionary and an exceptional business leader, he was also very, very human. He often said that he lived every day of his life as if it were his last.

In 1976, at the age of 21, he and a couple of partners started Apple Computer and introduced families to the Macintosh computer, the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone and finally to our own very favourite iPad.

Under his leadership at Apple, he challenged us to "think different." He had the talent to design technology that inspired innovation and creativity, and he recognized that applications needed to be both intuitive and simple to operate. In doing so, he helped transform and lead the world into the technological age, where the vast resources of the Internet can be harnessed in just the palm of our hand.

[1335]

He didn't limit his creativity to the computer industry. In 1986 he bought the animation studios known as Pixar, producing Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo, WALL-E and several other movies, bringing joy and wonderment to countless families.

In 2007 he shared a Wayne Gretzky quote that he loved: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." We're very saddened by Steve Jobs's passing, but at the same time, we're grateful that he was around long enough to show us how technology can change how we see this world.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. McNeil: In British Columbia today there are about 3,300 families providing one of the most valuable services you can imagine, and they're doing it largely unseen and unrecognized. Government has proclaimed October as Foster Family Month, and today we had a special event to say a very sincere thank-you to all of these families who are helping vulnerable children and youth at one of the most difficult times in their lives.

In the gallery today and all across the top there are Heather Bayes, chair, and Jayne Wilson, executive director, of the B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Associations; and Gary Mavis and a group of foster parents and children from the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents. We also have Raven Wright, a former youth in care who spoke to us earlier today.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome and saying a very sincere thank-you for all that they do.

S. Simpson: I'm really pleased today. Joining us for a visit to the Legislature is Lisa Hartley, a photographer who lives in my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings. She's here with her daughter Lucy Jiwa. The most important thing about their visit, of course, is that Lucy is the granddaughter of and Lisa the daughter of Bill Hartley, who was a member in this place for 12 years, the member for Yale-Lillooet, and the Minister of Public Works. So make Lisa and Lucy happy as they come back to visit the place where grandpa did his work.

Hon. T. Lake: It's with a bit of sadness today that I say goodbye to Celyne Hodges, who has been administrative coordinator in our office. Celyne has been a valued member of our team and, in fact, has served five different ministers. Hopefully, the last one didn't drive her out of the buildings. She has been just a tremendous asset to the public service here in the buildings and now is moving on to another segment of the public service. I hope the House will join me in saying a very great thank-you to Celyne Hodges for great service.

M. Dalton: In the House today we're honoured to have in attendance the ambassador to Canada from Armenia, Mr. Armen Yeganian. He is visiting British Columbia for the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Armenian independence from the Soviet Union. He just became the ambassador to Canada in September, and he's crossing the country and visiting the Armenian community. It's about 100,000 strong in the country.

Also in attendance are Vahi Agopian, Jack Daragopian and Vahe "Vic" Andonian, a constituent of mine and a representative of the Armenian National Committee of Canada. It was a privilege to have lunch with them, along with the member for Abbotsford-Mission.

In 2006 the members on both sides of the Legislature officially recognized April 24 as a day of remembrance for the more than one million men, women and children who were systematically massacred in what is called the Armenian Genocide. I know they're very appreciative to this Legislature for that act. Would the House please make them feel welcomed.

A. Dix: I wanted to just join in the comments of my friend from Maple Ridge–Mission. It was really, I think, a very important moment for our Legislature when we joined together. I know the Government House Leader
[ Page 8042 ]
of the day, now the Minister of Health, played a role in that. I know that the member for Abbotsford-Mission played a role in that.

[1340]

I introduced the motion, but the House came together. It wasn't my motion. It was our motion — to recognize the Armenian Genocide, to recognize April 24. I want to thank them and welcome our guests to the House.

M. Karagianis: I have some constituents visiting the House today. I believe it's their first time here. Would we please welcome Caroline Mavridis and her sons Neil and Scott and bid them welcome today for their first visit to question period.

Hon. H. Bloy: It's my pleasure to introduce visitors from China who are considering an investment in British Columbia. Mrs. Hongjie Wang is the chairman of the board of Shandong Sunwell Green Food of Shandong. Mr. James Tian is president of the Sitoi Development Group of Shanghai. They are joined by Mr. William Wang of Coquitlam. Also in the gallery is Ravi Panwar, who has accompanied this delegation. I ask the House to please join me in welcoming them today.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome shortly — I know they're in traffic — to this House Ryan Clayton and Kaitlin Burnett. They are two activists who've been working very hard to ensure that every British Columbia school is safe for lesbian, gay, bi and transgender British Columbians. Will this House please welcome them to this precinct.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

HOMELESSNESS

S. Simpson: I want to speak today about Homelessness Week, which will be recognized next week in B.C. We all know the challenge and reality that homelessness presents for many of the most vulnerable citizens in every corner of British Columbia, and we know that both local governments and the province have worked to address this issue.

However, we also know that for all these efforts, the challenge still exists. In Metro Vancouver we have seen overall homelessness numbers grow from about 1,200 people in 2002 to just over 2,600 in 2011. We know this is not exclusive to Metro Vancouver. Thousands of British Columbians in Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Nanaimo, Victoria, the Kootenays and every other community in B.C. are homeless.

A key area of concern is the growth in youth homelessness. For those under the age of 25, we have seen a 29 percent increase since 2008. We know, too, that many of the homeless in our province face challenges of addiction and mental health issues, challenges that make meeting their needs even more complex. These are challenges that mean any solutions require additional supports and resources if they're to succeed.

While homelessness is one of our most public housing challenges, it is not alone. Increasingly, community groups, academics and others are speaking out about core housing need. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada has identified 220,000 households in B.C. living in core housing need. That is some 550,000 British Columbians who are uncertain about the security of housing for themselves and their families.

I know that members on both sides of this House regularly hear these concerns in their communities, and I believe every MLA recognizes that until all our neighbours have a safe and affordable place to call home, Homelessness Week will remain as an uncomfortable reminder of the unfinished business that is in front of us.

FUNDRAISING CLIMB
FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

J. van Dongen: As I speak in this Legislature today, nine British Columbians have been climbing Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, as part of the Ascent for Alzheimer's to raise money and awareness for Alzheimer's disease. All of the people climbing were climbing for a loved one or friend who is suffering from this horrible disease.

This year alone more than 15,000 British Columbians will be diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and this will add to the more than 70,000 people living with Alzheimer's in British Columbia today. Alzheimer's symptoms include loss of memory, judgment and reasoning as well as mood and behaviour changes, altering a person's life significantly, from the things they do to the way they act and the way they think.

[1345]

Though it is thought to be a seniors disease, early symptoms have been detected in people in their 30s and 40s.

The 2011 Ascent for Alzheimer's team includes Dan Levitt from Abbotsford as well as Alice Savage, Anjulie Latta, Jean Grant, Joan Porter, Marian Lowery, Murray Williamson, Neil McDonnell and Sandra Wilson.

The climb took place between December 26 and October 5, and the climbers have been on the mountain for seven days — five days to reach the summit and two days to descend. So they're on their way home.

I ask the House to please join me in congratulating these outstanding British Columbians on their hard work and dedication in raising awareness and funds to help find a cure for Alzheimer's disease.
[ Page 8043 ]

NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK

M. Elmore: This week — October 3 to 9, 2011 — we celebrate National Family Week. National Family Week originated in Canada and was proclaimed an official week by the government of Canada in 1985. It's also celebrated in the United Kingdom, U.S.A. and Australia.

Families are recognized as the building blocks of society. The vision for National Family Week is to build a Canada that cares for its children, its families and communities.

The definition of a family has changed over time. A family is a combination of two or more people bound together over time by ties of mutual consent, either birth, adoption or placement, and who share in the physical maintenance and care of group members, raising children and are, of course, bound together by love. An inclusive definition recognizes the reality of the family as people live it and includes different ethnocultural groups, aboriginal status, sexual orientation, etc.

National Family Week has many partners, such as ABC Canada Literacy, working to increase literacy skills, support for early education for children and access to affordable post-secondary education. Other partners include the Canadian Child Care Federation, which underlines the need for affordable, accessible and quality child care, and the B.C. Council for Families, which champions family diversity.

There is a connection between family life and the larger social, cultural, economic and political context, and special attention must be paid to resources available to families and government policies and programs that have a direct and indirect impact on them.

Today B.C. has the highest rate of child poverty, which demonstrates a low quality of life for these families and calls for the need for a poverty reduction plan. We must do more to support families struggling in poverty and particularly for children unable to access post-secondary education so that all British Columbians have the opportunity to live a fully engaged life and participate fully in celebrating National Family Week.

POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR
AWARDS IN SURREY

D. Hayer: It is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to the brave men and women who serve and protect us in Surrey. Today I recognize the worthy recipients of the Police Officer of the Year Awards presented by the Surrey Board of Trade, started when I was the president of the Surrey Board of Trade, then called the Surrey Chamber of Commerce.

This year is the 15th anniversary of these awards. They recognize the valuable contributions of law enforcement officers and community partners to fight crime in Surrey. While these awards recognize the performance of individuals, the entire Surrey RCMP detachment deserves praise for the excellent work they do for us in Surrey, for protecting our communities and providing services to Surrey for over 60 years.

I would like to recognize the winners of the 15th annual Police Officer of the Year awards: Consts. Thor Forseth and Trevor Nakashima, winners of the Arnold Silzer community policing initiative award; the street enforcement team, winner of the Police Team Award; the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association, winner of the Police and Business Partnership Award; Sandy Campbell, the municipal employee of the year; Charlie Gregor, the Volunteer of the Year; Const. Bonnie Mellor, Auxiliary Constable of the Year; Sgt. Vince Arsenault, Police Officer of the Year, Nominated by Peers; and Staff Sgt. Robert McCloy, Police Officer of the Year, Nominated by Community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating all the nominees, finalists and winners for their outstanding service and contributions they provide to public safety in Surrey.

[1350]

150th ANNIVERSARY OF BARKERVILLE

B. Simpson: Unlike many gold rush towns from the 1800s which have become ghost towns, Barkerville remains a thriving heritage community today. The townsite has over 100 heritage structures that still stand on the spots they were built on. Its Chinatown is the largest collection of pre-railway Chinese buildings in North America and hosts one of the largest Chinese archival collections in Canada. Thanks to the hard work of the Barkerville Heritage Trust, Barkerville's rich past is brought to life every summer to the delight of tourists from all over the world.

In 2012 Barkerville will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Billy Barker's Richfield gold strike, which gave birth to the town. The district of Wells and members of the Barkerville Heritage Trust have been lobbying the Premier and members of her cabinet to join them in Barkerville next year and to consider holding a cabinet meeting there.

I hope the Premier takes them up on this offer to celebrate British Columbia's past and, while there, also takes the opportunity to celebrate B.C.'s present-day gold rush by meeting with the Cariboo Mining Association and the many large-scale goldmine operations that are active in the region today.

There's been a dramatic increase in the number of active goldmine operations in the Cariboo due to the price of gold. International Wayside Gold Mines, Devlin's Bench, Williams Creek Goldfields, Rogers Gold, Wingdam, Richfield Ventures and Blackwater gold project have all brought millions of dollars of new investment to Cariboo communities because of that gold price.
[ Page 8044 ]

I've suggested that the Barkerville Heritage Trust consider adding this new gold rush to their celebrations next year by hosting an event to bring together these present-day goldminers on the site of B.C.'s largest historic gold rush. I hope the government will recognize this opportunity, as well, and assist Barkerville to celebrate both the past and the present gold rush in B.C. when they celebrate Barkerville's 150th anniversary next year.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF IMMIGRANTS

R. Lee: It's my pleasure to rise today to mark WelcomeBC Day. WelcomeBC Day was proclaimed by this government to honour immigrants past and present who have enriched our province and who continue to enrich our province.

When my grandfather came to British Columbia 98 years ago, immigrants were much less welcome than they are today. Over the years the contributions of immigrants have become more valued. Now British Columbia is amazingly diverse and dynamic. I'm happy to see this recognition of the social, cultural, academic, intellectual and economic contributions that immigrants make to our great province.

One reason that immigrants can make the contribution they do is because of the uncommon openness of the people of British Columbia. Indeed, I feel that British Columbia has a great deal to share with the world when it comes to helping immigrants feel welcome, when it comes to helping immigrants feel included and when it comes to helping immigrants to connect within their new communities and contribute fully to them.

We should all feel very proud of this generosity of spirit. We must also make sure that we continue to display this generosity and openness to those who come here to make a new life. Our past and our present teach us that our society is at its richest, at its best and at its most just when we open our hearts and our minds to new immigrants.

So today let's, in this House, resolve to continue saying: "Welcome to B.C."

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES
FOR CHILDREN IN TRANSITION
TO ADULTHOOD

A. Dix: My question is to the minister responsible for Community Living B.C. The minister will know that the current system at CLBC regularly fails young adults who are aging out of the child and youth system and joining the community living system. In far too many cases when individuals turn 19, as the minister will know, they lose the supports they need to continue on and to continue living their lives.

Kathleen Moore's daughter Danielle has a complex medical history, with her neurodevelopment disorder which requires 24-7 care. In Danielle's case she risks, right now, losing her home care giver because she's going to lose access to the funding that she had.

So will the minister order an investigation today, a review today, of these services for youth transitioning, who are aging out of their system and joining the community living system and losing the supports they need to continue to live their lives?

[1355]

Hon. S. Cadieux: For anyone, a life transition such as high school graduation is stressful, and it's not surprising that it's a stressful time, a challenging time for people with disabilities and their families.

As it should, CLBC's priority is the health and safety of the people it supports. CLBC is committed to ensuring that transition is as smooth as possible for every individual that is coming forward to receive services from them. That is why they work very cooperatively with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the individual and their family from as early as age 15 to plan for that transition.

Priority, of course, is given to addressing those most in need first and the most high-priority needs first, as it should.

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

A. Dix: In this case Kathleen is a single working mom. She's been trying the last seven months to resolve this question with CLBC, to ensure that her daughter doesn't lose the home support they need.

As the minister will know, this isn't a new problem. These transition issues have always plagued the system. It certainly did when the Premier was minister. It certainly did in the reports done by the child and youth officer, Ms. Morley, and by the current Representative for Children and Youth.

There were significant issues in the Fahlman case as well. There are other issues in the Fahlman case. The significant issue is the fact that in that case Neil Fahlman was going, essentially, from $65,000 in supports to nothing, from being 18 years old in 364 days to 19.

What we're talking about is a chronic failing of the system, but in this case Kathleen and Danielle are living that change now. What I'm asking the minister to do is to conduct an independent review of CLBC to address these serious problems of people who are aging out of the child and youth system but losing the very supports they need to continue on and to live their lives.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, I would just like to say that while I appreciate the concerns raised about individ-
[ Page 8045 ]
uals specifically, privacy laws would preclude me from speaking about individuals directly in this House. I am happy to address those concerns in my office.

However, that said, I also want to remind this House that no one who is eligible for CLBC services receives no services from government at all. There is a myriad of services that people receive from government, and CLBC is one provider of those services.

I would also like to assure the member that I have had my first meeting with CLBC, and I will continue to have meetings with CLBC. I'm going to address with them the concerns that I've been hearing in the community, the concerns that I've been hearing in this House, and I will continue to work with them, because a priority of this government is the health and safety and well-being of the people that we serve.

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

A. Dix: I appreciate the minister's and the government's problems, but in the case of Kathleen and Danielle the real problem here is that they're losing thousands of dollars in funding. Really, their services and their need for service hasn't changed from one day to another, but the reality of their services changed dramatically. They've been trying, in fact, to get the attention of CLBC on this question for seven months.

Kathleen's only alternative in the real world, in the practical world, is to quit her job, to go on income assistance and to become the full-time caregiver for her daughter. That's her only alternative, because her daughter went from 18 years old in 364 days to 19 years old.

This is a challenge that's chronic to the system, one we all have to work on to fix. Surely now is the time, because while the minister may not want to comment on individual cases, the fact of the matter is that this case, I think, represents hundreds of other cases that are happening right now before the minister.

Isn't it time now for an independent review to deal with many people in the system who are losing simply thousands of dollars of support because from one day to another they went from 18 to 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I've said, I won't address individual cases in the House, but I do appreciate that the member is bringing forward the concerns that he's hearing. It's important that we have dialogue and that we investigate and look into concerns when they arise.

[1400]

But let's remember that CLBC serves over 13,000 people, with a budget of over $710 million a year. Last year 766 people came to CLBC for the first time and received service. There were a thousand more services delivered that were services that were added to existing clients with CLBC who were requiring additional services.

I will be working with CLBC to ensure that if conversations are not occurring with families as they should, those conversations will occur.

J. Kwan: The problem is not just about having conversations. Kathleen had been working on a transition plan, and what's happened with that transition plan is that it's been thrown out in the garbage can. The Premier's family-first policy has left Danielle's family last. That's the reality.

Just because a person turns 19 it does not mean that all of a sudden the supports they have been needing and been receiving evaporate. Danielle's needs remain the same. Yesterday CLBC told Kathleen that her funding support for Danielle will be cut by more than half. That doesn't even cover the minimum costs, minimum wages, for Danielle's care aide.

This is a sad reality for many families with youth who are transitioning into adulthood, who face these problems. Families are at wits' end trying to cope. Surely the minister would agree that this is not acceptable. So my question to the minister is this. Why is this government doing that? Why won't she order an independent review now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, as I will state again, I'm not going to address individual cases in this House for reasons of privacy. However, if individual members have cases that they would like to bring forward to my attention, I encourage them to do so in my office.

CLBC and the Ministry of Children and Families work very hard to ensure that conversations happen with individuals and families that are going to be transitioning from the child system to the adult system well in advance of that transition occurring so that we can prepare to provide the best supports for the people that we serve. The supports we provide are individualized and focused on the individual needs of the clients. Again, priority is given to ensuring that all health and safety needs are met first.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: There is a crisis in CLBC right now, a crisis of confidence. What the minister says, that health and safety would be taken care of, is simply not happening. To deny Danielle the funding support she requires would compromise her health and safety. Kathleen does not want to quit her job and go on income assistance. She wants to be gainfully employed to support herself and to provide additional care to her daughter.

Last year Kathleen invested more than $20,000 of her income on Danielle's medical bills alone. To force her to quit her job makes no sense. It makes no sense for Danielle. It makes no sense for Kathleen, and frankly, it makes no sense for the taxpayers of British Columbia.
[ Page 8046 ]

Just because a person turns 19 does not mean that the level of care they require is diminished in any way. Again, I ask the minister not necessarily to address this specific case but to address the entire crisis in this system and order an independent review now.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, again, as I've stated, CLBC serves more than 13,600 people every year with a budget of $710 million, a budget that's been increasing every year since that organization has been in existence. It's a system that was put in place to focus on individual needs, provide more options, more choice, and to encourage full inclusion in our communities. I support that vision.

[1405]

M. Karagianis: There are thousands of families who are experiencing children who are aging out. Earlier I introduced a family that's here in the chamber today. Scott and Neil Mavridis are twins who live in my community. They were born with Down syndrome.

When Scott and Neil turned 18, all of their services disappeared from community living except for respite care. As a result, their mother, Caroline, is unable to work outside of their home. When they turn 19, even the respite care will be gone. This family faces uncertainty and worry about what will happen from that point on. It's another example of a family that is not being put first in British Columbia by the B.C. Liberals.

I raised this case in the House in June, and nothing has been done for this family, not a call, not an e-mail — nothing. So again to the minister. We have raised case after case in this House, and I would like to ask the minister: when is this government going to stop giving hollow assurances to the families? Because they know better. We need a government to solve the issue now. When is the minister going to take action on this?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I've said, I'm not going to address individual cases in this House, and I welcome the member, if they are concerned about individual cases, to contact my office so that I can look into them for them.

The budget for CLBC has grown every year since its inception. The demand continues to grow as well, and CLBC will continue to work with families and individuals to find innovative solutions to supporting the individual needs, and they'll do that in a fiscally and socially responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: These families are doing everything they can, everything they possibly can do to care for their children who are aging out, and yet this B.C. Liberal government remains absolutely indifferent to the circumstances these families are facing. British Columbians want a government that cares for the most vulnerable in our society, and this B.C. Liberal government has failed these families repeatedly.

So I would ask: will the government today ensure that families have security when their children age out and turn 19? We would like an independent review of CLBC, and we would ask the minister to call for that today.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I do find it somewhat personally offensive for the member opposite to insinuate that I don't care. I care greatly about these people, and I understand very well the challenges of living with a disability, the challenges of living with a disability of any type.

I am not surprised that the transition from the child care system to the adult system is a challenging time for families. Change is difficult, and things do change. But we are committed to working with the families. We are committed to having ongoing discussions about how best to manage these challenges, and I recommit to that today.

FUNDING FOR GROUPS PARTICIPATING
IN MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

S. Fraser: The missing women inquiry begins on Tuesday, and 17 families of victims and 20 women's community and aboriginal groups sent a letter to the Premier last week in a desperate attempt to ensure that the inquiry achieves justice. They advised the Premier that if this commission is allowed to fail, the result will be to not only aggravate old wounds but to open new ones. The Premier has offered no response to that letter, and today another three groups have withdrawn from the inquiry. There is very little time left to save this process from failing completely.

[1410]

Will the Attorney General take steps to prevent the unthinkable — that this vital inquiry could fail? Will she comply with her commissioner's recommendations and fully fund the legal representation of all the groups with standing?

Hon. S. Bond: Just for the member's information, a response has been sent. I think it was yesterday, in fact. It's been sent by fax in some cases and by mail in others. So those groups will be hearing back, and that letter was sent.

Any time that participants are choosing not to be a part of a process is a concern to us. We are making a very serious effort to get to the bottom of a set of circumstances that were tragic and that we certainly do not want to be repeated in British Columbia.

I have been assured that commission counsel, in a statement as recently as just two or three weeks ago, said that they believe that with the current configuration they can meet the mandate that is expected of the Missing Women Commission.
[ Page 8047 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: This Liberal government is sponsoring three levels of government, and they're refusing to fund the groups that have the most vital information and probably with the least resources. That's what's happening.

I have a letter from the Prichard-Wilson chair of law and public policy at the University of Toronto, and it says: "We can identify no other case in Canada where a government, having appointed a commission of inquiry, then in effect overturns a commissioner's decision on standing by refusing funding for participation."

Again to the Attorney General: will she take immediate action to ensure that every group given standing at the inquiry has access to the legal representation and the funding for that?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this government has been very clear about its priorities. Those groups and individuals most personally impacted are being provided funding — that is, the families of the missing and murdered women. Indeed, taxpayers in British Columbia and this government to date have invested more than $2 million in this process.

As recently as just several weeks ago the commissioner actually added an additional four lawyers, two of those independent and two who are providing pro bono service to provide support to exactly the groups that the member opposite is referring to.

C. James: I would remind the Attorney General today that the missing women inquiry would not have happened without the groups and organizations this government is cutting out of the very process. Those are the voices that are critical to this inquiry.

The Native Women's Association of Canada, Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, Carrier-Sekani Family Services, Pivot Legal, the Frank Paul Society, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — all groups and organizations who are supporting the women and families and who need to have their voices heard at this inquiry. Why won't the Attorney General commit to that funding today?

Hon. S. Bond: Those are precisely the groups for which the commission has added additional lawyers. There are four additional lawyers that have been added over the last several months, two of whom are independent, two of whom are providing pro bono services.

In this House it's important to recognize that the success of the commission and the important recommendations that will be received are not dependent on the numbers of lawyers that are involved in the process. Those individuals and groups that the member opposite has cited in this House have been invited to participate, and an additional complement of lawyers has been added to meet their needs in this commission of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I would say to the Attorney General that the success of the missing women inquiry will be that the families, the groups and the organizations feel trust in the process. They do not trust the process. Nor does the commissioner himself, who recommended more support for these women, groups and organizations.

[1415]

A quote from Diane Wood, member of the Women's Memorial March:

"We have essentially been shut out of this inquiry that is supposed to be about us and our experiences. It's vital to this inquiry that the voices of women in the community be front and centre when determining its recommendations. Without a commitment to the participation of women and groups and organizations…the inquiry is not legitimate and has no credibility."

Well, when the Premier travelled through Smithers, she was asked about the Highway of Tears and the inquiry. She said the answers will eventually have to come from the First Nations women themselves. Well, my question is to the Attorney General. If the Premier believes the answers must come from the First Nations women themselves, then why is the government shutting those groups and organizations out of this process?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I'm actually a woman that does live in northern British Columbia. In fact, when the commissioner came to government and asked for an expansion of the mandate of the commission to include a broader study inquiry, this government said yes. And in fact, that's why the commission travelled across northern British Columbia in a much less adversarial atmosphere than a courtroom to hear the story of aboriginal women right across northern British Columbia. That's what the government did — actually responded to the commissioner, expanded the scope of the inquiry to include a much less intimidating process than a courtroom.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON
OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES

B. Simpson: The Premier's jobs strategy has a rapid expansion of the oil and gas sector as a part of that strategy, and yet the Premier has an outstanding promise to the people of the Peace region that a full public inquiry would be conducted into the current state of the oil and gas industry with respect to health and safety.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. The throne speech talks about the people's right to know what its government is doing, the people's right to a voice in what government is doing. My question is: when will the first meeting be held — the place and time of the first meeting for the public health inquiry into the current state of the health impacts of the oil and gas industry?
[ Page 8048 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. It's a timely question. The undertaking that was given was to commission a review and examination, so I want to distinguish between that and a formal public inquiry of the sort that is taking place elsewhere.

We anticipate a three-stage process. The first stage is about to begin, where we will be consulting with people in the Peace to solicit their views on the specific issues that they want covered. We anticipate that to take about six weeks.

Then we'll move to the second stage of the process, which will be to gather and compile the data around the specific health effects that are to be reviewed and measured. Then we anticipate, out of that, a series of recommendations. A timely question, and we're looking forward to the matter proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The question is timely, because the people in the Peace region believed that this particular minister promised them a full public health inquiry under section 86 of the Public Health Act, which is a transparent series of meetings in the Peace that the public can engage in.

Mr. Speaker, pardon the public for their cynicism, but the Minister of Energy in this House in June promised extensive public consultation before two pipelines would be approved in the Peace to withdraw water from the Williston reservoir. Now there are approvals and pipelines in place to withdraw 7.3 billion litres of fresh water from the Williston reservoir for fracking despite the Minister of Energy's contention on CBC radio that we don't use fresh water to frack in British Columbia.

[1420]

So my question to the Minister of Health, since he's the one answering this, is…. The minister promised, and it's in the transcripts of an interview he did, that he would adhere to the request by the people of the Peace. The request by the people of the Peace was for a public health inquiry under the Health Act, not a backroom exploration of some of the problems that are going on up there.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I can assure him and every member of the House that what is intended here is an entirely public process, one that will consult with the residents and interested parties of the Peace, that will tap into their expertise, that will address their concerns around air quality, around groundwater quality.

Out of that exercise will arise a product that can answer some of the questions related to those issues, and an industry that is very much tied to not just the economic well-being of the region but the overall economic well-being of the province, and our jobs strategy can proceed with people having the certainty that it is proceeding in a safe and healthy manner.

SMART METERING PROGRAM

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Thousands and thousands of B.C. Hydro ratepayers have expressed significant concerns about the implementation of the smart meter program.

Last week at the Union of B.C. Municipalities the Premier stood and addressed the convention and said she was prepared to listen and work with communities right across B.C. At that same convention, members voted 55 percent in favour of suspending the smart meter program until a review could be done.

I would urge the minister to follow the lead of the former minister, the member for Peace River South. Take this package. Send it to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Correct the problems that you created in the last session. Allow the folks to have some confidence that the government will listen to them when they express concerns and that they will not spend a billion dollars frivolously.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the first question I would have for the member opposite is: do you support smart metering and a smart grid or not? Because I have numerous quotes of the member opposite specifically saying that he does.

I think, at the same time, we should recognize that we need to do upgrades to our system. The system that we have today is old and aging. We need to be able to replace our meters…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …and get a smart grid. We need to know where our load loss is. We need to know, if there's a windstorm on Vancouver Island, where we can send our people safely with the right equipment to the right spot to fix the power lines because it's part of a smart grid, not just a smart meter.

We need to know, also, that we can actually have meters that will last us for the next generation of power as we modernize the system to make for clean energy and to have the outcomes we need in British Columbia for power, and we can do that with this program. Almost 120,000 meters are now installed in British Columbia, with less than 0.015 percent of people having a concern about them.

A lot of the information out there is incorrect. They are not a health concern. You can ask the chief medical health officer. You can ask the World Health Organization. They will tell you that these are safe.

In actual fact, ironically, at the convention the members that had a concern about it, UBCM, when they voted on it, in the Wi-Fi and the electronic stuff in the hotels they were in for the four or five days, they would
[ Page 8049 ]
have got 1,500 years of smart meter technology in just those four days.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The minister will forgive me for pointing out that this might not have been the day to talk about throwing quotes back and forth across the floor of the Legislature. On behalf of all of the good people that work in the basement, on behalf of the New Democrat caucus, maybe you might want to do your research before you make statements like that.

But my question is, again, to see if there is any continuity in B.C. Liberal energy policy. We have had five Ministers of Energy in the past two or three years, so it's difficult to follow the bouncing ball.

One minister assured me unequivocally, categorically, that yes, the Utilities Commission will review a billion-dollar expenditure. What jurisdiction in the world would allow a monopoly to spend a billion dollars without checking where the money is going?

[1425]

With respect to another statement by the former minister, with respect to time-of-use pricing, which is supported by the team implementing the smart meter program at B.C. Hydro, the former minister said: "It looks as though, once we have sufficient mass of these meters installed, we will look at time of use to implement that, so we're thinking about the middle of 2011 or in that range."

Again, forgive me if I don't believe what you're saying, Mr. Minister, but we were going to go to the Utilities Commission, and now we're not. We were going to go to time-of-use pricing, and now we're not. Why don't you put it all on the table, and let the public know what the heck is going on with a billion dollars of their money?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's substantially under the number that the member is quoting. It's actually under budget today. We've already saved over $70 million as a result of the smart meters we've put in place. About a 2 percent increase would have to go to your members. I know you'd like to shut it down. You'd love to shut it down. You believe in it, but you'd like to shut it down because you'd love to put another 10 percent increase on the ratepayers of British Columbia in order to pay for what has already been invested in the system today, but I get that.

I will go through some quotes, hon. Member, except from my source it's pretty impeccable, unless you don't believe that Hansard is actually a source that we can go quote from. So, on April 26, 2007, the member opposite: "I'm really excited about smart metering."

I know to ask the questions is difficult for the member opposite because we share many of the views that will make the smart grid work for British Columbia, have it be safer for our workers, be more important for our citizens to help us conserve energy, to actually make this system work better, to actually find the places in the system we can improve on, because that's what this investment is about. It's an investment about keeping rates down for British Columbians, and I don't think the members opposite are opposed to that.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading, continued, on Bill 2, intituled the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act.

Mr. Speaker: If members could hurry off to their other business so we can get on with the debate.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area
Conservation Act

(continued)

J. McIntyre: It's a hard act to follow after question period today, but I'm pleased to rise in the House today for debate, after several months back in our constituencies, to support Bill 2, the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act. It's been a lively and passionate debate we've had today, so I'm glad to take my place.

I think most of the members here in the House know…. But maybe for viewers' background, on February 10, 2011, the province announced that it would introduce legislation to support the memorandum of understanding that was signed by British Columbia and Montana in 2010 on environmental protection, climate action and energy. A key provision of this MOU was an agreement to remove mineral, oil, gas and coal exploration and development as permissible land uses in the transboundary Flathead Watershed.

[1430]

As a result, this bill, in short, will (1) prevent registration of new mineral claims and applications for coal tenures by establishing both coal and mineral reserves, (2) prohibit Crown land dispositions for mining purposes, (3) prohibit issuance of Mines Act permits, (4) prohibit issuance of Oil and Gas Activities Act permits for oil and gas exploration and development and (5) prohibit disposition of Crown reserves under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. This is on nearly 400,000 acres, or 160,000 hectares.

Some members of the House and viewers at home may wonder why a member from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky is speaking to this bill that protects land in the Kootenay district — wild, pristine land. Let me proceed to explain why.
[ Page 8050 ]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

First, on a more local basis, we have a lengthy history of land protection in Sea to Sky region. We have about 18 provincial parks by some counts, including one of the most widely used — the jewel in the system — Garibaldi Provincial Park. We also have Cypress Provincial Park, near my home, one of the 2010 games host venue sites.

We have been beneficiaries of millions of dollars of local park upgrades over the last few years.

We have on Bowen Island, for example, a very interesting process going on right now, where the municipality is in negotiations with the federal government to be granted national park status. There's extensive public consultation going on because it involves, of course, significant portions of the island.

We also have in the recent past, after many years of stakeholder negotiations, signed the Sea to Sky land resource management plan. That, of course, sets out a high-level agreement and consensus on land use plans in our region.

It also included a layering-on of First Nations interests and development of land conservancies or Wild Spirit Places. I think many of us in this House know and respect the First Nations views on land use and protection. We could all take a lesson from.

There's also a very strong contingent of environmentalists in our region, exemplified by the strong showing of the Green Party in the last two general elections, so I have all confidence that many of my constituents have very strong environmental values.

I think, contrary to some of what we've been hearing from the NDP today, B.C. has a stellar track record in land preservation. We're a leader in Canada in establishing parks and protected areas, and I hope that most members of this House understand that this is a record to be proud of as we celebrate our centenary — the 100th birthday of the B.C. Parks system this year.

This legislation that we're debating today builds on our government's commitment to protecting the environment.

Let me review some of these accomplishments, in brief. We have today more than 13 million hectares of our province as protected. That's more than 14 percent of the province — as big as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. combined. That's a significant amount more than the 12 percent that the NDP aimed for many years ago.

Since 2001 our government has established 65 — that's 65 — new parks, 144 conservancies, two ecological reserves and nine protected areas. That is a significant achievement.

It has also expanded more than 60 parks, some of them in my constituency, and it has expanded six of the ecological reserves, protecting more than 1.9 million hectares of additional land. We have also made more than $107 million in capital investments in the past five years, improving our park infrastructures and acquiring more park land — again, I think, something to celebrate in this 100th anniversary.

Why does the Flathead watershed area need protection? Why is it so special, especially from the perspective of a member of this House who wholeheartedly supports mining and oil and gas exploration and the importance of it to our economy?

I think you have to go back to that memorandum of understanding in 2010 that the province and the state of Montana signed. It was the result of a lengthy cross-border process that I was privileged to play just a small role in during my role as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations from 2008 to '09.

This was not just B.C. and Montana. I recall that the issue was drawn to the attention of both the Canadian and U.S. federal governments at the highest levels, and then it was also drawn to the attention of then candidate for President Barack Obama during his campaign.

Additionally, the Flathead watershed, which is neighbouring to Waterton Glacier International Peace Park, received global attention when it was listed by UNESCO as a world heritage site and biosphere reserve. I think it's fair to say that sustaining the environmental values in the Flathead became, and is still today, of intense interest both internationally and locally.

[1435]

This act will enable us to continue our excellent management of this wild area that according to the Nature Conservancy of Canada supports an amazing abundance of life — I know that my colleague from Kootenay East talked about that — the largest population of grizzly bears, 16 different species of carnivores and, of course, a great diversity of plants.

The B.C. side of the valley, I understand, is largely undeveloped and is still home to the same variety of species that existed 400 years ago.

With this legislation, we'll be committed to ensure that this ecosystem will be maintained in a manner consistent with current recreation, forestry, guide-outfitting and trapping uses and is consistent with the values, as I understand, of the local Ktunaxa First Nations. It parallels legislation in the U.S. Senate that is affecting the Montana North Fork Flathead basin.

This legislation is an act, I hope, that all British Columbians, including those in my constituency, will be proud of for many years to come. It's surely an act where we can find common ground with the NDP.

Let me conclude with a quote from Richard Cannings, who is a biologist and member of the Nature Conservancy of Canada's B.C. regional board, when he was, I assume, commenting on the B.C.-Montana agreement.

"There is no other large watershed in North America like the Flathead — the richness of its waters, the abundance of its carnivores. It is a truly wild river in southern
[ Page 8051 ]
Canada. This agreement will ensure that the Flathead will stay wild and pure for generations to come."

With that, I take my place, and I will be supporting this legislation.

G. Gentner: Before I get started, I'd like to recognize in the precinct the students of a school in my constituency — Seaquam Secondary School. It is a school of excellence. Could the House please give them a warm welcome.

First of all, regarding Bill 2, I want to say that the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act…. I think a lot of recognition has got to go towards the Parks and Wilderness Society, Wildsight, the Sierra Club and many of the locals in the area, not only, of course, in the East Kootenays but all the Kootenays.

They share the various watersheds there, and they know what it means relative to the industrial component of their constituencies and, of course, the importance of recreation and the stewardship of ecologically sensitive areas.

Also, some recognition has got to go to the government of Canada — in particular, Mr. Prentice, years ago, who was actually very strong on this file; I have to give the Conservative government some credit there — and to the government of Alberta, who over the years have been very strong relative to their park there on the other side of the Continental Divide; and to the Americans; and above all, of course, to the state of Montana, who have been working very steadfastly on this file.

The legislation's main focus here is to prohibit mining and oil and gas extraction in the watershed area of Flathead. This legislation meets the commitment made back in 2010, a memorandum of understanding signed by the state of Montana on environmental protection, climate action and energy. But let's call it what it is. It is a first step, a first step only, towards what we're hopeful will be much more protection in that area.

There is a missing piece here for a continuation of — hopefully, one day perhaps — park status shared with Waterton Glacier on both sides of the Continental Divide, shared by Montana and on the other side, of course, Alberta.

This act prohibits Crown land dispositions of mining purposes, prohibits issuance of Mines Act permits, prohibits issuance of Oil and Gas Activities Act permits for oil and gas exploration and development and prohibits disposition of Crown reserves under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

We've known how this has come about. United Nations scientists recommended a moratorium on mining in the valley some time ago when they visited this part of the world, in particular that of UNESCO. But we've seen also for quite some time, over the last four or five years, a kind of flip-flop by the government opposite on the policy to permit mining.

On one side, they are saying they are certainly for preservation, but on the other side, we are seeing even the talk of extracting coal bed methane in the Flathead Valley.

[1440]

This may be the first step, but it doesn't go far enough. The legislation does not protect the Flathead from logging in a proposed national park, trophy-hunting, new road access and quarrying. I believe that most of the groups are still going to continue to lobby on this behalf.

In many ways it's quite puzzling. I'm quoting here from spokesperson Chloe O'Loughlin from CPAWS B.C., who stated they're quite puzzled that the B.C. government states in its press release that the Flathead is a world heritage site and UNESCO biosphere reserve. Again, they're giving a lukewarm endorsation of the group; however, it doesn't go far enough.

I spent some time in the Flathead. I went and visited it. I spent some time in Montana, and I spent some time with members of the governor's staff to talk about where the state of Montana was going with this.

I have to tell you, it was an incredible ecological jewel on both sides of the border. I remember it well. Having spent some time with the state officials, I went up through the American side, along the Flathead Valley, and came to the Canadian border. If you are looking at a customs agency, it's quite deplorable. It's like a sign that said: "Closed." Yet on the American side it was quite pristine in their values and how they are able to keep that area in check.

I have to tell you, too, hon. Speaker, that it was pristine. The air and the water were clear. Incredible flora and fauna. It was quite spectacular, quite frankly. I've been to many parts in British Columbia. It's a wide valley, next to the continental ridge, the height of the land and our continent in an area that's without question one of the richest in wildlife resources.

The Flathead is a river that supports a rich biota. Certainly, the bull trout and cutthroat trout populations are considerable, and they are particularly vulnerable to the kinds of disturbances that could have occurred through mining. The wildlife issues, particularly with regards to the grizzly population area, have always been of great concern.

Regarding the grizzlies, it's definitely a unique community of carnivore species that reside in the transboundary flatland region that really is in many ways outmatched in the continental centre of North America, with the valley bottom lands, the densities of the species which are rare. It's really quite an interesting and wonderful place. Not only are there grizzly bears but black bears, wolves, mountain lions, within that area.
[ Page 8052 ]

During my time there I spent a good day on the American side. I went back across the border and came back through, of course, Fernie. When I was walking through some of the logging roads and looked in the valley, I was quite impressed with not only the glaciated peaks and the untouched riparian valley, the mountain lakes, the prairie grassland, aspen stands, coniferous forests; it was the terrestrial wildlife that really impressed me. I'm hopeful that with this new bill we'll go on to the next stage.

I have to tell you a little bit about the process and the process of why we are getting here. We are not getting here, I think, because the government opposite has the heart and the inspiration to save the flatland. They have sort of been forced in it through international pressure.

There were several meetings at Glacier, Waterton Lakes and Fernie. In Fernie UNESCO met up with NGOs. B.C. would only allow one half-hour with the NGOs and the various delegations. In Montana, when the delegation for UNESCO appeared, they gave them quite the time of day. The delegation seemed to be given a sort of an aloofness by the B.C. government.

[1445]

U.S. and Canadian governments were supposed to take the lead, however. But Canada really dumped it onto British Columbia. And you know, Montana has never really insisted on a park. It's not their job. But they are concerned, primarily, about the water. This is what this bill is really all about. It's about a treaty. It's about water. It's about international relationships with our good cousin south of the border.

You know, when UNESCO came here, the B.C. scientists' presentation, I've been told by many, was extremely poor. When they talked about the hydrology, they were asked about water, and B.C. danced all about it. They were really hesitant. They were not really on board to try and preserve this area.

My sources tell me that when they were asked to speculate how mining would affect water, the delegation for British Columbia said they didn't really know and didn't have much of a comment. There seemed to have been a gag order in that whole process.

I remember well. The then Premier was talking. He said the main reason Montana is concerned about the Flathead is because the rest of the state has already been industrialized, often with exactly the same kind of projects B.C. was looking for.

Well, it was really a mud-in-the-eye type of relationship that the provincial B.C. Liberal government had with the state of Montana. It was kind of this cowboy attitude that seemed to predominate those relationships. They seemed to be on board more with the directions of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, rather than our own so-called environmental standards.

I have to talk about the previous minister. I'll give you an example of what those relationships were about. The previous Minister of Environment — I'm quoting him. When he started talking about Montana, trying to get something done in the good spirit of good relationships, his comments were quite clear. He said: "I hardly think that we'll be in a position to take too many lectures from the conduct of officials south of the border."

I mean, here we were. We're moving into an Olympics mode. We're trying to develop relationships, but really it was a stick in the eye by this government. I really think the government took a cheap shot rather than try and negotiate this at all. The government ridiculed the Americans for their declining grizzly bear populations as a pretense for our own grizzlies starving because of a mismanaged fish supply, which this government helped create.

I do want to talk a little bit about the relationship itself and what really happened and why we are here today. It's about water. It's about downstream rights. And we do have the unfortunate, I suppose, situation that we're mostly upstream in British Columbia to everything that happens downstream. So what we do on this side of the 49th can detrimentally affect the water regime, the hydrology, the farming, the industry, the cities south of the line.

We talk about the Columbia River treaty. We know that went through immense negotiations. They're still going on today — a huge diversification of water. But there was a good relationship back then in how we worked with our friends south of the river. We're talking about a remarkable transboundary watershed here, in that part of the province, and we've got to work together to maintain it.

What Montana was asking for I don't think was really quite out of the ordinary. The watershed there contains eight blue-listed aquatic and terrestrial species in British Columbia and seven species listed as endangered or threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. So the Americans had to act. They had to insist. They had to work with UNESCO to resolve this.

I think that when you talk at the…. The area there that had the major conflict over a proposed mine at Cabin Creek some time ago let Canada and the United States refer the matter to the International Joint Commission, the IJC, for a study and recommendations. That happened some time ago. There was at least some working order happening there.

[1450]

Under international trade law we can start looking at…. I'm a little reluctant to go here. I'm not one who's always going to support NAFTA, but under the North American agreement, there is also a subsection on North American agreement on environmental cooperation. It is to increase cooperation between the parties to better conserve, protect and enhance the environment.

In passing the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, the United States and Mexico also agreed to a North American agreement on environmental
[ Page 8053 ]
cooperation. So this government is compelled to save the upstream and its effects on what goes south of the 49th.

Now, under the boundary waters treaty…. The United States and United Kingdom created and signed the boundary water treaties in 1909 when Canada was still a dominion in the United Kingdom. The treaty remains in force today between the United States and Canada. Its signatories intended the treaty to be a means of preventing "disputes regarding the use of boundary waters."

Goodwill was established well over 100 years ago. The treaty defines boundary waters as the waters of "lakes and rivers and connecting waterways or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the United States and the Dominion of Canada passes."

Appropriate for the pressing matters of the era, the treaty largely addresses obstructions or diversions, dams and canals of the boundary waters. However, precipitously, it also contains a provision that "boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other."

Amazing. They were using the word "pollution" way over 100 years ago. There's a mechanism put in place about the effects of destroying upstream water and its effects that can affect the downstream effects, of course, on the waters of the Flathead south of the 49th.

Again, we can give all the great accolades and say how wonderful this bill is, but we are compelled, and through international law we would pay deeply had we not negotiated Bill 2.

Now, article 8 of the treaty extends mandatory jurisdiction to the International Joint Committee over cases involving the use, obstruction or diversion of waters, and we've been seeing that process in place for some time.

You know, from Montana's perspective, it would be ideal to have the International Joint Committee review the dispute and make the recommendations. There seems to have been a real reluctance up until a few years ago when there was a decision made — of course, by the IJC.

Regarding general practice accepted as law, customary international law is the binding law that emerges from regularities but not necessarily uniformities of state behaviour.

A number of important matters, treaties and conventions have recognized the principle of sustainable development and ecosystem management. Sustainable development, the principle of "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs," first became well known with the publication of the Brundtland report of 1987.

Now 20 years after the Stockholm conference the Rio declaration in 1992 expressly announced that sustainable development was a guiding principle of global significance. Today there is universal recognition of the application of the overarching objective of sustainable development.

Again, we are bound, I think, by international law to save the Flathead. Similarly, ecosystem management has been widely recognized in the international convention treaties. In 1966 the Helsinki rules on the uses of the waters of international rivers designated the river drainage basin as the appropriate unit for analysis regarding transboundary watercourses.

The ecosystem management principle gained recent expression in the United Nations convention on the law of non-navigable uses of international watercourses.

[1455]

Article 20 of the convention provides that "watercourse states shall individually and, where appropriate, jointly protect and preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses." The near-unanimous 104-3 vote in the United Nations approving the convention indicated the broad international support of its principles.

Again, I reiterate. We are compelled under international statute and obligations to save the Flathead, and heaven help us if we didn't.

The body of the decisions of the IJC regarding water use between Canada and the United States most validates the application of sustainable development, ecosystem management principles and transboundary water issues between the two countries.

Now, the prevention principle — the prevention principle that no nation may undertake activities within its borders that will cause significant injury to another nation — is widely considered a basic tenet in customary international law.

A brief elaboration of the history of this principle reveals ample support for this conclusion. It is further significant because the development of the principle is closely linked to the development of U.S.-Canadian relations regarding transboundary environmental issues. The international arbitral panel, convened to settle the old Trail smelter arbitration, a transboundary dispute between Canada and the United States, set the precedent. It was done.

A review of the 20th century international law reveals that international courts and arbitral panels have reaffirmed the principle that no nation may act in its territory in a way that significantly harms another country, and nations and international bodies have included this principle in treaties and conventions.

Now, following the Trail smelter in the International Court of Justice, the ICJ, decided the Corfu Channel case, stating the general and well-recognized principle that is "every state's obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of another state."

You go into the Flathead, to the American side, and you'll see these beautiful farms. They had a right to be
[ Page 8054 ]
concerned about how we were going to perhaps destroy the watershed on the Canadian side of the Flathead.

"In addition to the aforementioned arbitral panels in the ICJ, numerous international declarations and conventions regarding transboundary waterways uphold the principle that one waterway state may not use the waters in its jurisdiction in a way that will harm other states in the river basin. This is significant because such accords may be a source of customary international law 'when they are intended for adherence by states generally and are, in fact, widely accepted.'

"Three important international instruments affirm the obligation of states" — namely, Canada, British Columbia within the Flathead — "not to use their resources in a way that causes significant harm to others. First, principle 21 of the Stockholm declaration stated that while states have the 'sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies,' states also have 'the responsibility to ensure the activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.'

"Twenty years later, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development…repeated the same language in principle 2 of the Rio declaration, echoing this limitation on exploitation of resources within national boundaries. Finally, in 1997 the international watercourses convention reaffirmed that 'watercourse states shall, in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse states.'"

I guess I can go on more about international law and why we have got to, I would say, walk on eggs on this sort of issue. But be cognizant that the liabilities and the repercussions of destroying another nation's water systems, all in aid — I hate to say it — of some greedy aspirations…. You've got to look at the whole enchilada. You've got to look at the whole implications here.

[1500]

You just can't go ahead and go to Foisey Creek and decide to create slag. Regardless of how good you may think your environmental assessment is, you have to not only compromise, but you've got to work in conjunction with the Americans. You know, the effects of a valley at Foisey Creek, if localized to the immediate stream segment, would not violate, necessarily, the prevention principle. There would be no cross-border harm and, if that is the case, we get away with it. But obviously the Americans made a big case, and the international community agreed.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to isolate the headwaters of the North Fork with its downstream waters. This is the case, for example, for migratory fish species that travel to upper reaches of the Flathead to spawn.

Coal mining activities in Foisey Creek would likely destroy spawning grounds for protected and valuable migratory fish species such as bull trout. In the Cabin Creek referral the IJC recognized that the combined efforts of the proposed coal mine to the headwaters of the Flathead would "cause a loss to a fishery, a loss which is felt on the other side of the boundary."

The Americans did their homework. There's no question that they did their homework. I don't think the same could necessarily be said with the B.C. Liberal government, relative to how it's handled this file.

Now, like the substantive principles of sustainable development and the ecosystem management, a procedural requirement for an environmental assessment for transboundary harm is not foreign to international environment law. The watercourses convention in '97 requires an environmental assessment before a nation may proceed with a project which may have significant adverse effect upon other watercourse states. Clearly, Montana and the United States of America do not believe that the environmental assessment standards, I believe, in British Columbia were up to snuff.

British Columbia and Canada are unwilling to take steps to analyze the potential cross-border harm that could result from coal mining at Foisey Creek. The United States would require that an international arbitral panel address the question under customary international law. Now, I raise this because, I say again, all the lofty accolades and discussion about how wonderful this government is relative to the bill…. We support it in principle, and we think it is the first step. But let's not forget what or how the pressures came.

It didn't come from the good will of the government. Not at all. It came from the good pressures from those in the region, those who fought hard. They found the ear of the United Nations, and of course we have cousins south of the 49th, who I dare say have a big stick. They don't use it. They certainly were willing to do their due diligence and show that the detrimental effects within the course in the Flathead area would be detrimental to the environment, the socioeconomic development of a state.

I had to get that on the record. I think it's very important that we understand how this game was played. We have to understand that this is a complex situation. We also have to appreciate that Alberta has established itself with an internationally recognized national-provincial park system, and the same thing with Montana. We are missing that piece, that piece on the British Columbian side, to make it complete.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my place in the House and thank you for the opportunity to speak relative to Bill 2.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's my pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to Bill 2, the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act. I'd like to start first by congratulating our government, the minister responsible and staff involved for moving ahead with this great piece of legislation to enhance the protection of B.C.'s pristine Flathead Valley and following through on our government's commitment.

This legislation will permanently prohibit mining, as well as exploration and development of oil, gas and
[ Page 8055 ]
mineral resources, on nearly 400,000 acres — 400,000 breathtaking acres of wilderness in the Flathead Valley.

[1505]

In 2009, when I was first appointed to cabinet as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, I was introduced to the complex issues surrounding the Flathead Valley. Unfortunately, the first thing I had to ask was: where is the Flathead Valley?

For those of you who are not familiar with this area, though I'm sure you are now, it's an extraordinary region located in the Kootenays. It's in the southeastern corner of British Columbia and within the Ktunaxa territory. The Flathead Valley extends through to Montana to the south, and the nearest towns are Cranbrook, Elkford, Fernie and Sparwood. The Flathead watershed neighbours the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park, and it's listed by UNESCO as a world heritage site and biosphere reserve.

Sustaining environmental values in the Flathead is of intense interest, both internationally and amongst local residents, as we have heard today. Now, the National Geographic Magazine calls this area "one of the most diverse and ecologically intact natural ecosystems in the temperate zones of the world." They also refer to the Flathead Valley as the crown of the continent.

According to the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Flathead watershed supports an amazing abundance of life, such as 16 different species of carnivores, a great diversity of plants and a large population of grizzly bears. In fact, there are more grizzlies here than anywhere else in the interior of North America. It's also home to many species that are threatened elsewhere: lynx, badgers, wolverines and bull trout. They compare the Flathead Valley to Africa's Serengeti for its diverse plant species. There are more than 1,000 wildflower species just in the Flathead Valley. "The B.C. side of the valley is largely undeveloped and is still home to the same variety of species that existed 400 years ago."

The water in the Flathead River is so pure that it's used as a benchmark to measure water quality in rivers around the world. The Flathead River is a transboundary river. That means that it flows from B.C. into Montana. As an avid freshwater fisherman — or fisher, I should say — I'm particularly passionate about the crystal-clear waters that are home to a healthy population of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, sculpin and mountain whitefish. In fact, I'd like to remind my colleague the member for Kootenay East of his offer to take me fly-fishing in the Flathead Valley.

Now, some of you in this chamber may be familiar with what I'm going the talk about next, and I apologize for that. But I can't let this opportunity go by without relaying some of the important milestones that led to the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, which we call Bill 2. In my previous role as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, I had the honour of working to protect this particular part of British Columbia while balancing the needs and the interests of the residents of the Kootenays and the Ktunaxa First Nations. It was clear to me that residents of the Kootenays and the First Nations wanted continued historical access to the back country of the Flathead Valley for fishing, guiding, hiking, canoeing, snowmobiling and camping.

In my former role as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, I had the pleasure of working to fulfil a February 2010 throne speech commitment to work on a new partnership with the state of Montana to sustain the environmental values in the Flathead River basin in a manner consistent with current forestry, recreation, guide-outfitting and trapping uses. What we were able to establish was a memorandum of understanding and cooperation on environmental protection, climate action and energy between British Columbia and Montana.

I would be remiss if I didn't recognize Bryant Fairley for all the work he's done on the Flathead file. Bryant is with Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat. He is the executive director of U.S. relations and partnerships, and he and I worked many hours on this file.

I was honoured to emcee the historic agreement that was signed during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver in February, and I have as a prized possession, hanging in my office, a framed picture of the agreement and the photos of the signing. The agreement was signed by former B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and Montana's governor, Brian Schweitzer.

Members should be aware that the agreement signed brought to a conclusion a 25-year dispute over the future of the watershed that lies both in British Columbia and Montana, in Canada and the United States. This was a proud day and a huge accomplishment for both our regions.

[1510]

Here are some of the comments that we heard that day: "I think the provincial government has taken a great step for the Flathead. Everyone who cares about wildlife, fish, water and a healthy ecosystem has to applaud the government's actions." That was said by the environmentalist John Bergenske, who's the executive director of Wildsight

Bill 2 enhances that work and fulfils the commitment this government made to introduce legislation. Today we are introducing that legislation that will protect this unique area from resource development. This act will demonstrate that British Columbia is leading the way when it comes to land conservation.

The Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act will prevent registration of new mineral claims and application for coal tenures by establishing coal and mineral reserves. It will prohibit Crown land dispositions for mining purposes. It will prohibit issuance of Mines Act permits. It will prohibit issuance of Oil and Gas Activities Act permits for oil and gas exploration and development,
[ Page 8056 ]
and it will prohibit disposition of Crown reserves under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

At the same time, the act will enable us to continue our excellent management of the Flathead, which has maintained the diverse and healthy ecosystem that exists today. Parallel legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate to similarly remove mining, oil and gas as permissible land uses in the Montana North Fork Flathead Basin.

The act will also put in place a framework for future cooperation, involving not just B.C. and Montana but also federal governments, First Nations, American tribes and non-governmental organizations. Again — I think it's worth repeating — it will still allow us to continue to maintain this unique area in a manner consistent with current recreation, forestry, guide-outfitting and trapping uses. This legislation builds on British Columbia's commitment to protecting the environment.

I listened this morning to the member for Victoria–Swan Lake's lukewarm support for this bill, but I must take exception with the comment he made that B.C. doesn't have a conservation plan. I can tell you that on that point, Madam Speaker, he's absolutely wrong.

B.C. has a conservation framework. It identifies plants and species at risk. We have a conservation data centre that collects information to identify, again, those species at risk. We've established 65 new parks, 144 conservancies, two ecological reserves and nine protected areas since 2001.

We've also expanded more than 60 parks and six ecological reserves. We've protected more than 1.9 million hectares, an area almost three times the size of Prince Edward Island. Today over 14 percent — and that's more than 13.5 million hectares — of B.C. is protected, more than any other province in Canada. That's an area equal to the size of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I.

This act is being welcomed across the province and beyond. John Lounds, who's the president and CEO of Nature Conservancy of Canada, says: "This is a remarkable commitment to conservation." Richard Cannings, a biologist and member of the Nature Conservancy of Canada's B.C. regional board, says: "There is no other large watershed in North America like the Flathead — the richness of its waters, the abundance of its carnivores. It's a truly wild river in southern Canada. This agreement will ensure that the Flathead will stay wild and pure for generations to come."

Beyond the environmental benefits for this area, important relationships were built between B.C. and Montana, Canada and the United States. In a letter from U.S. Senators Max Baucus and John Tester, they write: "The resources of the north fork of the Flathead River are unmatched. Canadians and Americans are forever linked in our effort to preserve this treasure for future generations, both north and south of the border."

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill 2. It's a long time coming and a very, very good thing to do.

C. Trevena: I would agree with the Minister of Advanced Education on her closing note on Bill 2, the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, that it is a long time coming. A lot of people have been working very, very hard to ensure that the Flathead is protected.

[1515]

On this side of the House, while we welcome the move, we are very aware that this is just a small step. It's a start. It has been fought for, for many years for our volunteers, environmentalists, many people who cherish the Flathead and are very concerned about it.

It wasn't until 2010 that we actually got a commitment, a memorandum of understanding with Montana, on environmental protection, climate action and energy, which this actually enacts. This has been asked for, for many years, and when the minister was talking before, you have to really say, well, it's not surprising that people have been longing for this.

The Flathead is described as equal to the Serengeti. It's described as having thousands of species of wildflowers. It's got this clear, clear water. It's got so many grizzly bears. So we should be protecting it. It makes a lot of sense to be protecting it where we can. The fact that we actually are now discussing a watershed area conservation act which will restrict mining and oil and gas activity in the Flathead is very important.

Our reservations on this are that it is a very limited act. It doesn't really go far enough. The Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act does actually say the bill restricts mining and oil and gas activity in the Flathead watershed area, prohibits the disposition of Crown land in the area, designates coal land in that area as a coal land reserve and establishes a mineral reserve on that area.

While that is likely to please some people, it will also open a lot of questions, when we get to the committee stage, about just how much protection there is. There have been moves over the years to ensure that protection can take place and activity can take place.

We look at the Great Bear, where we have a vast area of rain forest that is protected, but we have agreements with First Nations, agreements with logging companies, agreements with others about how we can actually conserve, protect and use that area. What we would be hoping for is that in any further conservation in any area across B.C. that we're doing this very realistically, that we are doing a complete protection and not just looking at two areas where we are putting in prohibitions.

Here we're putting the prohibition on coal and mining and oil and gas extraction, but we still have the possibility of logging, of quarrying, of building the roads that you need to do both logging and quarrying. I represent an area that has logging as its prime resource
[ Page 8057 ]
still. Well, we hope it still has. Not much secondary resource, but definitely a prime resource. Roads get built when you are logging. There's no question about that. Similarly when you are quarrying, and quarrying can be very destructive.

So when we are looking at having a protected area, a conservation area, we're really going to have to make sure that we are looking at it in its widest sense.

It's going to still allow some trophy hunting. That is going to cause a lot of consternation. Again, I have no problem with hunting for food, but we're just hunting trophies in an area that is so well respected, so — I'm trying to find the word — praised. The Minister of Advanced Education ran through all of the gamut of its accolades, its recognition from UNESCO, right the way through. It leaves me questioning why we are just leaving it at this stage.

One of the requests that has been made for some time is that we do move towards a feasibility study, to whether we want to extend the parks that there are in the United States, the Waterton Glacier Park across the border, whether we want to extend the park into the Flathead.

We're not asking that we actually do extend it. I know there is a lot of controversy about when you start asking for parks to be there. But have a study. Let's start looking at this. Let's start seeing whether we are going to really put ourselves where….

[1520]

We talk about this as a wonderful place. We've got UNESCO's endorsement of it. We have the fact that, as I say, it is Canada's Serengeti. It's got this wonderful water. It's got thousands of plant species. It's got 16 species of hoofed animals, according to some information — which is actually from the Sierra Club — 16 species of carnivores. It is an astounding place, and it is a UNESCO heritage site.

Why don't we just look through it a bit further and be very cognizant when we are talking about conservation? What does conservation mean? Conservation doesn't just mean stopping mining and stopping oil and gas exploration. Conservation does mean a lot more.

I would hope that this is just a start. It is a welcome start, as I say. We have to be pleased that the legislation is here. It has taken a long while to get from discussion, from MOUs, from the signing of agreements to the fact that we actually have a three-page bill in front of us in the Legislature.

As I say, I think it would be very welcome to recognize the world treasures, particularly as we're all very cognizant of climate change. We're all very cognizant of how fragile our ecosystem is. We know that we have a resource-based economy. We know that we have communities that depend very much on resources.

Again, I cite my own constituency, where we are very dependent on that. But we also are very aware that we have to ensure that those fragile ecosystems, those wonderful places that we have in our communities and in our province, are there as part of our lands, our heritage and our legacy for future generations. These are not ours just to do with as we want.

We cannot just go in and exploit these resources. We cannot just say: "Okay, we're not going to mine. We're not going to have oil or gas." We need to be more comprehensive. We really need to start thinking of the bigger picture. We need to think beyond our own generation. We need to think beyond our kids' generation. We need to start thinking of those generations ahead — those seven generations ahead.

What is going to be left if we allow quarrying or logging in a watershed that is fragile, in an area that is so well recognized already? We know what we should be protecting. We should be going that next stage and starting to examine how we can ensure that we get those balances right, that we aren't exploiting, that we aren't damaging that ecosystem.

We have in my own constituency the still very controversial issue within a national park — having a mine there — the Myra Falls mine. Actually, the Myra Falls mine is physically in my colleague the Minister of Agriculture's constituency, but most of the people who work there, I think, live in both our constituencies, and we have, I think, a sense of joint ownership over it. But it's also right there in the centre part of the first provincial park of B.C. — Strathcona Provincial Park.

That caused huge consternation and still does cause some concerns. It is a mine there, it is working, and it creates a number of jobs. It is a matter of being very cautious about how we do look at conservation, how we do look at our special areas.

While, as I say, I think that this really is a good start — it is a way of saying that we recognize that there are very important areas that we need to be protecting; we recognize that there are water issues there; we recognize there are other issues there — I don't think it goes far enough. I think it could have been a braver act. It could have said more. It could have supported other international organizations who have come out very firmly and said this is an amazing area and it should be protected.

I think that we really need to start ensuring that when we are looking at our special places in the world, we are looking at them in a broader area.

[1525]

There has been pressure from our friends across the border, from the United States, to expand the Waterton Glacier Park into the Flathead. All we are calling for is that we look more broadly than just stopping mining, stopping oil and gas extraction. Let's start talking about the other things that are happening there. Let's start talking about the other opportunities, because not all opportunities are ones that use our resources. Some of our opportunities are to ensure that we do protect those wonderful areas.
[ Page 8058 ]

Yes, we have many areas in B.C. that are under parks. We have many areas in B.C. that are conservation areas. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognize what we have and make sure that we are looking after it in the best way possible, making sure that we are looking after it for those future generations and not risking what is a treasure, what is the Serengeti of Canada and what is a very special place.

B. Penner: It is a pleasure for me to stand and indicate my intention to vote in favour of second reading of the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, Bill 2.

It doesn't seem like that long ago, but I believe it was just over two years ago that I accepted an invitation from the MLA representing the area of southeastern British Columbia, the member for Kootenay East, to come and tour the Flathead River basin on the Canadian side of the border.

I had been in that area sometime previous — when I was a few pounds lighter and my hair was a few shades greyer — when I went hiking with a former partner of mine at B.C. Parks where we worked together as park rangers. He took me to the Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park area, and we climbed up the mountains that overlook the origins of the Flathead River in British Columbia.

That park is right in the southeast corner of British Columbia. To the immediate east is Waterton National Park in Alberta, and to the south, Glacier National Park in Montana. So it is a spectacular area, and it certainly gives you a unique vantage point, being on top of the mountains, looking down to the west from the top of Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park.

Two years ago I was pleased to accept the invitation to make a return visit. The trip in wasn't as arduous this time. We used a helicopter and covered the ground a bit more quickly than I did when I was travelling by foot. But the area remains spectacular, and that's something that I think members on both sides of the House agree on.

That's notwithstanding the fact that, as the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke correctly noted earlier today, there have been forestry operations in that area for a long time, quarrying opportunities being taken advantage of and a number of other activities, including drilling for oil and natural gas in more recent times.

I'm told that one of the earliest oil derricks in British Columbia was actually set up in the Flathead River basin in an attempt to try and find recoverable quantities of oil. I'm not sure if oil was found, but if it was, it wasn't in sufficient quantities, I don't think, to make it economic.

However, upon my visit there two years ago, I could see that there had been areas that have been subject to forestry operations. I believe Tembec, a local employer in the area, has that within its cutting area. Of course, there is reforestation that's required. So there are multiple stages of forest.

Notwithstanding that, I think all parties agree that it's home to an abundant array of wildlife. I'm told the fishing is pretty good as well. So I think that does suggest that the current activities that have been taking place are sustainable in the sense that, notwithstanding at least 50 years — some people told me maybe 75 years — of human activity in that area, much of it economic and some of it recreational, that area continues to support a very healthy and diverse array of wildlife and habitat.

I want to, perhaps, flatter the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke a little bit by quoting from his remarks this morning, courtesy of Hansard, but quoting in agreement with what the member had to say. Now I'm making reference to his remarks this morning: "Now, logging, hunting, hiking, camping will all continue, but these have been ongoing activities. It is a spectacular area not only in its setting but also in its flora and in its wildlife. It is not pristine. Few areas, actually, in B.C., especially in the southern part, are pristine, but it is wild."

[1530]

[D. Black in the chair.]

He goes on to note that the bill represents a compromise, and I suppose you could say that that's true in that there's broad support for what's being proposed in this bill and what has taken place already.

I should just pause here to note that it was about six or seven months after my visit there with the member for Kootenay East that I signed a ministerial order prohibiting further oil and gas and mining activities in that area but leaving an exception. It was worded in such a way that local quarry operators could continue their work.

I was led to believe that there's a person that operates in the Cranbrook area that obtains what's commonly referred to as lava rock for landscaping purposes, and it's sold in the local market. So it's a significant business for the individual and, I'm sure, for the people that that business supplies. But in the grand scheme of things, it's not a large mining operation.

In any event, I concurred with the advice of the member for Kootenay East that it would be appropriate to add extra protection to that area, to make it clear that things like coal bed methane and coal mine and other activities like that were not going to be part of the future of the Canadian side of the Flathead River Valley. Lots of discussions took place internally in government following that. Former Premier Gordon Campbell was actively involved in the file. I had many conversations with him, as well as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations at the time and other members of caucus, about the proposal.

It finally culminated in that agreement that the previous speaker from the government side, the Minister of Advanced Education, was referring to a few minutes
[ Page 8059 ]
ago, which was an announcement just on the eve of the 2010 Winter Olympics that we had, in fact, taken a move to sign the ministerial order under…. I think it was the Environmental Management Act, if I remember correctly. I could be mistaken, however. A number of other moves were taken internally within government to dedicate that area in a way that would preserve it in its current form with the current type of activities that are now taking place and have been taking place for a considerable period of time.

There was, however, discussion about, at some later date, bringing forward a statute so that it wouldn't just be in a ministerial order or some other document, but it would actually be put here before the floor of the Legislature, and so it would be more transparent and there would be more certainty for people who are interested observers about what the future would hold for that area. That's what brings us to this debate today.

So pardon me for the segue, but that's a bit of my personal experience in this issue.

Again, I just want to cite with approval the remarks of the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke where he says that "Tembec is an important employer, and that needed to be considered." Those kinds of factors were taken into consideration. We know that the economy is always subject to vacillations or the vicissitudes of the international marketplace, so you don't want to make decisions without considering the consequences for the local economy and the people that live there.

We did pay attention to those issues. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke goes on later to say, "People in the area go in there for their hunting. They go in there for their recreational activity," and a sentence later: "It's where parents go with their children to make those sorts of memories." That's true, from what I understand from talking to people in that area, from the fish and game clubs as well as from the member for Kootenay East. That is an important recreational area for the people in that area. They consider hunting to be part of their recreation.

While I agree with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I disagree with the opposition Environment critic and the last member — who just spoke a few moments ago, from North Coast — suggesting that, in fact, hunting should not be permitted. It appears to me that we have a bit of a division in the opposition caucus again on this bill and this particular issue.

[1535]

While the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke correctly points out that the current activities have been taking place for a long time and yet there is still a healthy and abundant source of wildlife in that area and it's providing an important recreational opportunity for people to take their children there and create lasting memories, other members of the caucus not from the Kootenays but from Vancouver Island are suggesting that they know better and that they would impose some kind of change on that area. That is not broadly supported.

In the words of the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke to the bill that we have on the floor of the House today to which I'm now speaking — and which still permits hunting and some forestry operations and some ATV access so people can recreate — "…people in that area broadly support this compromise."

So we have one member of the opposition caucus saying that it's got broad public support, that he supports it, that those activities are important to families, for the economy, for children and still allows for sustainable wildlife population and a clean and vibrant environment. But other members of his caucus are saying it doesn't go far enough, that there need to be more restrictions.

I think that is why the member for Kootenay East was quite delighted to hear what the member for Victoria–Swan Lake had to say, the opposition Environment critic, because the member for Kootenay East knows that in his area, the public is not going to support the NDP if they think that the NDP will take away their opportunity to recreate in the Flathead Valley like they have done for 50 or 75 years, and in a way that's been sustainable — demonstrably sustainable, so much so that everyone agrees that the wildlife there is just tremendous in its variety and abundance.

A couple of other remarks I'd just like to point out. Again, the opposition Environment critic said in his remarks this morning — I found this somewhat surprising — "This government has no comprehensive conservation strategy for lands that are significant in B.C." He's seemingly oblivious to the fact that since 2001 the amount of land in British Columbia subject to protection — either through conservancies, class A provincial parks or ecological reserves — has grown by more than 16 percent. It's gone from 11.6 million hectares to now 13.5 million hectares.

By my calculations, that's a more than 16 percent increase in the total land area in the province that's been protected in the last, oh, ten and a few years. That's a fairly significant increase.

It's broken down in the following ways: 65 new class A provincial parks; 144 conservancies, which is a whole new category of protected areas that I had the pleasure of working on and introducing during my five-year tenure as Environment Minister in British Columbia and which was really the offspring of the Central and North Coast land use planning process, better known as the Great Bear rain forest. I think it was recognized with world acclaim — that that was a major contribution to conservation of habitat and wildlife. It's been recognized internationally, and that took place here in British Columbia and was put into legislation in the last few years.

So again, by any measure, pretty significant steps, notwithstanding the disagreement from the NDP's Environment critic on that point.
[ Page 8060 ]

The last thing, though, that caused me some surprise in his remarks was when he expressed what appears to be disapproval for the provincial government utilizing funds provided from outside of British Columbia to help pay for the extinguishment of any claims that may arise as a result of the decision of government to restrict what kind of mining or oil and gas activity can take place in the Flathead.

Apparently, the NDP position is that taxpayers in British Columbia should have to pay more. The question you have to ask yourself is: just which other program would the NDP Environment critic prefer to see cut so that those claims can be paid without utilizing funds that have been made available to us through international negotiations with the state of Montana and various environmental groups?

Would it be preferential to take that money out of the health care budget? Out of the education budget? Out of the environment budget? Out of the Attorney General's budget? The Solicitor General's budget?

[1540]

I wouldn't recommend taking additional dollars out of those ministries, but that seems to be the logical conclusion about what the NDP Environment critic would prefer when he, in his remarks this morning, says that "the funds that will allow the extinguishment of claims that have been established here are mostly raised by our neighbours in a foreign government and by private donors." He says later: "I think that's a dangerous road to travel down."

Well, apparently he didn't find it that dangerous two years ago, when he decided to accept money from a private sector trade union in the United States and an environmental group in the United States through something known as the BlueGreen Alliance — I believe it was founded in 2006 with the United Steelworkers of America — and the Sierra Club, also based in the United States.

Somehow it was okay for the NDP Environment critic to take foreign funds to pay for his travel so he could fly to Europe, but it's not okay to accept those funds as part of an international negotiation that will bring extra protection to the Flathead Valley; help shield British Columbia taxpayers from potential costs arising from extinguishing claims in the Flathead; and also is well received south of the border in Montana and, more broadly, in the United States.

That seems to be a strange double standard, which I hope the member will elaborate on at the next opportunity, because frankly, it doesn't make any sense — why it's okay for him to take money from American-based groups but not for the B.C. government so we do not have to dip into other funds to help work on extinguishing those claims, if in fact it becomes necessary to make any payments in that regard.

On balance, I think the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has it right — that this bill represents a compromise that is broadly supported in the region, by the people that are most closely impacted, that are most knowledgable of the area.

Certainly, from our perspective as a government, it strikes the appropriate balance, allowing some ongoing economic activity that is closely regulated, subject to stringent regulations on the forestry side. It still allows some ATV access for recreation, for people that are getting older and aren't able to hike, perhaps, as I did a number of years ago, to the top of the mountains but still want to get into that area and see what it looks like and enjoy an afternoon with their children or go fishing.

Or, heaven forbid — don't tell the member from Vancouver Island north — people might go hunting there. It's what they've been doing for generations, and I suspect that the people in that area would like to carry on with that traditional lifestyle for years to come.

With that, hon. Speaker, I wholeheartedly recommend this bill to the Legislature. A lot of work has gone into it, and I look forward to the vote.

H. Lali: I rise in the Legislature to take my place in the debate on Bill 2, the Flathead….

Interjections.

H. Lali: Just hang on. Let me finish. The hon. member across the way is envious of my hairstyle, so I'll have to send him the address of my hairstylist there. In any case, let me finish.

I take my place to speak on Bill 2, the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act. It was introduced, brought in, by the government. The legislation's actual main focus is to prohibit mining and oil and gas extraction in the Flathead watershed area.

The introduction of the legislation meets the commitment that the government made in 2010's memorandum of understanding, which was signed with the state of Montana, on environmental protection, climate action and energy. Also, the ban actually followed a petition to the world heritage committee from a number of conservation groups — there were 11 of them — such as Wildsight, Sierra Club B.C. and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Specifically, the act, when passed and brought into force, will secure some of the decisions that were made in 2010 to establish coal and mineral reserves, prohibit Crown land dispositions for mining purposes, prohibit issuance of Mines Act permits, prohibit issuance of Oil and Gas Activities Act permits for oil and gas exploration and development and also prohibit disposition of Crown reserves under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

[1545]

While the legislation actually prohibits mining and oil gas extraction, it does not, however, mention other activities in the watershed, such as logging, trophy hunting, new
[ Page 8061 ]
road access and quarrying. I know the former Minister of Environment and others have stated that the ongoing activity will continue on.

This is quite an area of the province, noted for its diversity of species and the beauty that is there. I just want to point out, on the record, that in January 2010 there was a team of United Nations scientists who recommended a moratorium on mining in the valley, also noting that nearby Glacier National Park in Montana and Waterton International Park in Canada were designated as a World Heritage Site in 1995 because of the outstanding scenery and the abundance of wildlife.

As a result, UNESCO — which is the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — recommended that a portion of the Flathead River Valley become part of the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park in Alberta and Montana. The UN report also says that this is one of the continent's "largest, most pristine, intact and best-protected expanses of natural terrain."

Along with the Waterton and Glacier parks, the valley forms a very critical wildlife corridor for a variety of species unmatched in North America and is home to the endangered bull trout, the wolverine, the lynx and the largest concentration of grizzly bears in the U.S. and Canada.

I just also want to go into the record some of the wonderful things that have been said about the Flathead that makes it a special place. There's a document called "A special place" by Sierra Club of B.C. It has called the Flathead "a modern-day Noah's ark" because of the variety of species that are sort of squeezed into a narrow Rocky Mountain ribbon of green in there. They also state that the Flathead is home to an astounding 16 species of carnivores.

They also refer to it as Canada's Serengeti because of the diversity of plant and animal life that exists there, comparing it to Africa's Serengeti because of the richness of plant species there. For instance, during the spring and summer there are more than a thousand wildflower species that actually make a carpet floor on the region's slopes in the Flathead.

National Geographic has termed it amazing and calls the region the Crown of the Continent — again, referring to the ecosystem there, because water from this transboundary area actually flows to all three oceans surrounding North America.

I know that some of the members across the way have made various statements. Some of them are obviously not correct. The MLA for Abbotsford-Mission, when he was standing up here, was misquoting and misrepresenting some of the statements made by the NDP, saying that we wanted a national park. It's a big difference.

The NDP, as early as 2006, has been calling for the Liberal government to initiate a feasibility study into the extension of the Waterton national park into the Flathead Valley, which is not the same as actually saying we wanted to establish a park. We wanted to establish a feasibility study, and the feasibility study would determine this appropriate revival to establish a national park.

[1550]

The member for Abbotsford-Mission — I wanted to correct him. Hopefully, he wasn't trying to misrepresent. He probably just didn't know the difference between a feasibility study and actually calling for a park.

I know the member also talked about mining. You know, the Liberal position, hon. Speaker, for years, well over a decade, called for mining in parks in British Columbia — very specific. Gordon Campbell, when he was Leader of the Opposition, was very specific in stating it, and his members, some of whom are still in the House today, were calling for mining in parks.

The member also alluded to that, and then he tried to sort of say that most of the mining has gone from surface mining and that it's all gone underground — as if, if it's out of sight, it's out of mind — so they could go ahead and have mining anywhere that they want and that it wouldn't leave any kind of footprint.

It's as if the stuff that comes out from underground, the ore, or even…. Well, I guess, it's the underburden then — some of the rock that is carried out and brought to the surface. Where does it go? Does it disappear?

Are there no roads in the surrounding area of where the entry is for the mine that is underground? Are there no large trucks or no machines? Are there no buildings? Are there no fuel areas or water tanks — everything that is needed — or electrical generation facilities, whether it's a hydro facility, hydro towers or a gas-fired or diesel-fired generator? I mean, it's as if magically all of that disappears because the member says the activity has all gone underground.

So I think that the member — who was a former Minister of Mines, I would say — ought to know better than to sort of try to allude and say that somehow mining just goes totally underground and you can't see it above ground at all.

We have the MLA for Kootenay East a few years ago…. In 2010's throne speech, actually, the Liberal side had banned oil and gas and mining activity in the Flathead, finally bowing to pressure from the state of Montana. As a result, because, you know, hunting and angling and outdoor activities and others were still going to continue, you had environmentalists who began pushing for a national park designation at the time for the lower third of the Flathead Valley, not the upper two-thirds but the lower third, which would actually further and more tightly constrain economic activity.

Well, the member for Kootenay East was prompted to write in a very nasty e-mail. This is from the Globe and Mail of July 22, 2010. He said: "We either stand strong together against the loss of the Flathead Valley to the eco-fascists" — that's what he called them: eco-
[ Page 8062 ]
fascists — "or we will lose the Flathead. I am there if you are there."

I mean, that's hardly a way to refer to folks, whether the MLA agrees with their viewpoint or not. We live in a democratic society where folks who want economic development and folks who want to protect the environment or folks in between who want to have some sort of multi-use or conservation — whatever positions they are….

We live in a democracy where you're free to express your views, but calling names such as eco-fascist because you happen not to agree with them is not the right thing to do. And then he has the gall to stand up here and criticize our Environment critic over some of the statements that he had made.

But I also want to point out the flip-flop on mining in the Flathead that the Liberals have done, hon. Speaker, because their policies on many fronts have been flip-flops. They wanted referendums on aboriginal rights a few years ago when it came to treaty-making, and they flip-flopped over that. They finally saw the light and decided that treaties were the way to go, to sit down at the table with the First Nations and negotiate treaties. But they were opposed, and they flip-flopped on it.

[1555]

The same thing happened here in terms of the Flathead. What they're doing today is actually a flip-flop from the former policy to permit mining in the Flathead Valley. That's what they wanted to do. It was, again, due to pressure from environmental groups, the state governors and the United Nations that the Liberals actually had to abandon their plans to mine coal and extract coal bed methane in the Flathead Valley. You know who they were giving the tenure to? BP Canada. You remember BP, those same guys that kind of had that little oil spill in the…?

K. Conroy: Just a little one.

H. Lali: Just a little one, just a few billion litres or whatever it was — right? The same guys. That's what the Liberals had wanted to do.

On January 22, 2010, the United Nations report recommended a moratorium on mining in — I guess it was a controversial area — the Flathead Valley, because of the competing interests. It wanted a development of a comprehensive transboundary conservation and wildlife management plan to the area.

The throne speech in 2010 announced that, finally, mining, oil and gas development and the coal bed gas extraction will not be permitted in British Columbia's Flathead Valley. This is after they were going to allow mining. They were going to work with BP, have them go in there and do coal bed methane extraction. They finally saw the light.

The Liberals finally saw the light, after so many organizations in the environmental sector, the United Nations, the official opposition, the people of British Columbia forced these Liberals to actually abandon…. Hence their flip-flop on this particular area of our province.

But I just want to also point out that there was a study that was done by some NGOs in June of 2005, one of which was the Yellowstone to Yukon conservation society. It was called the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park: The Economic Implications of Expanding into the Flathead Region of B.C. They do some estimates of some of the benefits that would be resulting from the expansion of the Waterton Park into the Flathead Valley.

They believe that the economic activity would increase in several ways. This would also include increased in-migration of amenity migrants and entrepreneurial activity due to the proximity to the park and one-time investment in capital assets and ongoing spending for parks maintenance by Parks Canada. It's in their study, so if members opposite want to look at it they can do so.

I realize that there's another bill that's coming, so I just want to take this opportunity to put my viewpoints on the table here. Again, it's with a great deal of pressure that this government finally made the decision to bring forward this act here today. So I want to thank you for the opportunity, for allowing me to say a few words here, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close debate.

Hon. S. Thomson: It's a pleasure to get up and take my place in the House to close debate on the second reading of this very, very important bill.

I just wanted to make a few comments on it. Firstly, I'm not able to stand up and give some of the personal anecdotes. Other members in the House have been able to talk about their visits into the Flathead. I have been in there, but I think it was…. I can't remember what age I was. I was about 5 or 6 years old. I was certainly a lot younger at that time and probably in that visit didn't understand or recognize the significance of the area.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I certainly intend as minister to take up the number of invitations that I've had to visit the area, from the member for Kootenay East and from others. When the schedule provides for that, I'm certainly going to do that.

But I think that the important point in closing debate here is to recognize the balance that has been achieved with this legislation — the very, very important balance in terms of following through on the commitment that was made to bring forward legislation and to put into legislation the commitment that had been made to restrict the activities that are outlined in the bill.

[1600]
[ Page 8063 ]

The member for Stikine talked about the amount of time it took to get to this point. I think it's important to recognize that those measures and that protection were put in place immediately following the agreement on the MOU, as was referenced by the former Minister of Environment and the member for Chilliwack-Hope talking about the OIC that was put in place under the Environment and Land Use Act and other administrative measures that were taken right away to put the protection in place that was committed to in the agreement.

This legislation now takes those measures and moves them into legislation so that it provides, as was previously mentioned, the certainty of the decisions. You'll see in the bill that there is actually a repeal section in the bill that takes out those former measures, because they're no longer required with these measures put into legislation which provides that certainty.

This really is about protecting a very, very important area of the province, a very, very important ecosystem in that valley, as everybody has mentioned. I do appreciate the passionate level of the debate and the comments that have come from members on this. I do appreciate the indication that the members opposite are going to support the bill, because it is recognized as a very, very important step in terms of providing that protection in the area.

But it also is the balance. It provides for those ongoing values which the residents of the East Kootenays have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy for over 70 years in the valley. It provides for the values that are recognized and appreciated by the First Nations in the region — by the Ktunaxa, who are witnesses to the memorandum, and the First Nations on the other side of the border as well, who are witnesses to the memorandum.

In the discussion, it seems to me, in some cases, and particularly with what has been portrayed as the less than full support by the member for Victoria–Swan Lake in his comments around this being…. I think I can portray it as being what appeared to be sort of minimal support for this in contrast to some of the other much more positive support from the members opposite. I know this is not the case, but it is as though people are focusing on this specific piece and not on the principles and the commitments that have been made in the MOU that has been signed, which is an important part of it, which includes cooperation on fish and wildlife management, collaboration on environmental assessment of any projects or any activities that would have cross-border significance, sharing of information.

There are provisions and commitments within that MOU that mean we will work collaboratively with our neighbours, with First Nations, with partner groups to ensure that we continue to recognize and value the unique nature of this area and the unique nature that is covered under this legislation.

I appreciate the comments and the debate, I look forward to the continued discussion that will occur in the Committee of the Whole, and I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move the act be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call second reading of Bill 3, intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

Bill 3 — Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 3 be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[1605]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With these amendments, government continues the tradition of enhancing the act's privacy and access provisions to ensure that it not only remains the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada but also stays workable and relevant for the public, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and public bodies. The amendments also support open government and a number of transformational projects, such as the B.C. services card and integrated case management.

Finally, the amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act address recommendations of the special committee that reviewed the act just last year. For example, one of the special committee recommendations is to allow citizens, by choice, to consent to the collection of personal information in limited circumstances that are set in law. Tasks such as updating an address across multiple ministries or programs could be made simpler for people, and allowing citizens to consent to have their information collected will enable us to offer more seamless access to government services.

Before I discuss these amendments, let me provide everyone following the proceedings with some background information on the current operating environment.

Service delivery is changing. The world is a very different place than when the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was first introduced almost 20
[ Page 8064 ]
years ago. The use of computers and the Internet is now commonplace.

British Columbians are the biggest Internet users in Canada, and we have heard that citizens would like to access more government services on line, just as they regularly access other services using their computers. In fact, citizens have told us they would prefer to use an on-line channel over in-person or telephone services, so government needs to change the way that we do business.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Rather than working in isolation, ministries in the broader public sector are increasingly collaborating to tackle complex problems such as homelessness and domestic violence. Government is also moving toward horizontal and integrated program delivery models to more effectively serve citizens and achieve better outcomes.

Progress in this area, however, has been limited by the current legislative framework. Our legislation was originally designed for a siloed system of distinct programs that didn't exchange or share much information. The current act simply does not reflect the reality of public expectations regarding government delivery of services.

The amendments before the House today provide a comprehensive package that will modernize the act for the Internet age with current-day technology and in the way British Columbians want to be served by government today. The amendments will enhance government communication with citizens and make it easier for citizens to engage in debate, as well as to collaborate and consult on key government projects.

Over the past year the province has done a number of things to put open government front and centre. It started with the Premier's direction to government to open data and information up to the public, making us a leader in Canada and the world. Today's legislation enshrines the policy direction for open data, open government and open information into law. This compels ministries to free up their data, as it becomes available, for the public to use.

The amendments also permit government and public bodies to use social media to communicate with British Columbians and to more actively engage with citizens. Make no mistake. Open government is here to stay.

The amendments also include significant new oversight powers for the Information and Privacy Commissioner in a number of areas, including those relating to creating rules around data-linking initiatives. The commissioner will have the authority to review and comment upfront early in the process of program design to ensure that we're operating with a high level of privacy awareness.

I want to acknowledge the leadership the commissioner has shown in this area of public policy and the helpful advice she provided throughout the drafting of the legislation. I also want to acknowledge that the amendments address several recommendations of the 2010 special committee to review the act, and I'd like to thank and commend the members of that committee for their thoughtful and diligent work.

Finally, Bill 3 attends to miscellaneous housekeeping amendments to clarify wording and remove ambiguities and redundancies in the act. I'd now like to outline a selection of the benefits of the amendments being proposed today. They provide a full spectrum of changes to support the transformation of technology, business processes and service delivery models that are expected to take place over the next few years within government.

[1610]

They will also provide the necessary legislative foundation to support the development of a provincial identity management system, laying the groundwork for things such as the B.C. services card, which will combine a driver's licence and CareCard as one, and also in the future the possibility of electronic voting.

This foundation is really about being able to identify who you are on line in a secure way that is not possible today. We know from our surveys with citizens that close to 90 percent currently shop or receive services on line. Government has not yet been able to take advantage of this fundamental change because unlike sites like Amazon or iTunes, we need more than a credit card to make sure that it's you on the other end of that computer.

Together with other amendments in the package, Bill 3 provides a comprehensive foundation for electronic service delivery and the necessary oversight to ensure that it's done in a way that is respectful of personal privacy. For example, the amendments lay the groundwork for the development of a system that could provide better on-line access for each of us to our own health care information.

As I conclude my second reading remarks, I'd like to reinforce just one point. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is outdated. It needs to be modernized in order to align with the way that British Columbians live and interact with each other and with government today. Bill 3 provides government with the legislative authority to allow modern service delivery to happen with the right balance of privacy protection.

Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. members on both sides of the House to this debate.

D. Routley: It gives me pleasure and honour to be able to rise in the House and speak to this important piece of legislation.

The phrases and catchwords of "open governance" and "privacy protection" and "freedom of information" are always difficult to argue with. In the words of Elizabeth
[ Page 8065 ]
Denham, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of this province, the devil is always in the details, as with so many of the issues that we deal with in this House. We're always reminded when we deal with essential issues of matter to the lives of British Columbians that we have a deep responsibility to proceed with the utmost caution. That, indeed, I think, is the theme of what I need to bring to this debate.

This bill was brought forward in inordinate haste. It is an inordinate haste and a rush to make changes to fill an empty legislative calendar, I would suggest, and without real consideration to the recommendations of the previous committee from eight years ago and the committee that I co-chaired two years ago.

The right to privacy is as essential as the right to a fair trial, the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to free speech. It is an essential right, and it is, in the words of former acting commissioner Paul Fraser, part of the DNA of every British Columbian — an expectation that their personal information, their private information, will be guarded and handled with the utmost care. So, as with every measure that the government brings to this House, it seeks approval and it seeks buy-in from the people of B.C. And in order for the people of B.C. to buy into what they're being told, they have to have some faith in the credibility of the agent.

I would suggest that the record of the government needs to be examined in order to assess whether there is that level of credibility. Haste makes waste, particularly when it comes to dealing with privacy, personal information and data-sharing in an organization as large as government, an agency that deals with the most essential private information of citizens — their health information; their employment information; their education; their access of services, such as social development services, housing, welfare. Those are essential issues that if compromised can have the most serious impact on people's lives.

[1615]

When we look at the record of the government when it comes to dealing with privacy and personal information, it is one of monumental failures. If we look to the Wainwright scandal of a couple years ago, where 1,400 of the most vulnerable citizens of this province had their personal information compromised, the government never even realized that it had been compromised. It took notice from the RCMP, who found the files, the stolen files or the misused files, in the home of a government employee before government became even aware that the breach had occurred.

We can look to the Coastal Health Authority and the disastrous outcomes of implementing data-sharing without adequate provisions for privacy protections — costs that range into the tens of millions to correct and costs in people's lives that are, in fact, impossible to correct.

The B.C. Lottery scandal with the on-line gambling and the breach of privacy that that presented. It was, again, a rush to implement a system without the proper protections in place.

So this is the record of the government when it comes to these issues.

Yes, I think everyone in this province wants to see a modernized and efficient government. We want to see our services delivered as seamlessly as possible and without undue level of effort to access. But is it necessary for us to re-engineer the privacy protections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to accomplish those goals?

The review committee which reviewed the legislation. I sat as co-Chair with the Chair, the member for Parksville-Qualicum, and we heard several submissions on this issue. The acting commissioner at the time, Paul Fraser, made a very good case that the existing act provided all the flexibility necessary to achieve data-sharing goals. But of course, there needs to be modernizations in order to properly control and properly regulate that.

Control and regulation are important words for this debate, important words because this bill — unlike the original Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was enacted in 1993 — will be enacted upon proclamation. So in other words, after this debate at second reading, assuming all the government members vote for the bill and assuming that they vote for the bill at third reading and the bill is given assent, it will be enacted.

What will be missing are the rules and the regulations that are so important to defining exactly how this act will function. It is in the details that we find the devil. We are reminded of that by the current commissioner. Her concern around this act is that there's so much work yet to be done.

The former Premier, Gordon Campbell. So much of his legislation was pushed forward with so, so many important aspects of those pieces of legislation left to regulation, where there is no debate in this House. There will be no debate on the regulations and rules that apply to this bill.

Back to Elizabeth Denham, our current Information and Privacy Commissioner. She says: "The devil is in the details." So I'd like to ask the minister and the government: what's the rush? Why the haste? I mean, they've had the recommendations from the committee, the previous committee, for eight years — previous to the one that the member for Parksville-Qualicum and I chaired and co-chaired. They've had the recommendations from the last committee for two years, and yet so many of those recommendations were ignored.

The committee called for public consultations. So what's the rush? Where are the public consultations? The committee itself consulted with the public, but it realized that there was a necessity to have more input
[ Page 8066 ]
from the public to properly and carefully and cautiously and responsibly deal with the issue of modernizing an act that affects some of the most essential rights and freedoms of British Columbians.

[1620]

That wasn't done. Instead, our champion of open government, the current Premier, came to power and set up a cabinet committee to review the issue. Cabinet committees are exempt from freedom-of-information requests — an irony and a tragedy.

That was followed up, apparently, as we found out this past Tuesday with the first reading of the act, that the government assigned B.C. Statistics to do focus groups and sample opinions throughout the province on the issue. This was done secretly. This was not done with any knowledge of the opposition, of the public generally. I'm the critic. I waited and waited for legislative steps to be taken to support the recommendations of the committee that we so carefully and diligently and responsibly participated in. They didn't come.

Advocates in the sector, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association of British Columbia, the civil liberties union, weren't consulted. They were as surprised as I was this past weekend when the minister dropped the hint that legislation was coming.

So this is hardly open government. "Open government" is a big phrase, and it refers to very big principles — very big and important considerations and rights and principles, values.

One of the submissions that we had to our committee was provided by a young student named Morgan Blakley, a UVic environmental law student, on behalf of the Dogwood Initiative. His submission was entitled Access Denied: Abuses and Failures under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It had a quote on the cover. The quote was from Jeremy Bentham.

Jeremy Bentham was an English jurist, a philosopher, a legal and social reformer. He was a utilitarian, a very practical person. He argued in favour of individual and economic freedom, against usury; the separation of church and state; freedom of expression; equal rights for women; the right to divorce; and the decriminalization of homosexual acts.

He argued for the abolition of slavery and the death penalty, the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children. And Jeremy Bentham didn't do this in the 1990s or this past decade; he did this in his lifetime, from 1748 to 1832.

These are old principles. The principles were true then; the same principles are just as true now and just as valid. Yes, we need new rules to accommodate new technologies, but these principles are inviolate.

This is a person who fought for those freedoms. He said: "Secrecy, being the instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of regular government."

So what did we hear on our committee? One of the leading advocates in Canada for freedom of information and privacy protection, Mr. Darrell Evans, from the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, referred to what has developed under the B.C. Liberals decade as a culture of sophisticated avoidance. In other words, a culture of secrecy — something that was fought 300 years ago by a wonderful gentleman named Jeremy Bentham.

These are important issues. They stand as important today as they were then. James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, was a politician, a philosopher. He was said to be the principal author of the U.S. constitution. He said: "A popular government" — and he said this in 1822, mind you — "without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to farce or tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Those are really important lessons for us and for this government.

[1625]

Past Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis's assessment of the performance of this government around freedom of information was that it was putting the historical record of British Columbia at risk. This is the history and the record of the B.C. Liberals. This act, rather than address those issues, rather than address its own failings around freedom of information and open governance, seeks to hide behind the comfort of the phrases, the comfort of the labels, without offering the substance that is required to live up to those principles, hiding from us the real architecture of what they're going to do in rules and regulations yet to be defined.

In fact, the act specifies that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be involved in the formulation of those rules and regulations. Yet the bill is implemented upon proclamation. So how can those two things be squared? They can't, because this government is in its usual haste and rush and is not serious about what it's doing. The serious implications to British Columbians are that their democracy is at stake, their historical record is at stake, and their personal right to privacy is at stake — all very important principles, all of them at stake in this debate.

The record of the government, looking back to the reports of Mr. David Loukidelis, the former commissioner, the submissions of Mr. Fraser, the current reports of the new commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, who has referred to the continuing decline in response times when it comes to political parties' requests, all point to a record of failure when it comes to really delivering on that label — "open governance."

These are all failures. In fact, the Canadian newspapers just two weeks ago ranked B.C. last in the country when it comes to performance under freedom-of-information
[ Page 8067 ]
legislation — last, Madam Speaker. That's quite shameful. In 1992, when former member of this House Colin Gabelmann introduced the original act, it was heralded as leading the continent. The purpose was to create a culture of openness in government and that freedom of information, the rules and regulations, provisions of the act, would only be a backstop to that new culture of openness.

Refer back to the words of Darrell Evans, very highly revered expert and advocate in freedom-of-information and privacy issues, just two years ago to the committee co-chaired by myself and the member for Parksville-Qualicum. What has developed is a sophisticated culture of avoidance.

This is quite sad. This bill, this act, really does nothing to address the most essential issues that have caused this terrible situation to develop. Now, that report from the Canadian Newspaper Association that ranked us last pointed to one element in particular. It was an amendment to the original act that was undertaken at the time the current Premier was Deputy Premier. It changed the requirement under the act from 30 calendar days as the limit that the government had to respond to freedom-of-information requests to 30 business days.

Now, that doesn't sound like a lot — the change of one word — but it ends up almost doubling the permitted response time. Yet even with that close to doubling of the response time, a standard that is not employed anywhere else in Canada…. Every other province has 30 calendar days as their limit. In fact, they had to judge B.C. entirely separately because of this element.

[1630]

That one change has led to disastrous outcomes for people seeking information. Even with that change the response time record is abysmal. From 2004 to 2008 it ranged from failing 48 percent of the time to failing 53½ percent of the time. What government, what body, what person would feel proud of a record where they broke a law 50 percent of the time? Well, this government breaks its own law 50 percent of the time. It's not unusual, either, when you look at the balanced-budget legislation. That's broken pretty much 100 percent of the time by this government.

We're trotted in here every year to change rules. I often talk about my kids in this House. My stepdaughter, Brookelyn, likes to change rules when we're playing board games. She doesn't want to land on a certain spot on the board. She'll pop twice, and she'll say: "It's a rule. It's a rule." And it's kind of quaint and cute when an eight-year-old does it playing a board game. It frustrates her ten-year-old brother to no end.

When it's a government that changes rules at its whim, it becomes a tragedy — the kind of farce and tragedy that James Madison referred to. A tragedy. It becomes a tragedy because it affects people's life, liberty and well-being. That's the outcome of this government's record when it comes to freedom of information and privacy protection. It doesn't even follow its own rules.

As I said in the beginning, every piece of legislation that's brought to this House is an exercise in begging trust. The government begs the trust of the people. The government begs the trust of the citizens of B.C. What do they have in order to judge the credibility of that promise other than the record of the government? And the record is quite deplorable.

When we look at a rush to change such essential legislation, we have to ask ourselves why. Why would we allow expediency and haste to trump principles and caution? It seems reckless. It seems foolhardy. And if we look at the record of outcome of that type of governance, we can see a trail of disaster and damage in people's lives and to the public purse when we have to spend as a people tens of millions of dollars to correct these kinds of mistakes and the people affected are permanently impacted by such a breach of their rights.

I'd like to talk about what this bill could have been. This act could have been something that really, truly did modernize the act and really, truly did bring open government and accountability to this House in this province today. But it doesn't. Some of the most essential issues that the committees, both eight years ago and two years ago, dealt with were ignored by this government in writing this act.

This minister has delivered an act that does nothing to address the issue of fees for FOI requests. Going back to Morgan Blakley and his report on behalf of the Dogwood Initiative, he talks a little bit about fees, and he uses some examples. I'd like to read one into the record.

He talks about the Sierra Legal Defence Fund having appealed an estimate of $24,000. I believe it was related to forestry information. They were quoted $24,000 for their FOI request. In response, the ministry increased its fee estimate to $173,000.

Further fee barriers are evident throughout the system. Fee structure established for this act's regulation allows public bodies and this minister to charge nearly $1,000 an hour for mainframe access for information. That charge doesn't include the $30 per hour for writing the program to access the information.

This is an obstacle to an essential democratic function. Freedom of information, as pointed out by James Madison and others before him and others since, is essential to a functioning democracy.

[1635]

One of the key principles that was to be defended during the debate of the first act in 1992 was the principle that fees would never be a barrier to a citizen's access to information about their government. So much for that.

We've got example after example of exorbitant fees that have done nothing but disincline people to participate. That is why we have seen a consistent decline in general requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
[ Page 8068 ]

Since 1994 the requests have gone down from approximately 3,200 per year to approximately 1,500 in 2009, almost half the number of requests, because essentially, people have given up on the system.

Why would they give up? Well, they give up because of those fees I mentioned but also because of indefensible delays — delay after delay by this government. Using a "sophisticated culture of avoidance" — the words of Darrell Evans — to use this act to protect itself against the accountability the act imposes.

Section 10 of the act was not touched by this amendment act. Section 10 allows the head of a body to extend the response time to a request by 30 working days if the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body or time is needed to consult with a third party. Very vague guidelines that are used time and time again to extend that already extended 30 days.

The problem with that piece is there is no opportunity for the applicant to appeal that extension. So that leads to exorbitant delays.

Section 11 leads to delays because the head of a body may transfer the request any time within 20 working days of receiving that request. If transferred, the new public body has a full 30 working days, not calendar days, to respond. That's 50 working days or up to two-and-a-half months before an applicant gets a response to their application.

Now, some of the committee recommendations were supported in whole by the opposition members on the committee. Two of them are sitting in the House with me right now and will be speaking to this amendment act. But I also introduced a private member's bill that would have cut those times in half. This government has chosen to ignore those recommendations, both to the committee and from the private member's bill, to take some kind of action to address the abysmal performance in delays.

A couple of examples of egregious delays. The Ministry of Labour fought hard against the release of employment standards enforcement records. This request was filed in July of 2006, and the first thing the ministry did was give itself that 30-day extension.

Two months later the researcher making the request was given a fee estimate of $4,200 and told he would not only have to pay this fee but also agree to pay any additional costs incurred by the ministry. So, a wide-open bill — again, using fees as an obstacle to people's access to information, something that this act does absolutely nothing to remedy.

Unable to afford this, the researcher asked the minister for a fee waiver because the information was in the public interest. The minister refused the waiver, noting that there was no pressing or urgent need for disclosure. In November 2006 the researcher asked the commissioner to review the minister's decision. Ten months later, in September 2007, the commissioner decided that a formal inquiry was warranted. In July 2009, 15 months after the inquiry, the commissioner ruled in favour of the researcher.

The documents were supposed to be released by the August 5 deadline set by the commissioner, but the ministry asked the commissioner to reconsider the decision. After a media story about the ministry's conduct, the ministry finally changed its mind and released the documents three years after the initial request.

[1640]

Now if that isn't a case of both fees and delays being used in as sophisticated a way as possible by this government to avoid its responsibilities, I don't know what would be.

But there's an even better example of why this act should have addressed the delays and fees incurred by applicants. That was the dispute around the IBM contract with the B.C. government as it pertained to the nuts and bolts of the contracting out of core services to large corporations incurred during the first B.C. Liberal term.

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Association made this FOI request for the contract in December of 2004. FIPA applied to view the more than 600-page contract signed with IBM. One of four hefty, long-term deals was cut with private firms worth well above $1 billion — one billion taxpayer dollars.

A public dollar is a public dollar is a public dollar, whether the government spends it, whether a school board spends it, whether a university spends it or whether IBM spends it on behalf of the government. It should be open to our scrutiny, but it wasn't.

In April of 2005 IBM complained about the potential release, and the government then refused to release the records. In July 2008 the commissioner demanded the documents be handed over. The government appealed in the courts. In December 2009 the British Columbia Supreme Court also ordered the release of the contract.

A heavily censored version of the contract was finally released on January 11, 2010. That was over six years after the initial request was made, and the contract was almost finished. It is absolutely ridiculous. It makes a mockery. It makes the farce that James Madison spoke of: the right of citizens to participate in their democracy, the right of us as British Columbians to know what our government is up to.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

These are just two egregious examples of delays being heavy obstacles to democracy, but we can point to so many other examples of the failure of the government to live up to its duty to openness — the HST being the most obvious and most recent. But the B.C. Rail proceedings
[ Page 8069 ]
and the effort by the government to hide and exclude documents from scrutiny around B.C. Rail, around the deal to pay the legal bills of Basi and Virk, the two accused and guilty in the B.C. Rail scandal.

The government has done everything in its power and within its purse to avoid its accountability. That is terribly unfair and unjust, and the people of B.C. pay the price for that, not only in terms of the obvious costs in financial terms but the cost to democracy and the cost in cynicism as people become more and more cynical about what their government means.

I hope that my daughters, my stepdaughter and my stepson will have more faith and will have cause for that faith, but as long as this B.C. Liberal government sits in this House, in power, and as long as their behaviour continues along this path, we will see nothing but a booming commodity in cynicism in B.C., which is a real tragedy, a real farce — both the elements spoken of by James Madison. A tragedy.

This is a grim picture, and these cases are not anomalies. They are typical. They are typical of the failure in performance by this government to behave in a responsible manner when it comes to the processes of democracy. It's understandable why people have become skeptical, and reduced use of the act is the outcome. How else would people feel? How else could they react, other than to say: "It's not worth it"?

[1645]

These are essential issues, and they are ignored by the government in this amendment act. They are ignored. The people of B.C. had a right to expect that the diligent work undertaken by its representatives, by its advocates in this sector, would be respected by this government in legislation, but it's not.

The former minister was a member of that committee. She now is a minister in a different capacity in the government. I felt that she put an honest effort into the review of the act, as did the Chair, the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum, who was very fair-minded in the deliberations of the committee. The committee worked constructively across party lines in order to address this essential issue of democracy, and I can only imagine how disappointing it must be to the government members who cannot voice that frustration with the fact that so much of what we did has been left out.

Since so much of that good work is left out of the current amendment act, why the rush, Mr. Speaker? Why the haste to make waste? Why the haste to make waste of provisions that protect privacy in the name of expediency? Why the haste to make waste, designing data-sharing initiatives that cost in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars without considering the work done by the committees to review the act, without considering the advice of commissioners, past and present? That is more than unfortunate. It's a tragedy.

So we've talked about fees, and we have talked about times — when it comes to freedom of information — as two very important issues that are always the subject of frustration for people who seek to make their government accountable — particularly, the media and political organizations, opposition to government.

It could be said that these are the most critical elements of any open government — the information that's controversial. Oh yes, you can data-dump onto websites thousands of documents about mundane issues that don't pose any threat politically to a government, but you'll never find information on those sites that pertain to the payoff to Basi-Virk, that pertain to the B.C. Rail scandal, that pertain to the HST negotiations before the election. No, the sophisticated culture of avoidance clicks in, and those documents…. Well, you'll have to fight long and hard to see those. I expect that my kids, even the youngest, will be adults and maybe have kids of their own before those battles would ever be won — if they are ever won.

The other important issue that was completely ignored by the amendment act, that was considered by the committee and has been called for to be addressed by advocates within all range of research institutions in this province — media, opposition, advocates within all range, environmental, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation…. It isn't often that we in the opposition can stand right beside the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and say: "Yeah, you are right. You know, this government isn't accountable, and they aren't doing the right thing." Well, they're not, and we do stand with them. They also criticized this.

One of the worst examples of it are the exemptions that the government claims. They claim so many exemptions under this act that it has become farce. It's truly tragedy, but it's almost laughable, if it weren't so tragic. Because it has come to the point where people understand that one section in particular, section 13, which exempts a document if it forms advice to government, has been so abused by this government — so broadly expanded.

All you have to do in this government is wheel a trolley with a document through the cabinet offices, and it becomes exempt. It's information that advised government. "That's not for you, Mr. and Mrs. British Columbia. You ain't gonna see this piece, because it formed part of our opinion."

Well, the committee made some recommendations. My own private member's bill recommended that this exemption be narrowed, narrowed in a very big way, because all of the information that forms those opinions and options — all of the audits, all the ministerial audits, all the financial statements, all of the material information that is used to formulate decisions…. That should be available to British Columbians.

[1650]
[ Page 8070 ]

But all this government has to do, again, is put it on a trolley, wheel it through the cabinet offices and claim that it's part of an opinion or direction, a recommendation to cabinet, so British Columbians don't have the right to see it. Another farce and another tragedy, something that is becoming all too common in the governance style of the B.C. Liberals under the former Premier and the current Premier.

Remember, despite hiding behind the lofty labels of open governance, the Premier's first act around open government was to form a cabinet committee to review the subject. Of course, cabinet committees are exempt from freedom-of-information requests.

An Hon. Member: It's an irony.

D. Routley: Yes, it's an irony, and it's a tragedy. It's quite farcical.

There were so many recommendations that were just left out, so many issues that could have advanced the cause of freedom of information and open governance and really offered some substance to what the Premier has been saying. But it's all words. It's all slogans to the Premier. She's not interested in the substance, the really difficult nuts and bolts, the architecture of how you actually achieve the goals of public policy.

Why the haste? It's a fairly conservative phrase to say that haste makes waste — isn't it? Isn't it something that a fairly conservative and cautious person would employ when they're dealing with important issues? But apparently, this government isn't that conservative. No, they're not that cautious. They are willing to recklessly push ahead, with inordinate haste, an act like this that has implications, deep implications, for democracy and personal freedoms.

You know, one of the things the government did do — at least appears to have done — was to demand that privacy audits be done on information-sharing technologies at their concept, design and implementation phases. That's a very important recommendation that was apparently followed. The trouble is that it's up to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to do those reviews.

I'll go back and remind the House that it was the Premier, when she was Deputy Premier from 2001 to 2004, who oversaw a 35 percent cut in the budget to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of this province. Every year, that commissioner must go to the Finance and Government Services Committee and plead with them for enough funds to undertake not only her standing duties but now the office's net new duties such as this.

The devil is in the details, as the commissioner pointed out, and if we aren't prepared in an act like this to guarantee that the resources will be available up front, in order to avoid the huge costs of mistakes made in this issue, then I don't think British Columbians can have a lot of faith in the integrity and the credibility of what government is telling them, and that has become an all-too-common circumstance.

When we look at what is missing from the act, I've pointed out three basic problems that haven't been addressed — the problem of exorbitant fees, the problem of unacceptable delays, the problem of ridiculous exemptions that the government has claimed, and none of those have been dealt with — but also some other important issues.

[1655]

Public interest. One of the drivers of the original act was section 25. It said that the head of a public body must release information if it's in the public interest. Now, that's very broad. As per the operating habit of this government when it encounters opposition, it tends to be intimidated.

So public servants, bureaucrats, heads of public bodies are not prone to standing up and saying, "Guess what. The government is committing an act with terrible environmental consequences," without fearing for their jobs. The act is so vague that it is basically completely ineffective — section 25 on information that can be released in the public interest and the responsibility to do that.

One of the recommendations that the members on this side of the House fought for and one of the recommendations or one of the provisions of the private member's bill that this member put forward a couple of years ago in the Open Government Act, 2010, a private member's bill, was that the Supreme Court of Canada decision Grant v. Torstar, which has become the standard for the federal Supreme Court in defining what public interest means…. That standard should become adopted by this government in its Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

But no, that wasn't something that the government was interesting in addressing. So when it came to things like the air quality reports in Prince George that became so famous, or infamous, in the media and in the lives of the people of Prince George, when they found out that the air quality in their community was many hundreds of times beyond safe, and the government knew, there was no broad notification made to the community that that was the case. Buried several links deep in a website there was a mention of the test results, so the government said: "Oh yeah, we released that information."

But we need an act that actually achieves the principles of what the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act originally fought for in 1992 and '93. We need a government that's prepared to put the substance behind the words to redo some of its mistakes in decreasing the effect of this act.

They offered amendment after amendment that defeated the purposes of the act back in 2001-2002 when
[ Page 8071 ]
the Premier was Deputy Premier and voted on all of those amendments, our open government Premier. We need a government that has the courage to actually make itself accountable to the people of British Columbia, and this government isn't that government. That's the freedom-of-information picture, and it's kind of a sad and sorry picture — isn't it?

Now I'd like to talk a little bit about privacy protection. Privacy protection is something that is essential as a right to British Columbians, and most British Columbians consider it essential, particularly when it comes to their health information.

I attended a conference where I was told that there was a study done, and 70 percent of the study respondents said that privacy protection was something that they considered an essential right. But the same percentage of people in the same study were willing to trade their social insurance number for 30 grams of chocolate on line. So it shows that people, on the one hand, comprehend the value of privacy protection, but they're not quite sure about the mechanisms and the processes that guard that.

[1700]

That's where we come in. That's where we come in as guardians of public interest — or at least where we should come in. That's why we have acts that seek to very specifically address these issues and on behalf of British Columbians — people like the members opposite who sat on the committee to review the act.

That's why it was our responsibility to become literate in the issues of privacy protection and become the guardians, become the trustees of that essential right that Mr. Fraser referred to as being as essential as the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, free speech and equality in any free and democratic society. That's where we're supposed to come in, but that's another area where farce and tragedy reign in the record of the B.C. Liberals.

This basic right, when we examine the government's record, is abysmally transgressed routinely. What the government asked the committee to consider through its ministerial submissions was wide-open data-sharing without any consideration of consent. They asked that when it came to the issue of a citizen's right to refuse that sharing, well, maybe we should offer consent.

Mr. Fraser talked about consent as something that is an affront to the notion of equal access to services, because a citizen seeking service and asked to consent to data-sharing is at an inferior position. The superior position is the one who is granting or refusing access to service, and that person is asking for the right to share their data.

Now, going back to the percentage of people willing to trade social insurance numbers for chocolate — quite innocently, but still harbouring a deep sense of the importance of privacy — well, consent becomes meaningless to that person. Consent becomes, really, a requirement, even if it's not overtly stated to be.

This has deep implications — deep implications to a person's article 1, Charter of Rights and Freedoms…. People have the right to have their privacy and their personal information guarded and not exchanged at the whim of a bureaucrat in order to achieve an expediency in service delivery. This is a very dangerous path.

Micheal Vonn, of the civil liberties union of B.C., has said that this act pushes us further down that treacherous road. I think that we ought to pay attention when people like her and people like the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association of British Columbia warn us that we may be doing something that's reckless.

So why the haste, Mr. Speaker? Why the rush? I ought to say that for the last couple of hours I wasn't supposed to be here. Just as an example of how rushed and reckless and chaotic this is, I had a briefing with ministerial staff scheduled for three o'clock this afternoon. The legislation was only read for the first time two days ago. They've had the recommendations from the committee I sat on for two years. The recommendations of the previous committee — unacted upon for eight years.

We sought that the government would pull back from the second reading of the act so that we would have time to consult with stakeholders, time to consider the bill in its entirety, and what did we get? An appointment for a briefing at 3 p.m. and a second reading at 4 p.m., originally scheduled for 2:30.

This is chaotic. This is ridiculous. This is reckless. This is haste that makes waste — haste that makes waste of what we consider to be essential privacy protections and haste that potentially makes waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

[1705]

The integrated case management data-sharing initiative, the data linking that this government is heavily engaged in — the budget for that is $180 million. It's already four years down the path of implementation.

The previous commissioners have requested, time and time again, privacy audits to examine whether or not that system has integrity when it comes to its privacy protection designs. There is not a single person on the design team of the integrated case management project who has a background in privacy protection or expertise in the field. How ridiculous is that? How reckless is that? How much haste, how much waste, can British Columbians tolerate?

When Vancouver Coastal Health Authority raced ahead with their data-sharing initiative, their e-health initiative, they were found to have introduced a system that had virtually no privacy protections engineered into it. In fact, the acting commissioner said that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner conducted a "three-year, in-depth investigation of the adequacy of privacy protections on an e-health system
[ Page 8072 ]
used by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. That investigation determined that the software system was designed and implemented with wholly inadequate security…. Personal information was regularly collected, used and disclosed into and out of the system without any authority under the act, under FIPPA. At the time the system was designed and implemented, there were virtually no privacy management frameworks in place."

So the system was purchased and implemented without any proper privacy evaluation and certainly without adequate security. That's the record of this government — racing ahead with projects that cost the public purse tens of millions of dollars without the most basic considerations that they are obligated to undertake. That is reckless. Haste makes waste.

Here we are, being rushed into the second reading of this act at the same time I'm supposed to be getting a briefing from the ministry on what the act really means. How ridiculous is that? I'll tell you. It's tragically ridiculous. It's a farce if you didn't care too much about it, but to people who care about it, it's truly a tragedy.

So now we go to integrated case management, a much bigger potential tragedy — $180 million committed to a program that has no privacy audits. The system will contain massive amounts of data-sharing of personal information about vulnerable British Columbians — information about their welfare eligibility and payments, financial information, information relating to child welfare matters and medical information.

It kind of sounds like the Wainwright scandal, doesn't it? The most vulnerable British Columbians put at risk by the sloppy business of a government that isn't interested in the substance of what it takes to deliver accountable government, to deliver open government and to deliver the protection of privacy to the citizens of British Columbia, a right as essential as a free trial, free speech, equality, the presumption of innocence.

Pretty heady stuff. Pretty serious. Pretty serious stuff to be taken so lightly by this government. And it's not as though they have to take it lightly. It's not as though the information isn't out there. "Nobody told us. We didn't know. The information wasn't available to us." Those aren't excuses.

We've had committee after committee review this issue, select standing committees of this House, committees who made thoughtful recommendations, ignored year after year in the legislation of this B.C. Liberal government. Unfortunately, the outcome is the wasting of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and the irreparable harm to citizens of British Columbia after the failure of the government to guard and properly protect their personal information. This is more than a tragedy.

[1710]

So the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner appealed to the government on numerous occasions to do privacy audits of this massive data-sharing initiative. The government refused. Actually, the government — I believe — didn't even respond.

The government, after some pressure, hired Deloitte to become involved, and after a process that spanned somewhere between two and three years, the government went ahead and purchased some off-the-shelf software system that they're now in the process of implementing. So this system is well underway.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner over two or more years requested this privacy impact assessment — and it is an essential tool in measuring whether the project would be compliant with the requirements under the act — and were refused. It's not likely to occur now, except in hindsight.

If it discovers, as it did in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority case, that the system fails in its obligation to protect personal information and privacy, then we are putting at risk $180 million or more of public money already invested and countless millions in fixing whatever mess might occur because of the lack of scrutiny and careful, cautious process this government failed to engage.

So tragedy and farce. Back to James Madison, fourth President of the United States, who predicted all of this — didn't he? This act needs to be modernized for the digital age and for information technology, but its principles and the warnings of those who understood those principles were the same principles then, the same principles now.

They are failing to be upheld by the B.C. Liberal government, which is more interested in slogans, bumper-sticker phrases like "most open and accountable government in the universe," rather than the substantive measures and the work and the dedication and the commitment to democracy and the commitment to responsible government that it would take to bring legislation that actually defended the public interest rather than provided means of expediency to this government and its goals.

That is a recurring theme — tragedy and farce. I don't know how many British Columbians would accept a massive industrial project in their neighbourhood without an environmental assessment. That is always a very sensitive issue, as it should be.

Just as that is important to the environment, so is privacy assessment to the functioning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it pertains to data-sharing, data linking and intergovernmental sharing of personal information — particularly with a government so bent on privatizing services, and particularly with a government devoted to centralizing that information the way this government is.

All of that puts us in a place where if mistakes are made, they won't be remedied. You can pay for a new software system. You can spend tens of millions of dollars of
[ Page 8073 ]
taxpayers' money to rejig a software program, as this government has been forced to do, but you will never repair the damage done to the vulnerable British Columbians impacted by this type of a failure — never.

Once that information is compromised, it's game over. It's gone. You can't retrieve it.

I think this calls for consideration. I think this calls for this government and this minister to say, as I'm saying: "Hold on a minute here. Let's stop this. Let's go back and undertake the public consultations that the review committee called for."

[1715]

Let's ask British Columbians. Let's ask the experts in the field. Let's ask researchers. Let's ask the opposition. Let's ask the committee that reviewed the act. Let's ask the people how we should proceed when it comes to this essential issue of democratic freedoms.

But no. No. That is, I guess, a little too mundane, or perhaps it's a little too difficult. Instead, the government relies on a cabinet committee to advise it of its obligations and the amendments that should be brought to legislation — a committee that is exempt from freedom of information, so no one will ever know.

That's what we don't have in the act. That's what the act failed to do. As a member of the committee reviewing the act, I didn't even know it was coming forward. I've been waiting and waiting and then was surprised just like everyone else by its introduction. Government by surprise — it's a theme with the B.C. Liberal government. "Government by surprise." Citizenship on a need-to-know basis: "We'll let you know when you need to know it, how much you need to know, and we might just change our minds about that too."

We've talked about exemptions. We've talked about fees. We've talked about delays. We've talked about the public interest, how the public interest should be more properly defined and defended in this act. Now I'd like to talk to you about another spectre over the Freedom of Information Act, and that is corporations owned by public bodies.

School boards own corporations. Universities own corporations. They are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. So if a university wants to do something that it doesn't want to be particularly accountable to, it simply forms a corporation. It holds the shares in that corporation. It holds the documents of that corporation. It holds the meetings of the corporation in its own boardroom, but the documents of that corporation are shielded from scrutiny by the public.

The former Education Minister, now the Solicitor General/Attorney General, when she was Education Minister promised, in a press release, to remedy that situation. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act review committee called for such measures. My private member's bill called for a broader definition of what constituted a public body.

Do you think that in the haste that we've been brought to this House to approve this amendment legislation they might have thought, the government might have thought, that that might be a good idea? The former Education Minister, currently Solicitor General/Attorney General, thought it was a good idea. She promised it. Why isn't it in this act? This was a perfect opportunity.

That's something of urgency. I would hasten to do that. I would hasten to do a whole bunch of the things that have been recommended to this government when it comes to freedom of information and privacy protection.

I would not hasten to dismantle privacy protections, as this government is doing. I would not hasten to facilitate expediency on the part of the bureaucracy above prudence and principle, as this government is hastening to do. So why the rush? Why the rush?

Well, you know, you could suggest that maybe the true goals of the government in bringing these amendments is not in the public interest, that it's not to defend the principles of freedom of information, open government and privacy protection — essential rights.

Maybe it's to facilitate easier and more profitable contracting out. Maybe it's to facilitate the concentration of data and the sharing of data with other governmental bodies. One can only speculate, because the government has never been clear about its motives. It claims that it must do this in order to modernize an outdated act, that we were only using electric typewriters at the time that the original act was brought forward.

[1720]

Yes, they are right about that, and they are right that we need to advance the services of government to take full advantage of the tools available to us, but not at the expense of the essential rights and principles defended under the original act.

They weren't using electric typewriters at the time that James Madison, the fourth President of the United States and the principal author of the constitution of the United States, referred to a failure of a popular government to provide popular interest as leading to farce and tragedy. I believe they weren't even using ballpoint pens. I believe they would be reliant on candlelight in order to write — not even electric typewriters. How antiquated, and yet the principles still were as relevant then as they are now.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's quite a tragedy. I know the Chair is well aware of these issues because of his service reviewing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

There are several members in this House who have had that wonderful experience of being given the responsibility of recommending to their government changes in this essential area. These are heady responsibilities. I admired everybody on the committee. I thought the committee was one of the best experiences I've had as an MLA because of the way we worked together across
[ Page 8074 ]
party lines. I feel personally grateful to all these members, to the Speaker, for their role. It's, again, tragic to that commitment that everyone made — to do the right thing — that the government has failed to do the right thing.

We all want to modernize our service. We all want to be more efficient. We all want to deliver to people services they can depend on, they can count on, that they don't have trouble accessing. But I would venture to speak for all the members of the committee, on both sides of the House, including even the Speaker, that none of us would accept that expedience should trump the principles that we were assigned to defend. That's what this bill appears to be threatening to do.

Going back to the words of Commissioner Denham: "The devil is in the details." So why the haste? Why not take some time to chase the devil from the details? Why not take some time to have a sober second look at what we're doing here? Why the rush? Why an act that will be implemented upon its proclamation rather than even offering that length of time, the three or six months that normally would be taken for the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review these things?

I don't like to attribute bad motives to people. I don't. I especially don't like to do that to persons; to the government, I have an easier time doing that. It's a body, and its acts tend to take on a corporate nature that has something less than personal effect — and maybe intent.

But the individuals who I sat with in that committee, I believe, were committed to the principles we were discussing. This act, and the haste to amend it in this fashion, puts threat to that. It's quite sad.

So when we look to the record of the government and its failures, its sophisticated culture of avoidance when it comes to freedom of information, its reckless handling of personal information when it comes to privacy protection — I can attribute blame to the government. I can be quite unhappy that the government didn't take the time and caution necessary to avoid those failures.

[1725]

To you, Mr. Speaker, as a person from that committee, to the Clerks who helped us with that committee work, to the other members on the other side of the House who were involved, I can't attribute that. So I can only assume that other members, even on the government side, are uncomfortable with this. It just is by way of extension of my understanding as a person of how uncomfortable it feels to threaten such basic personal rights without due caution, without due consideration and at haste. I can only extend my own feelings as a human being and assume that the Speaker, that the members on the other side of the House who sat on the committee who were responsible, who were considerate, also feel this discomfort with the way this is being done and a very great unease with what it could lead to.

Broad implications. What happens to patients in a doctor's office? The physicians, at their conference in January — and the minister is a physician — warned their members to counsel patients that if integrated case management is implemented, they will no longer be responsible for the personal information of their patients. They made that warning. They counselled doctors that they should sit down and say to their patient: "Look, before you divulge any information to me, I have to warn you that because the information can be shared within government, I cannot be responsible for its security."

Now what kind of chill will that put on a patient who's seeking help for substance abuse? What kind of chill will that put on a parent who wants to talk to a doctor about a child's mental illness? What kind of stigma does that imply? What kind of threat? That's the kind of threat that people must consider when we talk about the right to personal security of our personal, private information.

I know that everyone here must take that seriously. So I am absolutely bewildered as to why this government doesn't take it seriously. How we could be brought in haste, rushed to make a decision like this that would amend those essential rights…. I just can't understand it as a human being, looking across at other human beings. I disagree with their politics. I disagree with the way they've conducted the business of this province. But they're people. I understand that they probably feel as I do — that those are essential and important freedoms and responsibilities for us as caretakers, trustees, of the welfare of British Columbians, to guard those issues.

The government hasn't done that. The government has chosen instead to ignore the committees, to ignore the experts in the field, to ignore its own record, to ignore the security of the commonwealth, the purse of the province, to put at risk tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, in systems yet unproven, yet untested, designed by a government that in the architecture of its other systems has failed abysmally.

So it calls to me for caution, and I think it should call to the government members for caution. We should be, instead of rushing forward a second reading of a bill at exactly the same time the critic is scheduled for a ministerial briefing…. It seems to me that that is a reckless haste.

[1730]

You know, we all learn a lot here. We all learn a lot. We're all partisan here. I'm a very partisan person. I fundamentally disagree with the government's politics — fundamentally. But we do learn, and we do learn that we are all human beings. We're all here trying to do the best we can for our province. We all, when we sat on the committee that reviewed the act, I think, engaged that spirit. I really had confidence that that was the case, and I still do.
[ Page 8075 ]

It just leaves me in absolute bewilderment how the members opposite cannot feel a grave discomfort with what is being done here. We have an obligation to take this seriously. Go back to the study that I heard about at a privacy conference, a study that showed that 70 percent of people who responded considered privacy protections to be among the most fundamental rights they had as citizens. The same study answered in the same proportion — 70 percent — those willing to trade their social insurance number for 30 grams of chocolate on line.

It doesn't show that people aren't smart. It shows that there's a lack of literacy when it comes to the issue of privacy protection. We see it with kids who are affected by Facebook bullying and by kids who put up embarrassing photos on social media and then pay for that in a job interview later in life.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It's common that people don't understand the mechanics and nuts and bolts of what it means to protect their privacy. That doesn't excuse us. That doesn't excuse us from our role as caretakers, trustees of that right. That only obligates us even further to be cautious, to be prudent — not to make haste, not to rush towards solutions in the name of expediency, not to do what the government is doing with Bill 3.

The consequences to people are so extraordinary. Normally if a mistake is made, it can be rectified. Some of these can be. The PARIS system, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority system, the B.C. Lotteries scandal around the breaches of private information and financial information — those can be remedied. Those can be fixed. We can pay to fix them. We can harm the public purse. We can harm the taxpayer to fix them.

But if someone is seeking help for a mental illness, because of the unfortunate stigma that's applied to that; for a substance abuse problem; for any number of personal, very private issues, the harm that's done to them by a failure by us in this House is irreparable. It can never be fixed.

So why on earth am I standing here debating second reading of a bill at the same time I'm supposed to be in a ministerial briefing? How can this government justify that?

It's not the most popular and sexy issue, the issue of privacy protection and freedom of information. Maybe that's why people aren't quite aware of how the architecture of these systems can impact their lives. How the rules and regulation, the devil that lurks in the details that Ms. Denham, the commissioner, spoke of.

People can be forgiven for not understanding that. Not us. Not the minister. The minister understands very well the implications in a doctor's office of the failure to guard personal information.

You might ask: why do what we don't want to do? Why do what we shouldn't do? Why do what we know is wrong? Why be hastened and rushed towards something we're unsure of?

[1735]

The minister has only been the minister of this file for a couple of weeks now. She is a brilliant person — a doctor, a well-respected professional — and I have the utmost of respect for her capabilities. But how could she possibly have come to speed on this file to the point where she can, with confidence, stand in this House and endorse this haste, this rush to make these changes? I don't think that's possible. I don't think it's at all possible.

We have to go back to the basic principles of the act. We have to know that what we do is not going to impact the principle that in a democratic society the people have a right to accountability on the part of their government.

We have to go back to the basic principle that what is personal in our lives is private and that our government is entrusted with that information only insofar as it needs it for a purpose that we have endorsed and that we have asked for, and that that information can only be collected for that purpose alone. That information can only be used for that purpose alone and that information can only be stored and shared to achieve that purpose, not the whimsical purpose of a bureaucrat who seeks an expedient solution to a problem of service delivery.

It is a breach of the most basic freedoms a human being can expect that that should happen. I think that even though the nuts and bolts, the rules and regulations, the architecture of what we're talking about is not understood even yet by the commissioner or me as a critic for the last two years, or the committee that reviewed the act…. I am willing to wager politely and respectfully that the minister doesn't understand it either. Yet she is standing here introducing an act in the most unseemly rush that threatens….

You don't have to depend on the words of the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. You can refer instead to the words of Micheal Vonn from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. You can refer to the opinion of Vince Gogolek, the director of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. You can refer to one of the most respected people in Canada when it comes to freedom of information and privacy protection, Mr. Darrell Evans. You can refer to the newspaper association. You can refer to the journalists association.

All of them are saying what I'm saying. I didn't dream it up. I happen to be their voice in this debate, and their voice, their message to us is: be careful; step back; don't rush this. If you mess it up, you'll never fix it. If you mess it up, you'll damage people beyond repair. If you mess it up, you've hurt our democracy. Those are pretty serious warnings. Those are pretty serious considerations.
[ Page 8076 ]

Yet what do we have? On a Thursday afternoon we are rushed into the House at the same time I'm scheduled to have a briefing from the very same bureaucrats who called for these measures. No one, I don't think anyone, would consider that to be prudent, cautious, any proper degree of scrutiny being allowed.

You know, when I spoke to Mr. Gogolek from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, he had spent the better part of yesterday reviewing clause by clause this act, and he was having difficulty with the technical complexity of it. This is a lawyer who specializes in this act. This is the lawyer who led the IBM case — not in the court as the lawyer but as the representative of FIPA.

[1740]

I'd wager that there is not anyone in this House who has remotely the expertise that Mr. Gogolek has when it comes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I spoke today to Micheal Vonn, policy director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. She's alarmed. She's alarmed by what this government is doing. Everyone I've talked to who has this kind of understanding of this subject is expressing deep concern for what this government is doing, yet haste will make waste. Haste will make waste of their opinions. Haste may make waste of taxpayers' investments of hundreds of millions of dollars. Worst of all, haste may make waste of people's personal rights to privacy.

I don't know how many members have really considered this deeply. I don't know how they can take on anything remotely close to the conceit that would be required to place themselves ahead of the opinion of the principal author of the United States constitution. I don't know how they could assume the role of displacing the opinions of Jeremy Bentham, the English jurist and philosopher of the 18th century, who argued these principles.

I don't know how any of them could put themselves in front of current-day expertise. I don't know why any of them would choose to put their opinion or their confidence in voting for this amendment act ahead of the committees that reviewed the act, both of which they had voting majority on. I don't know how any of that is possible from a respectful, responsible legislator in the House of the British Columbia Legislature in 2011. But it seems that maybe that's the case.

Maybe it's an issue of discipline. Maybe it's an issue where people feel that they aren't able to counter the view of their own government to the point where they can affect its decisions. Maybe they aren't willing to stand up and say: "You know what, Madam Premier? I know you want this a whole lot. I know you think it's a good idea, but have you really thought about it? Have you really thought about the implications? Have you really considered the opinions of all of these learned people who are warning you not to recklessly rush forward?"

It seems that when the Premier wants something, she simply demands it. It doesn't matter whether it's something that has deep consequence or whether it's something that just simply will gain a front-page picture or a smile and a wink in a reporter's camera. It doesn't seem to matter. What matters is what the Premier wants.

I, for one, having learned what I have learned about this subject of freedom of information, open government and protection of personal privacy, feel terribly uncomfortable. I feel, quite frankly, afraid that what we are asked to consider here will have the deepest consequences, that our government seems to have its own learning problem. It is not able to learn from its mistakes. It is not able to take its experience and bring that forward into a behaviour that reflects understanding. It is not able to learn from mistakes.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Wainwright — 1,400 of the most vulnerable citizens in the province affected and harmed by privacy breach. Vancouver Coastal Authority — millions upon millions of taxpayers' dollars wasted because of a mistake. Former Premier Gordon Campbell's web portal dream — an idea, many more millions wasted. Integrated case management — potentially hundreds of millions of dollars wasted.

[1745]

Do they learn? Do they say, "Well, you know what? Those mistakes were made because we didn't understand what we were doing but we rushed forward and did it anyway. We didn't take the opportunity for sober second thought," something this government isn't famous for. "We didn't take the opportunity to listen to the people around us who are knowledgable. We didn't consult British Columbians." Maybe even: "We didn't care to." Maybe even: "We didn't have to, so we didn't." Maybe: "We did it because we could." Maybe: "We did it because we're arrogant enough to assume that we can do anything without consequence to ourselves."

I don't know. It seems to me that the experience of the government around the HST, around B.C. Rail, around HEU should show them that doing things without careful consideration for the outcomes should matter.

BCeSIS is a perfect example. I, as a school trustee, was one of those trustees who met the demand of this government to invest millions in a student-information-sharing system that has shown to be an abject failure. Did the government learn from that? No. They are still willing to rush forward with their plans without consultation, without caution.

This kind of recklessness is something that if people were applying this to their personal lives, we would have to encourage them to seek counselling. I think the government really needs to examine its own personality as
[ Page 8077 ]
reflected by its willingness to take risks, to take deeply consequential risks without considering the outcomes.

This is something that is dangerous. It would be dangerous in the life of a person, and it's dangerous in the public life of a province to have a government in control that is so without an understanding of the substance of what it's doing that it will actually rush forward through the barriers of warning, through the barriers of caution, with a program that is so widely seen to be dangerous and reckless. That's what they're doing.

They are ignoring advice. They're refusing to listen. They're convinced of their own righteousness, and this act definitely reflects that lack of due caution.

I don't know how many of the government members will stand up when we return to this House and defend this act. I know that the minister has made an effort to do so. I know that there are many members of the government who sat on the review committee, which I co-chaired two years ago. They certainly are capable of standing up and bringing some light to this issue, and I hope they will.

There are many members of the previous committee, eight years ago, who sat and made similar recommendations to the committee I sat on, who still sit in this House. In fact, the Chair is a minister of the government. Perhaps they could have the courage to stand up and speak to this rush and this haste and to the implications and the risks that we were warned of when we reviewed the act.

I don't know if they will. I don't know if they'll stand up and defend their government's handling of the Wainwright affair. The review of the Wainwright affair recommended the establishment of an independent chief privacy officer. This act fails to do that. That role is currently carried out by the chief information officer. There is an inherent conflict in those two roles. The chief information officer is devoted to expanding technological uses and the exchange of information in government, so there's an inherent conflict in those two roles.

I would think that perhaps the government members might stand up and say that in fact we do need an independent role in this province, someone who could report at the highest level to us in this House without fear of any reprisal — as perhaps the government members might feel if they were to stand up in opposition to this act and its haste.

[1750]

That is an important recommendation coming out of the Wainwright review committee, and I haven't heard any justification from the minister or from the government as to why they would seek to ignore that advice. Are we, then, to expect that the same systems that failed us in the Wainwright affair, the same systems that were reviewed and found to be lacking are adequate now to defend us as we move to an ever-more-complex set of problems? Elizabeth Denham, the current commissioner, talked about how increasingly complex, technical and difficult this issue is to understand and that it requires more, not less, regulation.

Yet what we're seeing is a dismantling of regulation. The act is in force upon proclamation, and I know that the commissioner would benefit by a chance to review this. I know that they've been criticized in the past for rushing through legislation, under former Premier Gordon Campbell, and for relying on rules and regulations of those acts — not open to debate in this House — to define what the act really means.

I implore and would in fact beg the members opposite, particularly those members who sat on the review committee, to recognize that this is a very important act, that its stated goals perhaps can't be argued — we want more efficient government; we want more efficient services, seamless services — but also that we imperil some very basic rights and privileges of British Columbians by making any mistake in this area.

D. Routley moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, October 17, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175