2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Monday, February 18, 2013
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 41, Number 6
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Routine Business |
|
Statements |
12841 |
Messages of appreciation and welcome |
|
A. Dix |
|
Introductions by Members |
12841 |
Tributes |
12841 |
Aurelio Cinel |
|
Hon. T. Lake |
|
Introductions by Members |
12842 |
Introduction and First Reading of Bills |
12842 |
Bill 7 — Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013 |
|
Hon. M. MacDiarmid |
|
Bill M201 — Government Advertising Act, 2013 |
|
A. Dix |
|
Statements (Standing Order 25B) |
12843 |
Clyde Hertzman |
|
L. Reid |
|
Youth voting initiative at Alberni District Secondary School |
|
S. Fraser |
|
Lunar new year celebrations |
|
R. Lee |
|
Royal Westminster Regiment |
|
D. Black |
|
Homelessness and housing initiative in Nanaimo |
|
R. Cantelon |
|
Black History Month |
|
R. Chouhan |
|
Oral Questions |
12845 |
Integrated case management system |
|
A. Dix |
|
Hon. S. Cadieux |
|
C. James |
|
C. Trevena |
|
BCeSIS information management system |
|
R. Austin |
|
Hon. D. McRae |
|
JUSTIN information management system |
|
L. Krog |
|
Hon. S. Bond |
|
Electricity rates and purchase of power by natural gas companies |
|
J. Horgan |
|
Hon. R. Coleman |
|
Reports from Committees |
12849 |
Special Committee on Timber Supply, Growing Fibre, Growing Value |
|
J. Rustad |
|
N. Macdonald |
|
Tabling Documents |
12851 |
Islands Trust, annual report, 2011-2012 |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Second Reading of Bills |
12851 |
Bill 4 — Tla'amin Final Agreement Act |
|
Hon. I. Chong |
|
S. Fraser |
|
N. Simons |
|
Hon. I. Chong |
|
Bill 6 — Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013 |
|
Hon. B. Bennett |
|
H. Lali |
|
Hon. B. Bennett |
|
Bill 3 — Destination BC Corp. Act |
|
Hon. P. Bell |
|
S. Chandra Herbert |
|
K. Krueger |
|
C. Trevena |
|
M. Mungall |
|
J. McIntyre |
|
D. Donaldson |
|
C. James |
|
Hon. P. Bell |
|
Bill 5 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013 |
|
Hon. T. Lake |
|
R. Fleming |
|
J. Rustad |
|
D. Donaldson |
|
C. Trevena |
|
M. Sather |
|
Hon. T. Lake |
|
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2013
The House met at 1:37 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Statements
MESSAGES OF
APPRECIATION AND WELCOME
A. Dix: On behalf of people on the opposition side, I wanted to say in what high regard we take the words and the statement made by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie yesterday. It's always a difficult thing, maybe the most difficult thing, to leave this place and to leave all the things you're working on.
It seemed to me, having engaged with him on Thursday, that he was in very fine fettle politically.
Interjection.
A. Dix: We'll be ready. That's not an inconvenient fact at all.
I just wanted to say, on behalf of all members of the House, how much we've appreciated continuing to work with him, and I know we will continue to do so in the future.
I also wanted to note the return to the Legislature for today of our dear friend from Cowichan Valley. [Applause.]
He's been a voice, I'm sure, that everybody in the Legislature has missed so far this session — a voice that is a profound and extraordinary voice for working people everywhere in B.C. It's wonderful to see him back.
Introductions by Members
Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased today to introduce someone who once was a member of this Legislative Assembly. I know that he served with vigour and intensity, and everyone would probably already be able to guess who I'm speaking about. We're delighted to have in the Speaker's gallery today Rick Thorpe. As everyone knows, he was here for a very long time and left a legacy. We are certainly glad to have him here.
He is a volunteer director of the Canadian Snowbirds. I know that all members of the House will want to know that Rick is happy in his new life. I think he's leading it with a lot less intensity than he did when he was here in question period. So please join me in welcoming former MLA Rick Thorpe.
R. Austin: It's not often that I get to introduce somebody from so far away as Skeena. But it's my great pleasure today to introduce Chief Don Roberts of the Kitsumkalum band, who is accompanied today by Terry Bennett, the economic development manager. Please, would everybody join me in welcoming them both down to Victoria.
D. Barnett: Today I am excited and honoured to welcome to this Legislature a member of my community who has been a volunteer auxiliary RCMP for 17 years and a huge part of the community of 100 Mile House, and his daughter who now lives in Victoria, who is going to the university here and has for two years. Would the House please welcome Steve Pellizzari and his daughter Brianna. Welcome.
D. Routley: In my ongoing introduction of the many generations of the Wade family…. It was the grandparents and mother last week. This week it's Nicholas Wade, a dear friend of mine who I have known…. I'm embarrassed to say, since he's 6 foot 1 or so and just completing his university degree, that I've known him since he was days old. This is Nicholas Wade, who's now working with the NDP on election preparation, and his friend Jodi Burkholder. Can the House please make them welcome.
Hon. S. Thomson: I'd like the House to make welcome a guest today from our great riding of Kelowna-Mission. With us today is John Wagner. John is a professor of anthropology from UBC Okanagan. He is passionate about water and does a lot of work with the Okanagan Basin Water Board. He's also the landlord of a good friend of mine, and I understand he's a very good landlord. So I'd like the House to make him welcome here today.
S. Fraser: We've got, I think, 24 or 25 amazing grade 11 students from Alberni District Secondary School with us in the gallery. Anne Ostwald's class is very interested in democracy and the proceedings in this House, as we'll hear later in the two-minute statements. I'd like the rest of the House to please help me make them feel very, very welcome.
Tributes
AURELIO CINEL
Hon. T. Lake: Kamloops lost an icon of the Italian community this past week. Aurelio Cinel grew up under the shadow of the Second World War as the third of five children in a hard-working and self-reliant family. As a boy of 12 he began his training in a factory as a shoemaker, and in 1954 he had already been working for ten years when he left Italy to set down roots in a new country and pursue a job with the Canadian National Railway.
[ Page 12842 ]
For over 43 years Aurelio at the Centre Shoe Re-Nu was a downtown fixture, where he would enjoy the company of many friends and customers before retiring at the age of 72. Aurelio had the heart of an artist and the mind of an engineer. From the handmade fountains in his garden to the ingenious solutions he found to construction problems, he was a man who could build or fix nearly anything.
On a warm summer evening his back deck would be a place where friends and family would gather over a fine glass of wine — his own wine, Mr. Speaker — and enjoy the simple pleasures of friendships celebrated in a setting of a well-tended garden.
At the onset of ALS, Aurelio applied the same determination he put towards every challenge he faced. Always thinking ahead, he personally installed handles and mobility aids throughout his house and even crafted his own special cutlery that he knew he would need in time. His planning left him to fulfil his last wish of staying in the home he built until his final day, surrounded by the family he loved. It was a life very well lived.
Introductions by Members
J. Horgan: I just wanted to say that perhaps the House will join with me and celebrate my 29th wedding anniversary, because I won't be doing it again this year with my spouse Ellie. I'll be doing stuff here and in other places.
Ellie, if you're watching — I'm sure you are — happy anniversary.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 7 — EMERGENCY AND HEALTH
SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2013
Hon. M. MacDiarmid presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, be introduced and read now for a first time.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This legislation will allow for coordination of emergency health services to be enhanced in British Columbia. The Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, follows amendments from the spring of 2010. At that time, the process of integrating ambulance and emergency health services in B.C. more closely with the broader health care system was started. The Emergency and Health Services Commission will continue as British Columbia Emergency Health Services. It will be fully aligned with the Provincial Health Services Authority family of programs and services and will continue with its core mandate of providing provincial ambulance and emergency health services.
The legislation allows for closer cooperation between B.C. emergency health services and health authorities in improving patient safety and quality of care. It also recognizes the role played by paramedics and first responders in overall patient care, and it reinforces the fact that ambulance services are often the first point of contact in a coordinated continuum of patient care.
With this legislation, we will complete a commitment from 2010 to integrate emergency health services. As a consequence, patients and taxpayers will benefit from a more effective and efficient system overall.
I move that the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 7, Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL M201 — GOVERNMENT
ADVERTISING ACT, 2013
A. Dix presented a bill intituled Government Advertising Act, 2013.
A. Dix: I move that a bill intituled Government Advertising Act, 2013, be introduced and read for a first time now.
Motion approved.
A. Dix: The Government Advertising Act requires the Auditor General to review all proposed government advertising against clearly defined criteria. These criteria forbid advertising that promotes the partisan interests of the governing party or attempts to foster a positive impression of the governing party or a negative impression of a person or organization that's critical of the government. That includes the name, voice or image of the Premier, executive council or members of this assembly.
In addition, government advertising must present information factually and objectively. These rules are designed to make sure government advertising serves the broader public good rather than the narrow political needs of the governing party. No matter what the medium, only advertising approved by the Auditor General will be allowed to run.
In addition, this bill requires, or a force that requires,
[ Page 12843 ]
all government advertising to cease four months before the fixed general election date, following a policy previously put in place by former Premier Gordon Campbell.
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M201, Government Advertising Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CLYDE HERTZMAN
L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Clyde Hertzman. When I had ministerial responsibility for early childhood development and child care, Dr. Hertzman and I travelled the province extensively, meeting with those most keen to further opportunities for young learners. As you know, he was fierce in his passion for young learners as an area of study and was also an amazing mentor to his students and colleagues.
I wanted government to go forward from the basis of the best possible science, and Clyde led the human early learning partnership with aplomb. I learned much. He truly believed that data belonged to the communities from which it originated, and he and I spent eight years on the road, taking the EDI data home to communities across B.C.
One particular journey saw us on Haida Gwaii early one morning on the beach with the Chief and council. A family of eagles was sitting on a log just down from us, and Clyde included them in the discussion on family development. It was a wonderful moment.
His mentorship of the Provincial Child Care Council was a joy to behold. We are truly indebted to Clyde for his vision and humanity. Dana Brynelsen was our provincial adviser on infant development in those years. These are her words:
"Children in British Columbia have lost a champion. We have all lost a visionary leader in the field of human development when Clyde Hertzman died, and his loss is felt around the world. Clyde's work brought solid science-based evidence to our belief that early years are important and that a child's experience in family and community life impacts brain development in powerful ways across the life span. Clyde's work, in partnership with colleagues from multiple disciplines, demonstrates that societies that provide well for young children and their families are societies that prosper.
"Although his loss is huge to his field and to those who knew him and loved him, he has left us a legacy of knowledge and innovative partnership across diverse scientific communities and set directions for us to take to improve outcomes for future generations of children. Our task is to ensure that this legacy continues."
Thank you, Clyde, and thank you to your family. Yours was a life well lived, but far too short.
YOUTH VOTING INITIATIVE AT
ALBERNI DISTRICT SECONDARY SCHOOL
S. Fraser: As elected members of this Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, we know well the issues and problems of voter apathy, disenfranchisement and poor turnouts at the polls on election day. Statistics, I'm afraid, speak for themselves. Unfortunately, young voters — those aged 18 to 25 — are part of that grim statistic.
But fear not, hon. Speaker. Taking this issue head-on is a fantastic group of grade 11 students from ADSS, Alberni District Secondary School. Anne Ostwald's civic studies class 11 takes this issue very, very seriously. Students are working to raise awareness of the importance of the vote and hope to raise voter participation in this upcoming election.
The class has contacted superintendents of school districts to forward a challenge letter to other social studies and civic studies 11 classes to get them involved. This is democracy, after all. Letters have gone out to city councillors suggesting that free busing be provided on election day. Statistics are being supplied on the percentage of voter participation in each district. Even milk companies have been contacted with a suggested logo, "Missing: your vote." The kids are putting together a website to share the importance of voting.
Finally, the students from ADSS will be hosting an all-candidates meeting and holding a student vote as well. If this doesn't empower young people to become voters in the future, I don't know what will.
Oh, but I forget. Ms. Ostwald's stellar students have developed a slogan for this great endeavour: "If voting doesn't matter to you, then clothes shouldn't either." Now, that should get some attention, hon. Speaker. Hats off to the students from ADSS.
LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS
R. Lee: Today is the ninth day of the lunar new year, and many committees and associations in our province are still in a mood of celebration. Yesterday the annual spring festival celebration parade in Vancouver's Chinatown attracted tens of thousands of participants and spectators.
I was pleased to see the Burnaby North Vikings marching band was leading the parade — with many dignitaries, including the Lieutenant-Governor, the Premier, many Members of Parliament, members of this House, mayors, civic councillors, members of the boards of education and many community leaders.
Thanks to the Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver; Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Vancouver; Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association; SUCCESS; Chinese Freemasons, Vancouver Branch; and Shon Yee Benevolent Association of Canada
[ Page 12844 ]
for organizing this parade and to the many volunteers for a job well done.
Yesterday I also attended the opening of the Temple Fair at Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Garden, the opening of the Vancouver Year of the Snake spring artists meet at the International Arts Gallery, the spring festival gala dinner, the Henan spring festival reception and the Extraordinary Martial Artists of the World banquet. Congratulations to all the diamond jubilee medal recipients who received their medals at the Chinese Cultural Centre.
In Burnaby many activities took place to celebrate the lunar new year, including those in Crystal Mall, in Brentwood mall, at the Confederation seniors centre organized by North Burnaby Retired Society, as well as along Hastings Street with a lion dance organized by the Heights Merchants Association.
The celebration of the spring festival this year was also enhanced by the inaugural B.C. Family Day public holiday on the second day of the lunar new year. To everyone, happy new year.
Xin nian kuai le. Gung hay fat choy.
ROYAL WESTMINSTER REGIMENT
D. Black: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Westminster Regiment is a primary reserve infantry regiment of the Canadian Forces. It's based in the city of New Westminster at the historic armoury built there in 1895. The Royal Westminster Regiment is the oldest active military unit in British Columbia.
On November 20, 1863, James Douglas, the governor of the colony of British Columbia, authorized the establishment of the New Westminster Rifle Company, No. 1, the predecessor to the current Royal Westminster Regiment. As a fighting force, the regiment has been involved in every major conflict of the post-Victorian era. Members have served in the Boer War, World War I, World War II and numerous United Nations and NATO missions, including Korea, Bosnia and Croatia, Cyprus, the Golan Heights and Sierra Leone.
In addition, the unit has a long history of community involvement and service. It provided a relief centre during New Westminster's great fire of 1898 and assisted during the Fraser River floods of 1948. More recently the regiment helped fight the 2003 Okanagan wildfires and provided support to the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The Westies, as they're commonly known, were also deployed from 2007 to 2011 to serve in the war in Afghanistan.
This year the regiment will celebrate its distinguished 150-year history with a series of events and legacy projects, including a pictorial history book.
I invite all members of this House to join me in offering congratulations to all past and present members of the Royal Westminster Regiment and to thank them for their service to our province and to our country.
HOMELESSNESS AND
HOUSING INITIATIVE IN NANAIMO
R. Cantelon: The plight of homeless people living on the street is of great concern, I know, to members on both sides of this House.
The city where I live, Nanaimo, has entered into an agreement — a memorandum of understanding — to provide up to $36 million of capital funding to create five multifamily residences to get people off the street and to provide them homes.
They recently opened up the Salish Lelum, providing 18 apartments for supportive housing for aboriginal youth and elders in Nanaimo. The second of these five buildings was on Wesley Street, which provides 36 units for people on the street.
Now, we gathered at these openings recently — and the member opposite was there as well — and politicians and other dignitaries offer what are fairly bland platitudes endorsing these well-meaning and well-intentioned and very effective measures to relieve the plight of homeless people. But we were upstaged entirely by a man named Gavin McMullen, who indeed lived on the street and was allowed to speak at this opening.
Here's what he had to say. Here's what it meant to him, if I may, in Gavin's own words:
Nowhere to sleep. Nowhere to go.
Maybe a graveyard, row after row.
Look at us now. Back in the race.
Safe and secure in our own little place.
We can cook our own food and shower each day.
We can look to the future and have our own say.
Let us be proud and forge ahead.
Let's do it now, before we're all dead.
Take pride in ourselves and the place that we dwell.
We'll see it's okay. We'll find it's just swell.
Those are the words of Gavin McMullen. Let's endorse him and all of the other people and celebrate their continued opportunity in these new homes for them. Let's join together in saluting his words.
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
R. Chouhan: Since 1995, February is observed as Black History Month in Canada. Black people have lived in Canada for over 400 years. According to the National Archives, the first reported person of African heritage was Mathieu Da Costa, who arrived in Canada in 1607.
Slavery in Canada has existed from 1628 to 1793. In 1807 the Act for the Abolition of Slave Trade was passed and became law throughout the British Empire. Between 1800 and 1865 approximately 20,000 black people escaped to Canada via the Underground Railway.
[ Page 12845 ]
During the last 400 years black people in Canada have made enormous contributions in all sectors of Canadian society, including Canadian politics. One of the prominent black politicians was Rosemary Brown. She was first elected to the B.C. Legislature in 1972 and served until she retired in 1986. During this time she also proudly represented Burnaby-Edmonds.
She also served as the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission from 1993 to 1996. Rosemary was the founding member of the Vancouver Status of Women Council and the Canadian Women's Foundation.
Similarly, there are so many other successful stories of black Canadians throughout the history of Canada. In Burnaby-Edmonds we have very vibrant, very successful communities from Sudan, from Ethiopia. They are participating in their fullest to make sure that our community continues to be very successful.
One of my friends….
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.
R. Chouhan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Citizens' Services. An independent report on integrated case management across ministry computer systems, meant to improve services to vulnerable British Columbians, states that the system may never be fixed. A system that cost over $200 million may have to be thrown out because of mismanagement.
The report says that in the bidding phases for this technology, the ministries in question were in chaos, going through so-called transformation, with a revolving door of ministers. The children's representative has said: "This report speaks to incompetent stewardship."
With such damning comments, and a lack of faith that the system can be fixed, can the minister explain what went wrong and when the government will take responsibility for this mess?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Have we had challenges? Yes, and we have taken action to address them. We've hired more than 100 additional staff to assist the Ministry of Children and Families — social workers — while we're implementing the system. We've enhanced the training. We have implemented a number of system enhancements already that make it easier to produce child protection reports and enter data and find information quickly.
The system changes and enhancements that are being made are being made on staff feedback that we're gathering, and we're committed to ensuring that the system works well for all of the ministries involved.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.
A. Dix: Well, we're talking about a system in which one of the former ministers involved, the former Minister of Social Development, the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, said it was initially intended to cost $107 million. We're on $212 million now. We're talking about an additional $12 million to try and fix the $212 million. But what the report indicates is that the bidding process — and why the question went to the Minister of Citizens' Services, but whichever minister the government deems appropriate to answer is fine, of course — was a failure.
So what I'd like to ask the minister is: when is the government finally going to take responsibility for what is something that is profoundly troubling, which is a system designed, after all, to protect vulnerable citizens, that is not working? My question to the minister is simple. When are they finally going to take responsibility for this failure?
Interjection.
A. Dix: Well, the government says it works. That's contrary to the view of the child representative and contrary to the government's own report. So I guess "it works" is a notional idea that people who work in the system might not agree with.
My question is fairly simple to the minister. When is the government finally going to take responsibility and acknowledge the criticism of the child representative and do something to address, fundamentally, this question which isn't working for people in the system?
Hon. S. Cadieux: First off, the member is wrong. The budget for the ICM project, which is a cross-ministry project, is $182 million, and it remains unchanged.
We need this system. We need it for a number of reasons. There have been repeated calls by independent authorities, including the Hughes report in 2006 that explained why government needs to implement a system of appropriate information-sharing to better protect vulnerable citizens.
ICM replaces many outdated information systems that are used to deliver critical social services in multiple ministries. These systems are significantly challenged now in quality assurance, because they are outdated and increasingly vulnerable and unable to be adapted to changing needs.
We are addressing the challenges that have been presented by implementing a new system of this size, and we're committed to making sure that the system is working properly for the people that use it.
[ Page 12846 ]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.
A. Dix: This reflects a broader problem the government has with key parts of its information technology strategy. We know the fundamental failure of BCeSIS, which not even the Deputy Premier, I think, could deny. We know the problems in the system.
The child representative….
Interjection.
A. Dix: Well, whether it's in the Deputy Premier's district — and I look forward to his response — or anywhere else, if he wants to go in to public schools, to anyone who works with BCeSIS in the system, and defend those decisions, I wish him well with that effort.
Hon. Speaker, $18 million awarded to Oracle for the software and $182 million budgeted, right? So when the minister says it's on budget at $182 million, that includes that $18 million, now $12 million more, and more to come to try and fix a fundamental problem.
The child representative said in response to the fix: "With all due respect, I think that's patently ridiculous. I cannot see that. That does not make sense to me. They don't have the money to do it."
Given what's at stake here for everybody in the system, will the government finally acknowledge that they've gone down the wrong road here, that there were problems in the bidding system, and finally acknowledge their responsibility for a fundamental failure of governance?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, let me be clear that nothing is more important to me than the safety of the children and families that we serve in the ministry.
In response to criticisms, we have put extraordinary monitoring measures in place to ensure that absolutely no child is at risk because of the implementation of a new system. Clearly, a new system is required. It is required because the old systems are obsolete. We need to better organize the way we share data across the ministries and across programs because it is clearly inefficient to have 50 different systems serving the same families.
The new system is providing information in a more timely and efficient manner. It replaces an obsolete system. It provides enhanced privacy protection, because we take privacy extremely seriously in this government. And it's going to provide for better integration of services across MCFD, the Ministry of Social Development and potentially other ministries, because we need to make sure that the people in this province have the services and support they require.
C. James: The minister admitted there were challenges with this computer system, but she left out a very important fact. The challenges with this computer system are because of this government's mismanagement of this computer system. That's why there are problems.
In 2011 the government said the cost of this system would be $107 million. The cost now is exceeding $200 million, and the system still doesn't work. The independent report that the government commissioned themselves on this technology said that there was no overall plan in place for this project. The report also said that there was insufficient experience to manage this project.
At a time when vulnerable children aren't receiving the services and the care that they need, when youth and adults with disabilities are crying out for services, this government has thrown away hundreds of millions of dollars on a failed computer system.
My question is to the minister. When will this government stand up and take responsibility for their mismanagement and waste of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. S. Cadieux: As I stated before, and I'll state it again, the budget for the ICM project is $182 million. It remains unchanged, and we remain within that budget. It is a multiphased project over a number of ministries, over a number of years, and we do have flexibility within that to make adjustments as we roll through the implementation.
We have had challenges in implementation. The project, however, is working well overall. The work that we've done to address the challenges in the ministry and to make over 90 enhancements is improving things as we speak.
There are continued improvements to be made as we move forward and as we make sure that we're serving our vulnerable populations with the best service we can.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
C. James: If there was ever an example of the reason that the public doesn't trust this government and doesn't believe that this government is listening to them, it was the response from this minister.
The children's representative has stood up and spoken. The representative for freedom of information has stood up and spoken. The workers on the front lines have stood up and spoken. The clients have stood up and spoken. The system does not work, and they need the government to fix it.
These computer systems are highly sensitive. They are related to child protection work. They are related to the identity of witnesses in court cases, support for people on income assistance. The public expects this government to manage systems and their tax dollars well, but it's very clear that the government did neither.
With a budget tomorrow where the Finance Minister is warning of fiscal challenges, the need for restraint, this
[ Page 12847 ]
mess stands out as another example of wasted dollars and complete disregard for the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, just think of what $200 million could have been spent on: support for seniors for home care, children with mental health needs, funding for social workers for vulnerable children. How can the B.C. Liberals justify this waste of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Clearly, the member opposite does not understand that independent reports and advice from as far back as the Gove inquiry have recommended the need for government to move forward with integrating their information systems.
I would also like to mention that although the opposition would like to disregard some of the facts, the fact is that we did commission an independent report looking at what we could have done differently in moving forward with the ICM project in our ministry.
I'm pleased that that report actually recognizes that we're on the correct track with the actions we have taken to date, that the 19 recommendations made in that report build on and strengthen the steps we have already taken. We have already accepted all of the recommendations in the report and are moving forward on implementing every single one of them.
C. Trevena: There are 19,000 case files in this system that are now being reviewed for potential errors — 19,000. Only now is the ministry looking at what other jurisdictions use for child welfare. Any person in business would have done that first, not after spending $200 million.
The independent report said there was a significant underestimation of the budget needed to introduce this system, and this is for a system that is supposed to keep kids safe. So will the minister tell the House how much more it's going to cost the people of B.C. to try and get this disaster back on track and doing its proper job?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, the budget for the ICM system is $182 million. We are still on track on that budget. It is a large multi-year implementation with a lot of flexibility built in, in order to make sure we can address the challenges as we move forward. We have put extraordinary monitoring measures in place because there were concerns raised by our front-line workers about the safety of the information.
There's nothing more important to me than the safety of the children and families that we serve, and so I did direct that every single file entered into the system between April and December of 2012 be reviewed by our staff. That is increased monitoring on top of the regular monitoring that goes on in regular review of practice. This is absolutely a priority.
The system is working, and the adjustments we are making to this system for the pieces that we determined were not working the way they should for the front-line social workers are being addressed.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
C. Trevena: I don't know where the minister is living, but if she actually talked to any social workers or anybody working the front line, she'd find out that the system isn't working and hasn't been working since May, since it was first introduced.
She says that there is nothing more important than children's safety, and I think that we all in the House would agree that there is nothing more important than children's safety. So if I might ask the minister to explain a little bit more of that, because this system, this $200 million system, has meant for social workers time and money taken away from that real purpose of their job, which is keeping vulnerable kids safe. That's what we're about here — kids.
Ten days ago the Representative for Children and Youth released a shocking report about an 11-year-old who was tasered two years ago. He was in ministry care through much of his life and had been neglected and abused. The representative said….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Member, just stop for a second.
Members, I'm having a difficult time hearing the question.
Continue.
C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The representative said: "The ministry ignored child welfare practice standards" and "His basic civil and human rights were disregarded." There is still no plan in place for this child.
Can the minister explain, for this boy, why it is better to waste $200 million and untold staff hours on a failed computer system rather than addressing his and thousands of other children's needs across this province?
Hon. S. Cadieux: As I've acknowledged, we have had challenges in implementation, which is not surprising for a system implementation of this size. It is unprecedented across government to do something of this size. To address the needs of the front-line social workers, who absolutely need to ensure that they can spend their time working with their clients as they need, we hired more than 100 additional staff to support them.
What the members opposite clearly do not choose to understand is twofold. Firstly, that the budget for the ICM project remains at $182 million, and we are still well within that. As well, they seem to completely miss or lack understanding of the fact of repeated calls by in-
[ Page 12848 ]
dependent authorities for an integrated information system to better protect vulnerable citizens. It was necessary. The more than 30 outdated computer systems that were being used across the two ministries were increasingly vulnerable. In fact, we were unable to make any adjustments to them going forward because their technology is so outdated.
This system is vital in how we deliver social service programs. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it works the way it should for our front-line social workers and, most importantly, to protect the privacy and the security of our clients.
BCeSIS INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
R. Austin: It's not just in the child welfare system that this mismanagement has occurred but also in education. We know that this government spent almost $100 million on their electronic data system. What we don't know is how much was also spent by school boards on training, implementation and licensing costs.
Communities and taxpayers should not have to pay the costs of Liberal mismanagement on these colossal computer projects. Can the Minister of Education tell this House how much, in total, was spent by districts and the government on this failed computer program?
Hon. D. McRae: I'm so pleased to have a question today in the House, for several reasons. The first one is that my colleague across the way, the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, introduced students from Alberni District Secondary School. The 24 or 25 students who showed up today are the proud beneficiaries of a brand-new school that I had the pleasure of opening on December 7. The over $50 million investment provided an opportunity for an auditorium for community benefit. It has First Nation resource areas and an all-weather field so the community can enjoy the school not just today but for generations to come.
Now in regard to BCeSIS, I think I am one of the few members of the Legislature who actually had the opportunity to use BCeSIS as a teacher. One of the things that I'm very pleased to say is that we are underway in terms of trying to replace BCeSIS with a far better management system for the students, the teachers and the administrators of British Columbia.
In fact, learning from the efforts of BCeSIS 1, we're making sure that we're bringing in, basically, consultants who work in education — teachers, administrators, board office and administrative assistants — who know that when we replace it in the coming years, it'll be a better system that'll better serve the students and the education system of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
R. Austin: I guess I should ask this minister whether he wrote a letter to the Premier when he was a teacher, complaining about the BCeSIS system — like that wonderful letter he wrote complaining about the learning conditions and the teaching conditions in the province of B.C. under the B.C. Liberals.
This BCeSIS system was originally supposed to cost $16 million. Instead, it costs six times that amount — nearly $100 million, not including lost time, training, implementation and licensing costs at the school district level. This minister is still unwilling or unable to admit what the total cost of the BCeSIS system is.
So to the minister, can he explain what due diligence was done before this government locked our education system into this expensive and failed software?
Hon. D. McRae: I'm glad to address the issue of the letter I wrote in 2008. One of the things I not only teach my students but I also endeavour to teach my family is — you know what? — when you don't like something, you can improve it.
One of the things that this B.C. Liberal government has done is…. We're looking to constantly improve the education system of British Columbia. Now, an example that we could use, perhaps — I don't want to steal the proprietary rights from my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie — is uncomfortable facts, if you may.
I believe, though I don't know for sure because they're not my uncomfortable facts; they're theirs…. Let's look at the numbers. In 2005-06, the district I am from, Comox Valley, which by the way, I am very proud to represent…. It had — I will admit; I'm not proud of this — 155 classes over 30 in the district, which is perhaps a little too high.
However, Bill 22…. You might remember that bill, the one we introduced last year. Well, in Comox Valley, let's see, how many classes do we have under 30? Oh, 15 are over 30 this year, sir. And the majority of them are things like fine arts classes and rugby classes, which require over 30 students.
Now I don't want to pause yet, because I haven't got to the LIFT fund. Again, I'm really proud that the fact is that we have invested $195 million over three years.
I will hope for more questions, Mr. Speaker.
JUSTIN INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, I'm just thrilled to think that the taxpayers of British Columbia who are watching here today are seeing how much amusement the government draws from laughing about spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars when people are desperate for services in this province.
[ Page 12849 ]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
L. Krog: It's not just children in care. It's not just in education. This spreads into the Ministry of Attorney General. It's in the justice system. JUSTIN, the justice system's case management database, contains some of the most sensitive information in government, including witness "will say" statements and victim contact information.
A report by the Auditor General has identified very serious failures in that system. Indeed, he compared it to "a public library, since it was easily breached and not equipped to determine whether it had even been breached."
It's very simple. The same problem existed with the CORNET management system, the Corrections case management system. A report in 2008 identified those issues. "The failure to apply recommendations from the CORNET audit to systems like JUSTIN leads me to question the ability of IT leadership and governance around criminal justice information." That's the Auditor General of British Columbia. That's the independent Office of the Auditor General.
I'd like the minister to stand in this House today and explain how and why this government failed to fix this vulnerable system in the last five years.
Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. The JUSTIN system is absolutely essential as we work through justice issues in British Columbia. In fact, it was implemented in 2001. It was one of the first integrated case management systems that actually existed in North America, so one would expect that as we move through a new technological world, absolutely, there are changes and corrections that need to be made.
Let me be perfectly clear. The minute the Auditor General of British Columbia came to me and said, "There are issues with this system," I immediately directed that the recommendations that the Auditor General brought forward be implemented and, in fact, went to the Auditor General and said: "We need to make sure that, if possible, there's some additional time for us to put those recommendations in place so we protect the privacy of individuals in the system." He agreed. We worked constructively together, and that's exactly what's taken place.
ELECTRICITY RATES AND PURCHASE
OF POWER BY NATURAL GAS COMPANIES
J. Horgan: So we have a ministry with $200 million down the tube, we've got a minister with $100 million down the tube, and we've got a justice system for data entry that has failed as well.
I want to pose my question to the minister responsible for contractual obligations, which he will know have gone up by 300 percent over the past six years. As you will know, hon. Speaker, $96 billion in contractual obligations over the past six years — $59 billion of them at B.C. Hydro.
My question is to the Minister of Energy. He is well aware that B.C. Hydro will have a surplus of energy this year, next year and for the following decade, costing approximately $350 million a year to B.C. Hydro ratepayers — over the course of the next mandate, $1 billion in costs to B.C. Hydro ratepayers. I know the minister is going to say the LNG companies are going to buy it. I want him to name me one LNG company in 2013 that's going to pay $60 more than market rate for electricity. Name me one in 2013.
Hon. R. Coleman: Every once in a while we get a glimpse into the policies of the NDP on the opposite side of the House. First of all, they've got a crystal ball, and they can actually predict Hydro rates going out into the future and actually decide what contracts should be and should not be. What a load of bollocks that is.
But you know what we're talking about? We're talking about green energy. You're opposed to green energy. Look at this: bioenergy, using wood waste in smaller communities to replace diesel. Wind energy — opposed to wind energy in communities across B.C. because they don't actually want to see how you can aggregate this into having an environmental system for clean energy in the province of British Columbia.
I'm not going to go back to Raiwind. I'm not going to go back to the 1990s. I'm going to give you a quick quote and close my question — from the 1960s — because this is how the NDP is so good at predicting power. "The opposition leader Robert Strachan claimed Friday that the B.C. government policy to develop both the Peace and Columbia River simultaneous is a political hoax because of insufficient power." This member doesn't get it. He can't predict power in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s or into the 2200s.
[End of question period.]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Reports from Committees
J. Rustad: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee on Timber Supply — Growing Fibre, Growing Value — for the fourth session of the 39th parliament.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
[ Page 12850 ]
Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.
J. Rustad: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so I'd like to make some brief comments.
The special committee unanimous report, entitled Growing Fibre, Growing Value, makes 22 recommendations to increase the supply and value of mid-term timber and to strengthen future forest management in the central Interior of our province.
On October 9, 2012, the government issued a response to the committee's report announcing its support for the committee's recommendations and proposing an action plan to increase mid-term timber supply. The committee went through a very exhaustive approach. The situation we're facing with the mountain pine beetle epidemic is very serious.
I just want to take this opportunity to recognize the members of the committee: the Deputy Chair from Columbia River–Revelstoke, the members from Vernon-Monashee, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Westside-Kelowna, Cowichan Valley and Surrey-Newton. In a short period of time we did a tremendous amount of work during that time, and I really want to thank the members for all of the work and effort that they put in.
In addition, we had two special advisers on the committee, former chief foresters Larry Pedersen and Jim Snetsinger, who travelled with us, who put in just a tremendous amount of effort to make the report become a reality. I really want to thank them for their efforts.
On top of that, Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, who was the executive lead, forest sector initiatives from the ministry, put in a tremendous amount of effort, and the entire team behind the Ministry of Forests. You've got to remember this was a report that was done in a short period of time. A tremendous amount of information was brought forward, and they really stepped up and made an enormous effort.
I would also like to thank the Clerk's office — Kate Ryan-Lloyd as well as the others in the Clerk's office — and Hansard. The amount of travel time and commitment that was required was phenomenal, and they really stepped up and did above and beyond duty to make sure we could actually get through the process.
Finally, I would also, of course, like to thank all British Columbians. We received a tremendous amount of input. We went through and had a lot of public meetings. There was a tremendous amount of written input that came in, which really helped to shape the recommendations we brought forward, which I believe will make an improvement to our forest industry in the coming futures.
With that, I'd like to turn it over, and I welcome any other comments.
N. Macdonald: I just want to join the MLA for Nechako Lakes and the Chair of the Special Committee on Timber Supply in expressing our appreciation from the opposition side to those who supported the work on the committee.
The technical advisers, two former chief foresters — Larry Pedersen and Jim Snetsinger — were exceptional resources. The Clerk's office, Hansard staff and ministry staff, both here in the capital as well as on the field, impressed all of us on the committee with both their knowledge and, even more importantly, their passion for the land.
I also want to thank the 650 individuals and groups who participated in the committee's work and contributed to the report. The recommendations from the Timber Supply Committee call for immediate investments in the land and, again, to allow rural communities a voice in land use decisions. The recommendations call for a dramatic change in direction in forest policy, and we need that change urgently.
I ask members to have a look at the committee. I know that New Democrats are committed to action in sustainably managing our public lands. But I think with these reports, it's important that the Legislature give meaning to the committee's report by acting immediately on the recommendations.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes closes debate.
J. Rustad: I just want to thank the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. There's no question that the mid-term timber supply is a very significant issue, and it is a current issue. I'm very pleased with the response that our government has put together to meeting those recommendations moving forward, especially on some of the areas around forestry management. I look forward in the future to continuing to work with all members of this House to continue to improve our forest policy.
Mr. Speaker: Want to move the adoption of the report?
J. Rustad: Sorry. And in so doing, I move the adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
[ Page 12851 ]
Tabling Documents
Hon. B. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Islands Trust Act, I have the honour to present the 2011-2012 annual report of the Islands Trust.
Orders of the Day
Hon. T. Lake: We will have second reading on a number of bills this afternoon: No. 4, intituled the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, followed by Bill 6, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 3, Destination BC Corp. Act; and Bill 5, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker, if there is time, we will resume debate on the Speech from the Throne.
Mr. Speaker: Members, attend to other duties so that we can continue.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 4 — TLA'AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
Hon. I. Chong: It is my great honour to rise in the House today to move second reading of this important piece of legislation, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, Bill 4.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
This is the fourth treaty to reach the floor of this House under the made-in-B.C. treaty process, following in the footsteps of Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and Yale treaties.
I think it's worth noting that because the Maa-nulth treaty is an agreement with five First Nations and the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated outside the B.C. treaty process, Tla'amin is actually the ninth First Nation to have a treaty introduced in the British Columbia Legislature.
As we are all aware, the treaty process can be slow, sometimes frustratingly so. But we are seeing true progress. The momentum has been growing steadily, and we are now seeing, increasingly, treaties and other treaty-related measures being completed. I am obviously optimistic that this is a trend and that it will continue.
Now, I would like to take a few minutes to share some of the story of the Tla'amin people and how we came to this significant moment. Much of what I will tell you is available on the Sliammon Treaty Society website, and I encourage all of you to read it when you have time, as that is where it is. However, today I would like to provide a small capsule of what you will learn when you go to that website.
Most of us know Tla'amin — or Sliammon, as it came to be known following European contact — as a small community north of Powell River located on the northernmost reaches of the Sunshine Coast.
For thousands of years the Tla'amin people lived by traditional forms of governance that covered environmental, social and political relations through a sophisticated system of laws. As some of you may know, archaeologists have conducted extensive research in the region, and archaeological evidence for Tla'amin occupation in the area dates back more than 4,000 years.
Their social, economic, political and spiritual lives have always been based on their relationship with the land. Natural resources in the region have always been plentiful, and trading thrived with neighbouring First Nations. Ancestors of today's Tla'amin members traded with First Nations residing on the Lower Mainland, in the Interior and on Vancouver Island for food and provisions they couldn't get in their own area.
Among them were the Lil'wat, who came from Mount Currie, Pemberton area, trading fibres for twine, deer hides and dried roots. From Shishalh farther down on the Sunshine Coast came smelt and sturgeon, and from the Nuu-chah-nulth along the west coast of Vancouver Island came white grass for the making of baskets, something at which the Tla'amin people excelled.
These are just a few of the neighbouring First Nations with whom the Tla'amin people traded. On their part, the Tla'amin traded surplus quantities of smoked dried salmon, herring, tree bark and shells with these other First Nations. Like other northern Coast Salish peoples, Tla'amin ancestors came together at winter village sites during the cold months but dispersed to separate sites when the winter warmed, sometimes joining other Tla'amin families and even members of other tribes.
Many British Columbians may not be aware of how sophisticated and well managed First Nations resources were. Some harvested resources varied in abundance and availability, just as they do now. So it required planning and management to increase productivity. Several management strategies were used.
Some of the strategies were social. Others required controlling access to the resource, organizing and managing the labour force or simply moving to another area when resources started to dwindle. Other strategies required the intervention of technology such as fishing apparatuses and management of the resource itself, including selective harvesting.
In the 1780s outbreaks of smallpox, measles, tuberculosis and Spanish flu began to appear on the northwest coast as a result of trade with other First Nations, who had been exposed to infected Europeans. These waves of epidemics devastated aboriginal populations wherever they came into contact with Europeans. As a result, it is estimated that by 1915 the Coast Salish population had plummeted from some 12,000 people in 1835 to just more than 4,000.
Throughout the late 1800s First Nations suffered from
[ Page 12852 ]
the effects of colonialism, and their lands were given away or sold to white settlers or expropriated for commercial enterprises. Potlatches and other culturally and spiritually important ceremonies were banned, and proselytizing missionaries became a part of the local culture.
In 1871 B.C. entered Confederation, and in 1876 the federal Indian Act was passed, making First Nations people wards of the Crown.
Well, today the Indian Act continues to oversee the reserve system, the band governance and the designation of native identity under the Indian register. It also oversees the federal government's obligations in broad areas of housing, education and financing.
The Indian Act has left First Nations people with little control over their lands and resources. Under the Indian Act, municipalities, utilities and companies could expropriate reserve lands for roads, railways and other public works. With few exceptions, land title is held by the Crown. It can neither be borrowed against nor be inherited. As a result, simple things that many Canadians take for granted are out of reach for most First Nations people living on reserves, such as acquiring a mortgage to purchase a home.
Madam Speaker, treaties are a way for First Nations to get out from under the burden of the Indian Act and to once again govern themselves. Implementation legislation covering the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act — or FNCIDA, the acronym — which was passed earlier this year, also supports First Nations moving toward treaty by easing the way for businesses to operate on reserve.
Why negotiate treaties? Throughout most of Canada historic treaties between colonial governments and indigenous groups set out the rights of aboriginal people with respect to land, hunting and fishing, but early treaty work in British Columbia was never completed. The Douglas treaties cover less than 1 percent of the colony and left the rights and title of the overwhelming majority of native groups unaddressed.
After treaty 8, which the federal government alone negotiated with northern aboriginal groups in 1899, there would be no more treaties in British Columbia until the modern day.
In 2000 the first of B.C.'s modern treaties, the Nisga'a treaty, came into effect. However, it was negotiated outside of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, which was only established in 1992. Since the Nisga'a treaty took effect, the Nisga'a Lisims Government has enacted 180 laws to establish everything from a government member's code of conduct to standards of financial administration, to transparency and accountability in its day-to-day operations.
During the last decade, after a slow start, the B.C. Treaty Commission process has been building momentum. The Tsawwassen First Nation treaty took effect April 3, 2009. The Tsawwassen treaty is the first modern urban treaty and the first treaty completed under the B.C. Treaty Commission.
Since its treaty was implemented, the Tsawwassen legislature has enacted dozens of laws. The treaty also provided the First Nation with tools necessary for it to participate in the local economy. As we approach the four-year mark of the treaty's implementation, we are seeing the many signs of success as the Tsawwassen First Nation moves forward on a number of economic development projects that have now broken ground. Tsawwassen authorities participate in regional government and provide their people with a democratic and accountable government.
The Maa-nulth treaty took effect on April 1, 2011. There are five First Nations that are part of the Maa-nulth treaty. I will apologize to those listening if I should mispronounce, as I have been learning over the past number of months. The five nations that are part of the Maa-nulth treaty are the Huu-ay-aht, the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h', the Toquaht, the Yuu-tluth-aht — formerly the Ucluelet — and the Uchucklesaht. Again, I hope I have done that justice, and I thank the critic for giving me the nod.
As with Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth First Nations now have the tools to participate in the local economy. These First Nations already are acting on the opportunities available to them. Two from the Maa-nulth treaty, the Yuu-tluth-aht and the Huu-ay-aht, now sit as members of the Alberni-Clayoquot local regional district.
Yale First Nation has a final agreement that is waiting to be ratified by Canada. Tla'amin is the next final agreement. Following this, there are other treaties in the making, in the final stages of negotiations, and many more still that are close to having some type of incremental treaty agreement or reconciliation agreement that will provide First Nation members with some of the benefits of treaty ahead of the effective date — benefits such as more certainty on the land and the ability to take advantage of economic opportunities.
Today some people still wonder why we negotiate treaties in British Columbia. The reasons that compel us to negotiate treaties are social, economic, constitutional and legal. But taken together, we make treaties because it is the right thing to do.
We have inherited uncertainty because of our predecessors' refusals to address reconciliation of aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests. Treaties are our main instrument for recognizing and reconciling the rights and interests of First Nations with those of the Crown. Therefore, treaties are always our first priority. We think they are the best and most complete solution not just for land and title issues but for resource-sharing issues.
Treaties are the resolution for examining the gamut of issues that surround closing the gap between aboriginal
[ Page 12853 ]
people and other British Columbians on social and economic matters. The social requirement is obvious and pressing. Aboriginal people must enjoy the same quality of life as other British Columbians. Yet at this point many do not. Living under the restrictions of the Indian Act, they do not enjoy the freedom of other citizens.
The economic argument for a treaty is not mere self-interest. It's true the implications of not addressing our outstanding land question affect B.C.'s economy and discourage investment, in some cases, but uncertainty over ownership of land impedes the development of aboriginal communities and economies as well. All our social and economic destinies are inextricably wrapped together.
The B.C. government is committed to negotiating treaties with First Nations in order to bring certainty to land and resource ownership, prosperity to aboriginal communities and recognition of First Nations rights. Treaty is a complete package providing tools for economic and social development, taking First Nations out of the Indian Act and providing governance authority. But the end result of all the work we do is self-determination for aboriginal people across B.C. That includes their choice of how they get there and what tools they choose to use on their journey.
The provincial government has developed a toolbox of flexible options for moving forward that includes revenue-sharing and collaborative management. These types of agreements are building blocks to a fuller reconciliation. For some First Nations communities those building blocks are enough. Others, such as Tla'amin, choose to pursue a treaty final agreement.
However reconciliation occurs, it is one of the foundations of this government's relationship with First Nations, along with respect and recognition. We can never right the wrongs of the past. We are committed, though, as a government to advancing the principles of the new relationship. Since 2005 the provincial government and First Nations together have achieved agreements that touch every corner of the province and range from the symbolic yet powerful recognition of First Nations names to practical, on-the-ground agreements that increase economic and legal certainty for resource and land use.
For the Tla'amin First Nation, the treaty contains tools for realizing economic benefits, building improved infrastructure for members and creating jobs and business opportunities. As important to Tla'amin members are the benefits and opportunities that a treaty will provide to the youth and the children of their community. Under treaty, their children will grow up with the advantages treaty provides, both socially and economically. The Tla'amin people are entrepreneurial in spirit and look forward to the many potential opportunities the treaty will bring, such as access to investment properties, forestry and opportunities for independent power projects.
Tla'amin First Nation already has a respectful, friendly relationship with its neighbours in the city of Powell River and the Powell River regional district. Through the final agreement, Tla'amin becomes a member of the regional hospital district on the effective date of the treaty, and it is possible for this First Nation to become a member of the regional district in the future, when it is ready. It allows Tla'amin the chance to negotiate with its members to secure mutually beneficial arrangements, including service agreements.
The biggest change will be to the mental and bureaucratic hurdles that have long separated Tla'amin and its neighbours. Though they have been neighbours for more than a century, this final agreement will mean a greater reliance on one another and a more equitable government-to-government relationship. Tla'amin will be able to operate from a new position with its business neighbours as well — a position of influence and of strength.
I would like to extend my personal congratulations and those of the British Columbian government to the negotiators for Tla'amin First Nation and to the provincial and federal teams who have worked together for more than 17 years to build the treaty that is before us today. Obviously, we are grateful to you for your dedication and your determination.
Of course, when speaking about Tla'amin First Nation, hon. Speaker, I must recognize Chief Clint Williams and the members of the Sliammon Treaty Society. Chief Williams joined us in the chamber just last week on February 14 when this legislation was introduced. He added: "We aim to re-establish our cultural identity that was taken from us." Strong words from that chief.
This government is proud to have a role to play in achieving that worthy goal. Never before in the history of our province have we seen the commitment and tangible successes we are seeing through the relationships that have been built between the British Columbia government and First Nations in recent years. With the Tla'amin treaty we add to those successes. We are witnesses to a remarkable period in history.
For more than 120 years the wall that was placed around First Nations by the reserve system has effectively locked them out of much of the progress others in B.C. have benefited from. Today we take a significant section out of that wall. Through this legislation, under the leadership of Chief Williams, the Tla'amin First Nation can realize its dreams, whatever Tla'amin decide those may be.
I am honoured to be here as we enter into debate on this legislation to reconcile the injustices of the past and move forward to a more just and inclusive future for our province.
As some of you may know, in 1918 a fire ripped through the area and destroyed all of the original Tla'amin village sites and a great deal of the forest surrounding them. The people of Tla'amin are made of strong stuff. They are sur-
[ Page 12854 ]
vivors, they are rebuilders, and they possess a capable and committed membership who will take their nation to the next step in their ongoing journey. I do hope that I speak for everyone in this House when I say we wish them all very well.
With that, I would invite others to offer their second reading comments.
S. Fraser: I'm honoured today to stand as the official opposition critic for Aboriginal Relations to take part in the second reading debate of Bill 4, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act. I must say it's always an honour and a privilege. This is the fourth treaty under the treaty process of five, including Nisga'a, that I've been present for in these chambers as an MLA and as the critic also. To be able to witness chiefs and respected elders standing at the Bar addressing all of us on the floor is a powerful thing, I think.
I'm in support of the treaty, as others might have surmised. Certainly, from the applause that Chief Williams received from all sides of the House last week here in the Legislature, I think that was quite clear.
The presentation, I think, is important because the recognition and the respect shown for a leader, or respected elder in some cases, addressing us here, from First Nations, as a nation-to-nation gesture, if you will, in this place is more than symbolic and more than symbolism. It's a real signal of a relationship.
Following on some of the minister's comments, I am not a fan of the Indian Act. I think it's the last race-based piece of legislation left in the world, and it has a dubious past. I know when apartheid was being considered and designed in South Africa, they certainly looked at some of the pieces of our Indian Act and the reservation system to try to implement apartheid — which has long since gone away, thankfully.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
But we still have an Indian Act, and treaty is certainly the main way to get out from under the yoke of the Indian Act. I believe that was the term that Chief Williams used also, and I think it's accurate. I applaud all the nations — and Tla'amin in particular here, as this is before us with the bill — that have been able to achieve a level of autonomy and freedom and coming out from under the Indian Act.
That follows other leaders in this House. As Chief Williams was here the other day, I recalled when we were here for Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth, Yale, and one from my constituency, Hereditary Chief Bert Mack from the Toquaht First Nation, one of the five Maa-nulth nations that the minister referred to so eloquently, I must say. Tough words. The Nuu-chah-nulth language is difficult sometimes.
Bert Mack was a friend of mine. I knew him from the '90s. I was on the Clayoquot Sound central region board with him and learned much from him as an elder. He had been a strong advocate for reconciliation and justice for his whole life. It was heartening to see him actually take his place on the floor here. I know he was thrilled to death to see a fruition to some of his significant efforts to bring about change through the B.C. treaty process. That strikes a chord with me because Bert Mack is no longer with us. We lost him last year, and he's dearly missed by all.
It is a patterning in the treaty process, if you will. I know the minister has spoken about the length of time it does take. The treaty process has been with us for two decades, and this is the fourth treaty that's coming to fruition. It still has to go through this House, of course, and then, of course, the federal parliament following that. But we are losing elders, many of the elder statesmen from the First Nations communities that have been involved in the process for so long. I know I share sentiments with members from all sides of the House and the minister that the process does take a long, long time, and we are losing respected elders along the way.
It's nice to see the changes too — Chief Clint Williams, a much younger leader, well-respected just the same but younger — another generation coming forward and they, too, seeking reconciliation.
I must say, the ceremony that happened here last week, prior to us doing first reading here and the addressing of this House by Chief Williams…. At the ceremony that took place near the rotunda in the meeting area prior to this event at lunch time that day, there were two speakers that were brought forward from Tla'amin. They were young men; they were teenagers.
Their words were so powerful and so emotion-filled. I actually don't think there was a dry eye in the House throughout their words, because they are the future, hon. Speaker. They are another generation. They are growing up now, witnessing being freed from coming out from under the Indian Act. There is potential with treaty to do that.
I would note, and with respect to all nations in the province, that we are discussing Bill 4 here, a significant treaty getting through the Legislature in second reading in British Columbia. But the majority of the 203 nations in the province are not actually engaged in the treaty process. So I would acknowledge — and the minister also cited this — that not all are seeing the B.C. treaty process as the way through to reconciliation. I respect — I think I speak for all members — all nations and leaders, whether they are working for reconciliation through the treaty process or through other mechanisms.
I'm an optimist. I would like to see the treaty process addressing some of the problems that are preventing other nations from coming forward. There is the feel-
[ Page 12855 ]
ing by many nations that there's a requirement for extinguishment of unidentified rights, sometimes unspecified rights, to come into the treaty process. I know that hinders many from entering the process.
I would also note that the treaty process spans the House. The first treaty under Nisga'a, as the minister rightly stated, was prior to the B.C. treaty process, which was created in '92, actually. That process spans both governments, the NDP and now Liberal. They take a long time.
It would be really wonderful to find a way to move the treaty process through a lot quicker so that those nations, even those within the treaty process that sort of…. Many have given up, because it seems like the resources are not allowing for those lower down in the treaty process to actually move forward with any kind of speed.
Then there is the issue of the debt that is incurred by the nations — all the nations, those who achieve treaty and those that are sort of stuck or mired somewhere in the treaty process, not moving quickly. There is still a federal debt that is incurred by those nations. I think in some cases it's punitive, and it's contrary to moving nations forward through that reconciliation process.
Because we see a limited number of these treaties, it makes them stand out more, I think. We take notice of them more because they are important to all nations.
Seeing another one achieving reconciliation is certainly heartening again, and hearing the words from the young people of the nation is a powerful thing. They can see a light at the end of the tunnel, a future where they are an autonomous nation within their own right, and that is important. It is about justice. It is about reconciliation, and it is about respect. So seeing that process coming to fruition in this House is an honour.
The process that led us to this bill being read today…. Just for those watching, this is second reading of Bill 4, so this treaty will go through a committee stage — the bill itself. We'll have an opportunity to ask questions for clarifications about the treaty and how it's meant and what it's meant to mean. There are definitions that we will go through and that I will ask the minister to clarify for those that are watching.
The pattern that we've seen through the other three treaties — we can follow that to some extent as we peruse the document itself, Bill 4, and see how the Tla'amin Final Agreement actually matches with the other three agreements that we've seen. Of course, it's following the same pattern.
In this particular treaty, we're seeing that the Tla'amin First Nation, which has just over 1,000 population, the membership…. Its main community is on the Indian Reserve No. 1 north of Powell River. My colleague for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the MLA, is with us in the House today and, of course, helped introduce the other members to the Chief and some of the elders that were there at the ceremony.
It is a process that the Tla'amin have been through since 1994, almost as long as the treaty process itself has been in place. I would also maybe make a comment. I'm going to assume…. I don't want to speak for the minister or the negotiators on behalf of the ministry, but there is a hope that this will move through the federal system with some speed.
There has been some criticism, certainly, from members of the Tla'amin First Nation and from others involved in the process that the federal process is a bit of a problem. It is a bottleneck that needs to be opened up. We're hoping, as we get through this House, that it's not just going to run into a logjam in Ottawa.
I mean that with no disrespect to Ottawa, but there have been issues, fisheries issues and others, where the mandate is unclear in the federal government. I know there is a hope that this will make it through this limited session that we have, through this Legislature, so that the Tla'amin treaty can move forward to the federal level and then on to actual implementation of the treaty, which may take a while, considering some of the record at the federal level.
There's a land agreement here — 8,322 hectares of land — and a cash settlement of almost $30 million. That would be over ten years. Plus there's an economic development fund of almost $7 million and a smaller fund dealing with fishing vessels, a fund for that within the nation as part of the agreement, Bill 4, that we're seeing today.
For those that know the treaty, there was work done in advance of the treaty, certainly. The Tla'amin have received $100,000 in pre-treaty funding, actually for restoring an important river restoration project. So there was a revenue-sharing agreement that happened in that, that predated this treaty, but was indeed part of the treaty process and negotiation, if you will.
Some treaty nations are embarked on incremental treaty, and we are seeing some of the resources of treaty actually coming to bear prior to the actual signing of final treaty. We have a sort of mixed bag, as I think the minister was referring to, of different ways of addressing reconciliation in the province.
Some of these means and mechanisms work for some nations, and some do not. I have respect for those nations that take advantage of revenue-sharing agreements and such. There are many nations that, without being in the treaty process, are still getting some level of recognition and reconciliation because of that.
With that in mind, I'm standing today as the opposition critic, as we're on second reading of Bill 4, Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, supporting the Tla'amin people and their bid for reconciliation through the treaty process. We do support that bid. It's been nearly two decades, so I applaud Chief Williams, the chiefs before him, the negotiators for the nation and the negotiators for
[ Page 12856 ]
the province to get it this far — and the federal negotiators, too — and applaud them for the patience they have shown and for opening a door for the next generation, those young people that we saw in the Legislature last week. I think they said it all.
With that, hon. Speaker, I shall take my seat.
N. Simons: I would like to join the minister and my colleague in congratulating the Tla'amin First Nation on their successful tabling of the legislation, Bill 4, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act.
Last week, indeed, was an important day for Tla'amin, and it was a wonderful opportunity to connect with some of the folks from the Powell River region who I see fairly regularly. To have them here in the House was particularly enjoyable.
During the minister's comments prior to the announcement of the tabling of the legislation it was mentioned that this treaty was controversial. It was interesting that that was incorporated within the actual words of introduction. You know, I think whenever we have an agreement of this scope there will be some controversy.
Now, as we all know, the vote itself was very close. We know that after 19 years, after hundreds of documents were reviewed and countless traditional-use studies were undertaken — research of a magnitude that is difficult to comprehend — this agreement came about, contrary to the wishes of just a large number of the First Nations people in Tla'amin. I have to just say that it troubles me. It bothers me that, in fact, there is that division. It's not a criticism of division, and it's not a criticism of the fact that there are differing opinions on something as important as treaty.
What troubles me is that the process itself wasn't capable of addressing some of the early controversies. I have the greatest respect for Chief Williams, and we work well together. I've worked well with Chief Paul and Chief Harry. I think I'm upfront with them about issues, as I am with other people about issues, and I think it was recognized that this is partly a difficult challenge that needs to be overcome.
I think, when we have a division in the community over a policy issue of significance, over the policy issue of treaty, we have to make sure that we can put into place mechanisms that will allow the community to heal. And I was so pleased to hear Chief Williams talk about the need for healing. Other people might call it a bringing together of people to understand and to work towards the beneficial aspects of this particular treaty.
The treaty is, in fact, the end of a process, the end of a treaty process, and the beginning of a potentially new kind of relationship, and that in itself is important. But really, ultimately, the changes that will be impacted or that will be felt by the community are the changes that we hope come in terms of….
Will the children be nurtured to the extent…? Will they have the ability to provide for the children as other children in this province are provided for? Will their education system be that which is similar or equal to or better than the education systems that we in non-aboriginal communities have for our children? Will the child protection system be one that nurtures strengths in the family and promotes resilience? Will job opportunities be accessible to the Tla'amin youth? Will opportunities for economic development truly be capitalized upon by the people of that community?
Treaty in itself is an important, significant event, but ultimately, what we are looking for is a better quality of life for the people of Tla'amin. My hope is that with vigilance from all parties involved, from all corners and all opinions in the communities, we find a way of making things work well for the people who we are neighbours with and who we join with in recreation activities and in economic opportunities and who are our neighbours and our friends and our brothers and sisters.
I think we need to think of this treaty as more than just a statement of future relationships. We need to work on those relationships and make sure that in fact the hopes of the people of Tla'amin are achieved with or without the treaty. I respect the fact that the community had a vigorous debate. In some situations it's very important that people on different sides of an issue can speak freely about the concerns that they've had.
I would have liked to have seen a system wherein the parties could have benefited from as much assistance as possible to overcome those challenges. At the end of the day the process that we have allows for the 50 percent plus one to carry the treaty day or not. I would say that it's too bad that people were still not able to at least come to some understanding that the treaty itself would be beneficial to everyone.
My sincere hope, as a representative of the area in the provincial Legislature, is that we will be able to achieve the economic goals together, that we will be able to show those who are concerned that in fact the lives of their children and their children's children and the future generations will be better.
What it comes down to is that you have two parties negotiating, essentially, an agreement that will guide the relationships for generations to come, and when we look at it objectively, we see the Crown and the First Nations coming together not exactly on equal footing. We have the federal and provincial governments that have the financial resources to, essentially, meet all of their needs. And you have a community that, because of a series of policies from a series of governments through decades and decades, is put in a position where their financial capacity to be seen as having the same tools at their disposal as the Crown…. I think that inequality is a problem in and of itself.
[ Page 12857 ]
We still have opportunities to work towards improving conditions of First Nations people, with or without the treaty. I happen to represent, now, a constituency with two First Nations — one, the Sechelt First Nation, which was the first in Canada to have self-government in 1986. Under a Social Credit government the Sechelt First Nation achieved self-government. They have the authority under the Sechelt Self-Government Act, to administer child protection programs, social development programs — administer the vast majority of programs that have been funded by provincial and federal government. Now the Tla'amin First Nation, which is soon to have a treaty defining the relationship with government.
So I have two very distinct, very different situations with respect to the First Nations in our community. But what they share is that they have been on this land, the Sunshine Coast, what some people call the Gulf Coast Riviera….
Interjection.
N. Simons: It's before your time. Don't worry.
They've been on that land since time immemorial — village sites dating as far back, they estimate, as 8,000 or 9,000 years.
So the future for the Tla'amin First Nation is never going to be easily predictable. But what we do hope is that through good policy and through respectful, honourable negotiation, the tools that the Tla'amin people need and desire are at their disposal.
Of course, the treaty itself isn't without controversial points, but who am I to comment on whether it's a good or not-good treaty? The Crown has negotiated with the people of Tla'amin. The process that has been put in place has resulted in this agreement being affirmed in a vote in 2011.
There was concern about the length of time the federal government took to agree. We're hoping that the federal government doesn't stall too much in the next process.
I have comments about the whole treaty process that I think have very little to do specifically with the Tla'amin First Nation's treaty but, I think, need to be addressed eventually if, in fact, treaties can do something to bring communities together.
While I think that the current situation…. The First Nations people in the communities that I've visited are very capable of managing the disagreements that exist, and any community has disagreements. This is just one on an issue that's fairly significant. My hope is that through good dialogue, good planning, open dialogue, the differences will be eliminated and, in fact, that people will go into the future comfortable that the decisions made by the leadership are going to be beneficial.
I would be remiss not to mention that the elders of the Tla'amin First Nation, who have guided the leadership, were an important part in this treaty-making. The young people who came here to Victoria spoke with great passion about what they believe treaty means for them. I'm hoping that their anticipation of good things to come in the future is shared by even those who haven't been supportive of this treaty, because ultimately, what we're hoping for is a better quality of life, a reduction in inequality and hope for the future.
With that, I thank you for the opportunity and join the minister in wishing the Tla'amin people all the best.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call on the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.
Hon. I. Chong: Before I move the motion, I want to take this opportunity to thank the critic, the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, for offering his remarks on behalf of the official opposition in terms of their support for the legislation. Certainly, that's necessary as we move forward. I appreciate him indicating the kinds of questions we can anticipate in the committee stage, which is really to go through a number of areas of definition.
I just want to say, though, that this treaty is modelled after the other three that have been done. The critic, I think, is very familiar with the aspects of that, so it should be a very robust but very productive exchange as well.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
I would also like to thank the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast for his comments. Clearly, the Tla'amin First Nation is in his area, and I know he has had much interaction with them. It was evident when they were here on Thursday last, the familiarity they had with him and he with them. Certainly, I appreciate that.
The overall comments, though, that I think we would agree with are about ensuring we move the treaty process along. From the very first treaty, the final agreement that was brought into this House, as I recall, with Tsawwassen…. I remember Chief Kim Baird saying that it is important to be able to negotiate and to have a final agreement in place. It may not be perfect, but it will allow us to move forward, because if we were to wait until everything was in place and it were to be perfect, we may never get there and we would lose a generation.
I think the two members who spoke, who were at the ceremony that day, saw the youngest person of the Tla'amin First Nation there, one-month-old Tobin Leblanc. His father and mother were here and wanted him to be here for that historic day and say that this is the first child who will be a part of never knowing what it is like to be under the Indian Act. I found that very heartwarming, very significant and very moving.
Again, I appreciate the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast acknowledging that this particular final agreement brought about some controversy. I guess I
[ Page 12858 ]
prefer to say that there are certainly differences of understanding. People understand what is there; they just have a difference of how they perceive that. That will always happen. But the importance of moving that forward — again, it's incumbent on all of us to do that.
I want to close by just acknowledging, as well, the treaty process. The B.C. Treaty Commission was established in 1992, as I indicated earlier — so 20 years in the process. However, significantly much more movement in the last five or six years. We have a number of First Nations who are currently negotiating final agreements — about four of them; I can tell him that. And 44 First Nations are currently negotiating agreements-in-principle, which is stage 4 of the treaty process. There are six stages to that, a final agreement being stage 5.
But in spite of not being able to get to a final agreement and the long process it takes, I should say that the tools that our government has brought in, the non-treaty-agreement tools we have brought in, have certainly allowed us to move them along. I have heard members of the opposition in the past speak, I would say, favourably on them and would hope that they will continue to be supportive of these as we move forward.
In particular, under our B.C. jobs plan, we made a commitment that we would sign ten non-treaty agreements within four years. When the jobs plan was introduced in 2011, we thought it might take us four years, to 2015. We in fact signed the tenth one in January of 2013, so we were a full two years ahead.
I think, again, that speaks well of the negotiators, the people in the ministry, the very professional staff who I take my hat off to each and every day, who are able to use these tools and use them in a very professional, productive way so that First Nations can have more economic certainty and benefits more quickly to them before we get to a final agreement.
With that, I want to again thank the members for their input and move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. I. Chong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 4, Tla'amin Final Agreement 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. T. Lake: I now call second reading on Bill 6, intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013.
BILL 6 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013
Hon. B. Bennett: I move that Bill 6, intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, be read for the second time now.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Hon. B. Bennett: I'm pleased to move that the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, be read for the second time. I'm presenting this legislation today in response to a request from local governments generally, and also the city of Vancouver specifically, for legislative amendments.
There are five amendments in total. One of these will amend the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter to allow all local governments to send property taxes electronically. This is considered a commonsense, efficient and environmentally friendly service that local governments can offer taxpayers. This will be at the request of the taxpayer and is voluntary.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
As well, there are four amendments to the Vancouver Charter requested by the city of Vancouver. The legislation will provide authority to provide the option of being able to pay for parking with a credit card or phone, not just cash; close a loophole in relation to tax sales; authorize city council to use up to five years for land assessment averaging to calculate annual property taxes; and regulate and enforce hours of liquor service.
The first amendment relating to parking fees is primarily to update the legislation, bringing the Vancouver Charter in line with the authorities available to all other municipalities in the province.
The tax sale amendment closes a loophole. This amendment ensures that in the event that a tax sale is overturned by council because of a legal or procedural error, an unsuccessful purchaser gets back the amount they initially deposited to the city. It protects the city from being required to pay more money than they received from the unsuccessful purchaser initially.
The land assessment averaging amendment allows the city of Vancouver to use up to five years for land assessment averaging to calculate annual property taxes. Currently they use three years.
While the three-year averaging method is available to all municipalities to determine property taxes, at present no others are using it. They simply use B.C. Assessment's current-year assessed value. However, due to the nature of the Vancouver real estate market, the city has for years used a method of three-year averaging versus looking only at the current year. The city expects that by extending their ability to average from three to five years,
[ Page 12859 ]
they will ensure a more stable and predictable tax system for the city and for residents.
This legislation will not impact assessments. In addition, the city will continue to determine taxation levels for businesses and residents as it does now.
Finally, the last amendment regarding licensed establishments' hours of operation is designed to clarify the city's power to regulate hours of operation for restaurants with liquor licences. Current legislation required clarity because some operators have liquor licences that allow them to serve alcohol longer than the city bylaws allow. Clarification ensures that the city has the right to enforce their acceptable business hours.
All other municipalities under the Community Charter have the authority to establish hours of operation for businesses in their communities and can require licensees to close earlier than the time specified on their provincial liquor licence through their business regulation and licensing powers. This amendment will bring Vancouver's authorities into line with other municipalities and allows the city to promote equity amongst licensed restaurants regarding their hours of operation.
The amendment to allow for electronic delivery of property tax notices has been asked for by all local governments in the province. The Vancouver Charter amendments have been requested by the city of Vancouver. The Union of B.C. Municipalities supports all of the amendments.
I ask that all members lend their support to this piece of legislation.
H. Lali: I take my place on Bill 6, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013. I want to thank the minister for his comments just a few seconds ago and also want to say to the minister that we will be supporting this piece of legislation.
There's nothing really of any kind of conflicting nature or controversial nature that is in here. As the minister has pointed out, the changes are being made as a result of requests that were made by municipalities. The UBCM is supportive of that, and also the city of Vancouver.
I'll be just speaking briefly, and then I'll have some questions, obviously, during the committee stage.
The amendments are to the Community Charter and also to the Vancouver Charter. The minister just highlighted that the legislation allows municipalities to be able to send out property tax notices electronically. I know municipalities, mayors and councillors, regional districts have been asking for that for a while now — to be able to do that, as most folks are able to get their utility bills by e-mail, etc. So this sort of brings the municipalities up to speed on that as well.
This is also very, very efficient and supports the environment. We can reduce the amount of paper that goes into recycling, and often a lot of it ends up being in the landfills. It's actually good for the environment to be able to do that.
I just want to also assure, as the minister has, that there is still a choice for those folks who perhaps don't own a computer because they can't afford one, or, in a lot of cases with a lot of elderly folks, you know, they don't have e-mails or computers at home. They still have the choice to be able to receive their notices by the old-fashioned way, Canada Post, or if there's home delivery, door-to-door. So they can still do that, and I'm glad that the choice is available for folks to be able to do that.
As the minister has also pointed out, some of the additional amendments help to actually modernize the Vancouver Charter, make it more efficient. For instance, one of them is, actually, providing the option of being able to pay for parking with a credit card or by phone, not just cash. This is obviously good for a lot of folks, but there have been, in places where that service is available…. It's actually problematic for some folks when the system breaks down and they can't get through — the phone or the system breaks down. Obviously, we'll have some questions on how this is going to be able to work for folks. We'll do that at committee stage.
We are also supportive of the amendment that allows the city's power to regulate the operating hours for licensed restaurants. Obviously, you've got a mishmash of liquor licences allowing certain restaurants extra hours to be open. The amendment to the Vancouver Charter allows the city of Vancouver to be able to have something in place that is uniform. You won't get complaints from the public, and also, at the same time, restaurateurs know what the rules of the game are, rather than having to have a different set of hours because of the liquor licence.
Also, another amendment closes the loophole in relation to the amount of money to be returned to an unsuccessful purchaser in a tax sale so that they get back no more than their original deposit. Obviously, this clears the way so that there's…. It reduces any conflicts or requests from folks who are unsuccessful trying to get extra moneys out of the municipality as a result of being unsuccessful so that there's no conflict or any court cases that may arise from that.
Of course, the final amendment there is allowing the city council to use up to five years for land assessment averaging to calculate annual property taxes. Again, this is also a good thing. It certainly gives a better picture, a clearer picture, over five years compared to three years. It could be that the three years that were used previously…. There was a spike, and then also there's an impending downturn. So over a five-year period it gives you a better average, a clearer picture.
The majority of these changes that the city of Vancouver had requested actually brings the city of Vancouver's authority into line with other B.C. municipalities. I like to joke with my own caucus colleagues that it brings the city of Vancouver up to the standards we use up in rural B.C.
[ Page 12860 ]
So this is something that they're finally getting.
I know the press release that was put out by the minister said that all of the amendments here are supported by the city of Vancouver. So far they haven't said that publicly. I'm not questioning whether they're supportive, but I'm just sort of wondering. Publicly, they haven't stated that.
We will have some questions at committee stage, but one of the concerns that I'd like to raise is some of the stuff that's actually not in the bill. I know that while this bill actually comes in response to requests from local government, there are also many other issues that the local governments have requested action on from the province that the province actually is not responding to.
Most notably, I want to bring to the attention of the minister the continued delay on legislation to reform municipal elections, as was promised in 2010 after the report of the Local Government Elections Task Force. The minister has announced that this legislation is not going to be ready until the fall of 2013, which is actually nearly three years after the report was initially presented. That's a long time.
I know all of these changes that are in the act were amongst the changes that were requested by officials in the city of Vancouver, officials in municipalities, UBCM, in order to make elections fair. That was a major concern they'd asked for, and a lot of members of the public, as well, and individuals who had run in elections.
We have concerns that the minister and the government have not included those changes, and here we are, three years later. I know the present minister was also the past minister at the time, and then he was not in this ministry for a while as well. He's back in as minister for this ministry. So he's well aware of the Local Government Elections Task Force that was there and why it should take almost three years. We have to wait until the fall of 2013 to be able to see some of those changes come into place. Well, the minister was able to make that…. Those are some of the concerns.
As I mentioned earlier, we will be supporting this bill, and we'll have some questions at committee stage. I thank the Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to put our caucus concerns on the table.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister for Community, Sport and Cultural Development.
Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I don't have much more to say other than that the city of Vancouver did, in fact, ask for these amendments from the province, so I would assume that the city of Vancouver is pleased and will probably say so soon.
I have to say that it's a great day, and probably a first, when the member for Fraser-Nicola and I can agree on something. I really do think that's worth noting.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
I do have to say, however, that his references to the local government elections legislation are somewhat mischievous in the context of what we're supposed to be discussing here, but that's fine. Perhaps the member will choose to ask me a question in question period about that some day.
I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for….
Mr. Speaker: No, you've got to do second reading.
Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry. I move second reading, hon. Speaker.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.
Hon. B. Bennett: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration by the House at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 6, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, 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. T. Lake: I now call for second reading of Bill 3, intituled Destination BC Corp. Act.
BILL 3 — DESTINATION BC CORP. ACT
Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 3 be read for a second time now.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Hon. P. Bell: Bill 3 sets out the statutory framework for Destination B.C., which is a brand-new industry-led and provincially organized tourism destination marketing organization.
In establishing Destination B.C., we're following through on commitments made by our Premier when she went through her leadership bid, which was reinforced in the Canada Starts Here document, as well as the B.C. jobs plan and the government's tourism strategy, Gaining the Edge.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
As part of the B.C. jobs plan, the government invited
[ Page 12861 ]
the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. to strike a task force, charged with providing options for a new destination marketing organization in the province of British Columbia. The model chosen for Destination B.C. was one of the options presented by the task force.
The legislation sets out a framework for Destination B.C. that will provide greater responsiveness to the tourism industry and increased accountability to the taxpayer. To be more responsive to the industry, this legislation requires that a board of Destination B.C. establish a tourism marketing committee, and that's a unique point of difference.
The tourism marketing committee will be comprised of members representing the six different regions of the tourism industry around the province. The committee will provide advice to the board and chief executive officer on matters related to marketing strategies and the three-year marketing priorities and outcomes and the tourism performance indicators.
For continued accountability to government, the legislation provides government with the final say over who is appointed to the board. The government can also rescind the appointments to the board.
The legislation also provides that beginning March 31 of 2014, funding for the corporation will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. This amount will be equal to the portion of provincial sales tax. Specifics on this funding model will be set out in regulation, and we're still in discussions with the industry on how that should be shaped.
This change does not impact government's fiscal plan. Although Destination B.C. was established under the Business Corporations Act, establishing it as a Crown corporation through statute provides greater transparency and funding certainty for industry stakeholders and for the public.
During the past decade tourism in B.C. grew more rapidly than our economy as a whole. Establishing Destination B.C. as a statutory Crown corporation shows this government's continuing commitment to foster growth in the tourism industry.
I'm very pleased with the nine individuals who were selected to sit on the board. Andrea Shaw has a very, very strong record. She's a founding and managing partner of the Twentyten Group. She's an executive vice-president for Encompass International. Previously, Ms. Shaw was the vice-president of sponsorship sales and marketing for the very successful Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
Susan Doi is general counsel and corporate secretary at Whistler-Blackcomb. She studied law at the University of Ottawa prior to working at Goodmans LLP, then moved in-house as counsel for Telus communications, and later the on-line marketing firm Blast Radius.
Gordon Fitzpatrick is the president of CedarCreek Estate Winery. Previously, Mr. Fitzpatrick served as the chairman of the B.C. Wine Institute. He's currently a director of the Canadian Vintners Association, the British Columbia Estate Winery Association, the Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association and was a member of the Minister's Council on Tourism, although he has now stepped down as a result of his appointment.
Chief Gibby Jacob carries the title of the hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation. Chief Jacob has been elected to council since December of 1981 and has served eight consecutive four-year terms and is a strong advocate for the tourism industry.
Wendy Lisogar-Cocchia is the president of Absolute Spa Group, the executive vice-president of the Century Plaza Hotel and Spa. Wendy currently serves as the immediate past chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade.
Laird Miller is the chief financial officer of London Drugs. He's also the chief financial officer of Sonora Resort, a B.C. luxury wilderness resort, and London Air Services, an executive charter airline.
Loring Phinney is the vice-president of corporate marketing for Bell Canada. Previously, Mr. Phinney was executive vice-president at Cossette Communications Group.
Robert Pratt is the president of Coast Hotels and Resorts. Previously, Mr. Pratt was the chief operating officer for the Westmont Hospitality Group.
Finally, Al Raine is in his second term as mayor at Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Municipality. Mr. Raine has successfully managed a number of different resort property businesses, both at Sun Peaks and at Whistler.
Destination B.C., I think, is the right model for us to have a successful provincial destination marketing organization going forward, because it combines the two elements that I spoke about previously. It is a professional board where members are appointed based on the skill sets that they bring to the board, whether it be around governance or legal or accounting services or marketing services.
Then the marketing committee is made up of 18 individuals, three from each of six regions around the province. As someone who comes from a farther-flung part of the province, I find it very comforting to know that there will be three representatives from the region.
This was a proposal that was brought forward by the task force. I thought it was an excellent one. I can claim no ownership over this whatsoever. It was absolutely the idea of the task force, and I think it's an excellent one, because it provides for the joint accountability that is so important for Destination B.C. to be successful.
Destination B.C. needs to be accountable to the industry to make sure that every single dollar that is spent is spent in a way that maximizes the marketing benefit from those expenditures. But it also needs to be accountable to the taxpayer, because the taxpayer wants to know that money is being spent in an open and transparent manner and that it's being spent in a way that would meet the
[ Page 12862 ]
standards of generally accepted accounting principles, as well as standards that are imposed upon government.
I'm very pleased with the model that has been created. I'd like to congratulate Dave Butler, who is the chair of the task force, along with all of the members of the task force. It has been a long project, perhaps longer…. I know that has been, perhaps, one of the criticisms: that it's taken longer than it should. Sometimes good things take a while, and I think in this particular case we've got a very, very good outcome.
With that, I am looking forward to hearing comments from the opposition and from members of the government side.
S. Chandra Herbert: Well, let me say yes, it has been a long time coming, and certainly, that has been one of the criticisms. The minister is right.
But I'll start off on a positive note, just to congratulate the minister on bringing the act, finally, to the floor. I know we'd hoped that this could come in the session that was scheduled for the fall, but that, for reasons unclear to me, never happened. I'd like to congratulate the minister for finally bringing this to the floor.
I'd also like to thank the minister for his time as Tourism Minister, as an MLA and as a minister. Of course, I learned yesterday, as did we all, that the minister is going to be retiring after this election, and I just want to say thank you for your service. To the minister: I hope that you have many, many, many more wonderful moments with Brenda in your community of Prince George.
But as the minister knows, he and I like to have fun with each other sometimes. I think my hair is a little bit longer than his, perhaps. I might be a little bit younger, but we've really enjoyed our times working the tourism file. Certainly, if I'm in a community, chances are the minister will be following right behind me, or he'll be there first, and then I'll follow right after. One way or another we end up at all the same parties, the same conferences, working with the same people. I've really enjoyed that process.
Of course, there were a number of other Tourism Ministers before him. I think he's the fourth Tourism Minister that I've had in my short time as an MLA. That speaks, I think….
Interjection.
S. Chandra Herbert: But he lasted the longest, he says — the fourth minister, but he lasted the longest. That is a good thing.
Interjection.
S. Chandra Herbert: Not done with him yet. No, that is for sure.
But here we are today to talk about the Destination BC Corp. Act, Bill 3. I think it's important that we reflect on how we got here. The minister started to discuss a bit of the history, a rather abbreviated version of the history.
Of course, members in this House will know that back in the 1990s this House voted to establish Tourism B.C., an industry-led, formula-funded tourism marketer for our province. Members on both sides…. A New Democrat government supported this. Many of the Liberal members supported it because they believed that we needed industry leadership and formula funding for tourism.
That organization continued for many years, both under the NDP and under the Liberals, bringing increased visitation to our province, increased dollars into our communities, helping to spread the word that tourism is a great thing for British Columbia's economy. It's something we need to grow. They did incredible studies, research, community plans. They worked very closely with communities. Part of the reason why it worked so well was that it was industry-led, and it was formula-funded so that we had predictability of funding.
Now, we continued. We got close to the Olympics. Of course, you'll remember, right after the 2009 election this current government, the Liberal government, decided to blow up Tourism B.C. It was an industry leader, it won awards all over the world, and it was very successful.
For reasons unclear to anybody but themselves, this government decided to get rid of Tourism B.C. as an industry-led and formula-funded entity. The minister at the time argued that it was more efficient for government to be the tourism marketer, that it was more efficient to not have any certainty of funding, which was what the reality was once you got rid of Tourism B.C.'s industry leadership — the firing of the board, the firing of the CEO — and got rid of the Hotel Room Tax Act, which allowed formula funding for Tourism B.C. So that was the argument that the government made at the time.
We, of course, on this side of the House and the NDP said: "No, that doesn't make sense. We need industry leadership. We need formula funding." I believe that I read into this House a number of quotations from Liberals who argued for those exact same principles, only to turn their heads away from their own principles and go with the model that was government-led, inconsistently funded. That's what the Liberals argued. They thought this was the good thing to do right before the Olympics.
Now, we continued — the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., which was then, at the time, known as the Council of Tourism Associations — to argue that no, it did not make sense; that no, we needed industry leadership; that we should listen to the business people and the tourism industry; that it didn't make sense to politicize it. But the government continued.
Now, I was concerned at the time because we'd been building up to the Olympics. We'd been spending mil-
[ Page 12863 ]
lions, billions, to get ready for what turned out to be very successful games. But you know….
Interjections.
S. Chandra Herbert: That's right. It's kind of like Pavlov's dogs. You say Olympics, and the Liberals start to cheer. I guess those memories, the nostalgia for better days…. But so it is. I think there's something to that, but we'll get back to the Olympics in this discussion.
Now, the Auditor General may be a sore point. I don't see the Liberals clapping their hands when we talk about the Auditor General, but that's another thing.
The Auditor General argued very convincingly that tourism would be the great benefactor. They would be the ones that benefited from the Olympics, because we would have an international profile. People would know who we were, and they would want to come here after they saw the incredible locations, the incredible places that we have — that we saw the cultural richness of our province. That was always the argument the Liberals made. They said we would double tourism because of the Olympics.
I believe that the minister at the time, after demolishing Tourism B.C., said that we would still double tourism — by 2015, I believe it was. That didn't go so well. Of course, six months before the games, getting rid of your marketer and disrupting plans might be part of that.
So what else happened? Well, the budget for Tourism B.C. was reduced after the Olympics — another thing that the government said they wouldn't do. They said they would actually maintain strong, stable funding for tourism marketing because you needed to seal the deal.
I remember listening to Rick Antonson talking about how the six months right after the Olympics was the time that you would be able to connect and get those people here. Well, instead of connecting and getting those people here, disruption, chaos and budget reductions were the order of the day from this government.
So we didn't see a giant leap for tourism in 2011 or in 2012 and, so far, in 2013, as we had hoped and as the public was told to expect if we were going to spend so much money on the Olympics. In part, I think, that's because the Liberals decided to get rid of Tourism B.C.
Now, what does that look like? Why is this important? Why is formula funding important? Why is industry leadership important? Well, formula funding lets you plan long term. It gives you the ability to plan more than one year in advance. Of course, with the way provincial budgets go, that's a difficult thing to do when you're relying on the government to vote you a certain appropriation every year, which is the current state of Tourism B.C. after the government demolished the industry-led, formula-funded version of Tourism B.C.
You need to plan long term. That was not possible after the government did what they did. So you had groups not being able to purchase in advance. You had people not knowing if they would have a budget to pay their staff. That doesn't lead to stability. That doesn't lead to efficiency. But again, the Liberals argued that it was more efficient for government to manage tourism and to manage the marketing.
They seem to have changed their tune now, and I congratulate them on that. I'm glad, because we made that argument again and again, and the industry did. I know it's taken some time, but it should have been obvious from the start that this was the wrong move, what the government did. It should have been obvious that they could have reversed this and changed course last session in the fall, in the spring, because what we have introduced here today is very similar to what Tourism B.C. used to be.
Why is industry leadership important? This is the other thing that I think we were taught by this interregnum, by this period between Tourism B.C. when it was industry-led and formula-funded and what we have coming towards us with Destination B.C., although I will point out some troubles with that model in a moment.
What we had happen was that the government decided "You gotta be here," and of course, you've got to be here. We're in B.C. I remember sitting in my office in this Legislature and seeing ads on the television, saying "You gotta be here," telling me about Victoria, and "You gotta be here," telling me about B.C. Well, I'm already here.
[D. Black in the chair.]
We've spent millions upon millions on that ad campaign, and you know why? Well, we got…. Similar to the jobs plan advertisements which people will see on their TVs all the time these days, there was a marketing document which said the goal was to associate the success of the Olympics with the provincial government and to target voting-aged British Columbians. Now, that wasn't a tourism purpose.
Tourism B.C., if it was industry-led, would never have approved such spending of dollars because it was not a tourism purpose. It was a public relations exercise. The government, down in the polls — unpopular due to the HST, due to saying one thing before an election and doing something otherwise afterwards, due to Tourism B.C., amongst a number of other things — decided to spend our marketing dollars to promote themselves.
People are familiar with that. It's the same thing today with the jobs plan, with "Canada starts here." The Liberals have become well known for spending millions upon millions promoting themselves with taxpayers' dollars.
We argued industry leadership because the industry would say: "No, that is not a tourism marketing expense. That is not promoting British Columbia across the globe. That in fact is about promoting Liberals' political interests within British Columbia." They would have over-
[ Page 12864 ]
ruled those ads, but the Liberals probably knew that, and that's why they fired the board. So that's a little bit of how we got here.
When I started as Tourism critic, I was told: "Well, you won't have much to say. You know, it's a feel-good file, but things have been going all right for a while." Well, little did I know about the furor that erupted across British Columbia and, indeed, continued to erupt for year after year after year.
When I was in Prince George, people told me about it. When I was in Cranbrook, when I was in Kimberley, when I was on the Island, when I was up in Fort St. John, when I was in Nelson — thank you for the member for Nelson-Creston for reminding me — when I was in Kamloops, when I was in Vancouver…. It didn't matter what tourism convention I went to — even in little Wells, British Columbia — this was the issue people wanted to talk about.
They said: "You know what? We care about our province. We want our businesses to be more successful. We want to be able to put more money into health care and education. We want more tourists to visit our beautiful place, and that's only possible if we have confidence in the marketing abilities of our provincial marketer." They had no confidence in this government's marketing abilities, in this government's politicization of the process.
They wanted stability, they wanted industry leadership, and they wanted to know how much money they were going to have the year ahead so that they could plan their budgets. That's the respectful thing to do with businesses. That's the respectful thing to do with the visitor information centres, with the destination marketers who bring people to our province. But this government for too long refused to hear.
So we bring us to today, to the Destination BC Corp. Act. In this act — I've read it, and I've looked through it — we have a couple of things. The minister talks about formula funding. That was the promise — that we will return to formula funding, although I don't think the minister said "return" because that would recognize that there was a problem and that we used to this have this, but the government blew it up.
We talked about a brand-new model. Well, the formula funding in this model that the minister has presented is currently just notional; it's just an idea. There's a pledge that it will happen. There's no percentage. There's no mechanism of how it's going to be developed.
I've got to say I'm disappointed. We've had years where consultation with the industry could have been done. We've had years where the minister could have led on these issues — or the former minister or the former minister or the former minister in the last four years. We could have had leadership that would have brought us to a solution for this.
Again with this bill, we do not have the certainty. After the election, as the public knows, the government may decide: "Oh, we're not going to do this anymore. We've passed a bill to say we're going to do it, but actually, we're not going to do it."
Now we on the opposition side in the NDP will bring in formula funding that is obvious, that is clear, that gives people the certainty they need.
Interjection.
S. Chandra Herbert: I think it's interesting that the minister should be upset about that statement, because the minister has staff; he has consultative abilities. He could have done the work, but I guess he's upset that I caught him for not having done that work. He's curious. I would have been curious, as the industry will be, where this is happening. I agree, the minister is a little bit concerned. He's concerned about this.
I would like to also ask what's taken so long, why the certainty is not there and why the minister didn't bring this in the last session. Oh, wait. There wasn't a last session, because the government was too busy campaigning. But wait. We've got a fixed calendar. We're so proud of it, except we never follow it. Oh, that made them go a little quiet on that side of the House.
I think that we need to talk about industry leadership. We want the industry in charge of the board, and that's here, which is good. So I can say: "Well done." The Liberals finally listened to us when we made that call. They finally listened to the industry when they called for industry leadership, not political leadership.
But you know where the industry leadership piece breaks down a little bit? I'm very keen to hear the minister explain this part, because there may be reasons that are not immediately obvious. It talks about a minister's directive, the ability for the minister to step in, or the Finance Minister, and tell the board: "You have to do this, and you must comply."
Well, where this raises red flags for me is: what if the government decided, as they've done with this jobs plan ad, to, say, promote the government? "Go. Tell the voters how great we are." Is that a minister's directive that would be allowed? Under the act, it seems to be. Under the act, the board has to comply. "Go tell the voters how great we are. Tell them that we love tourism. Tell them that tourism is great and that the Liberals love tourism."
Should they spend millions of dollars doing it? I see the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is interested in this. Does he agree that the minister should spend millions of dollars promoting the government?
Interjection.
S. Chandra Herbert: He agrees. Interesting. I agree with promoting British Columbia. I've argued for advocacy. I've argued for promotion. I've argued for millions
[ Page 12865 ]
upon millions to be put into tourism marketing. But it's interesting to see this. The government is finally listening and saying: "We're going to have formula funding. We should promote British Columbia."
Well, you know what that $15 million — oh, wait — $16.4 million…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
S. Chandra Herbert: …from the jobs plan ad could do? It could be promoting tourism. Instead, it's promoting the Liberal Party. That's a shame, and that should be banned. When we look at this issue of who's in charge of ministerial directives, does this allow that? So if the minister — I know he's listening — could explain why that provision is in this act.
The way that it used to work was cooperation between the minister and the industry-led board, with the idea that both parties had the same interest. Not one party could say: "You must do this because I like it." It was about having the industry in charge. That's industry leadership.
Again, if this is truly industry-led, why can basically anything the industry decides to do be overruled by the minister? Is this ministry-led, not industry-led? I think there will be a lot of people — and, in fact, I know there are — who are interested in the answer to that question. They haven't worked this hard to get the government to change course and put the industry back in charge only to find out that the minister has slipped something in which, in fact, gives him complete control, should he want to exercise it.
There are a number of other questions that I'll be bringing in the committee stage of this bill, should we get there, and I certainly hope we do. I know the minister said we might have a short time to debate this when I was up in Prince George with him. I'm hoping that this gets time to be really gone through line by line, because we could have had much time to do this, of course, if we had a fall session. We didn't get that, so now we have to do this as well with the budget and with everything else crammed in right before an election.
I'm interested. Will this be similar to how Tourism B.C. used to operate, where they had an agreement which was similar to the Public Service Act but not completely the Public Service Act? Will the employees be covered in that way to allow for greater flexibility, to allow for greater efficiencies, to recognize some of the realities that the tourism sector has with long-distance travel and those kinds of issues? How do we ensure that the industry is actually fully consulted when we do these discussions? How do we ensure that the minister does not overrule the board and the board has no recourse?
In the old days, in the way it used to be, the industry had their decision, the minister had theirs, and then they had to cooperate and find a way to work together. Of course, the government didn't like that approach and decided they wanted to be completely in charge, which led to the destruction of Tourism B.C. But alas, they've heard, or so they claim, that that was not the right approach, and they want a more accountable approach.
I noticed the minister discussed the accountability involved in being able to replace a board member. Well, Tourism B.C. was an accountable organization. It was a Crown corporation. The ministers could appoint, just as in this act, members to the board, but instead of dealing with particular issues that the minister may have had, the government just decided to get rid of everything. That cost us, as the public of B.C., a lot of money. That's cost the tourism industry a lot of time and a lot of money, and that's taken our eye off the prize, which is growing tourism to B.C.
That's unfortunate, because we spent so much on the Olympics in order to grow tourism to B.C. But instead of looking at the industry and saying, "We respect your work. We will work with you to improve Tourism B.C., because we have some concerns," the government just said: "Let's get rid of the whole thing. Let's blow it up and make it about the ministers taking political control."
We've lost time. We should be much further ahead than we are. We should have more people staying in our hotels than we do. We should have more people visiting our parks than we do. We should be improving what we do, not blowing it up and then coming back with a bill like this, which tries to replicate what we had before, years later, after we lost so much time. But not everything is perfect. You can't always get your way, I guess.
So I am happy we are here today, that the government finally has, in a way, given a mea culpa, because they're certainly culpable for this. They certainly seem to, I guess, admit in a roundabout way that they were wrong — what they did. But if this was truly a consultative, open government, they would have done that from the beginning. They would have said to the opposition: "We have some concerns. Let's talk about it." They would have said to the industry: "We don't quite like how this is going. Let's talk about it." They could have brought in amendments then. They could have brought in changes then and not thrown everything away.
So we've got Destination B.C. here today. I will be supporting this bill with reservation. The reservations are the formula funding — it's talked about, but it doesn't exist — and the industry-led board. It exists with a ministerial override, where the minister can do basically whatever he wants and tell the board to do whatever he wants. Those are concerns. Those are not industry-led, as it used to be, and maybe the minister has a good example or a good explanation for why, but that'll come out in due time.
Tourism in British Columbia. We've got an incredible opportunity, a place few could imagine, whether or not it's up in the Comox Valley, where we've got incredible ecotourism, incredible agritourism…
Interjection.
S. Chandra Herbert: …and the ski hill, of course — Mount Washington.
We've got incredible ski hills out in the Kootenays. We've got incredible lake tourism, park tourism, cultural tourism, which I might say is something that this government has not paid enough attention to. And we have many other opportunities in this province that have yet to be achieved and have yet to be found.
I think of an organization like Aboriginal Tourism B.C., which is doing incredible work, working with the aboriginal communities to help to bring tourism to their communities so that they can tell their stories. I think of the Klahowya Village in the West End, down in Stanley Park, which is spreading the word about First Nations tourism and aboriginal tourism all across our province and connecting people with those events and those experiences that they never knew existed before.
I think about the athletics, about some of the snowmobile tourism that I've heard about. Maybe the minister, after he's done as a minister, will take me on a snowmobile tourism ride up in Prince George. I'd like that very much. He could show somebody who's very interested in tourism, from a governmental side, around. That would be very useful.
Now, maybe it's an ATV tourism ride up in the Clearwater region, which also we need to look at, the regulatory side for that. But I digress.
I'm excited about tourism. We have incredible tourism operators and incredible tourism elders who have ideas, who have knowledge, who want to share, who want to be consulted, who want to give their full best knowing that their government is giving their full best as well, not using funds to promote themselves but using the funds in a smart manner, in an efficient manner, an accountable manner that will grow tourism to our province and that will provide many, many more jobs for years and years to come.
I look forward to discussing this further in the committee stage. I know there are a number of other members who have things they'd like to say.
I look forward to hearing from the government their arguments about why they blew up Tourism B.C. and why they've now decided to go back to many of the features that were in Tourism B.C. I think that would be very useful. You know, people make mistakes, and I'm glad when people acknowledge their mistakes.
So thank you for acknowledging your mistakes — to the government of British Columbia — because it was a mistake. But you're showing that you're trying to fix it, and I'm glad to see that. I'm hoping that we, as the opposition, and the public can help take it that next step to make sure that the error of their ways can finally be solved.
I'm very happy to stand here in support of this bill, with reservations. We'll be dealing with those in the committee stage.
Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.
K. Krueger: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Two of the opposition members and I were trying to decide with hand signals who went next. They've graciously deferred to me.
I thank the critic for his remarks. When it comes to welcoming the world, British Columbia certainly has an advantage. I think everyone in the chamber probably agrees that we live in one of the most beautiful places on the planet. We're very fortunate to be here.
At the same time we're facing fierce competition from around the world for each and every tourist dollar, especially because the world is struggling with the dramatic recession that began in 2007. It swept around the world pretty much before it reached British Columbia, but it caught up to us with a vengeance in 2009.
The markets where many of our international tourists come from are still really struggling with that recession. The U.S.A. has had a hard time. Europe's had a very hard time; many countries have. We may be one of only a handful of countries in the world…. Actually, the country will still be in recession, but British Columbia is going to be out of deficit in a matter of weeks now, and that's something to be tremendously proud of.
We're competing very well. The member talked about the 2010 Winter Games. I think all British Columbians were tremendously proud of the job that British Columbia did. I never hear anyone argue that those were not the most successful Winter Olympics in history.
It was a time of great joy in British Columbia. A tremendous number of people came. I recall hearing numbers like 200,000 people who were in Vancouver who actually didn't have hotel rooms. Hotels were all full. They were couch-surfing. They were doing whatever they needed to do to be part of that great occasion.
Over the last year our government has been implementing a strategy that we set out for tourism, with some great results. In 2011 tourism generated over $13 billion in revenues. That created over 126,000 family-supporting jobs. We promised in our plan to increase marketing efforts, and we've done that with increased funding for this year's North America ski campaign, calling it "Ski it to believe it."
We promised to attract two new international flights to YVR. We've exceeded that goal with three new inter-
[ Page 12867 ]
national flights: Virgin, Sichuan and China Southern airlines. Our goal is to increase tourism revenue to $18 billion by 2016.
Now, the member said that the Olympics turned out to be a good Olympic Games. I thought that was kind of cute. It didn't just turn out. It was a result of decisions that were made and a tremendous amount of work that was done. The critic went on at length about the organization we called Tourism B.C., but I think he actually understands the situation, because we worked through it at the time.
Six months before the Olympics we needed to consolidate the resources of Tourism B.C. and our Ministry of Tourism. Between them, it was still a very small army, but the synergies were great. What we did worked very well, and it turned out that we had a tremendous Olympic Games. Not just a good Olympic Games; the best Winter Games, people report, that there ever have been.
Yes, the ministry absorbed Tourism B.C. Not many people left. There were some problems with the way Tourism B.C. was being operated. There were half a dozen executives drawing more than $150,000 a year, and it was, really, quite a small organization. There was a lack of communication between the CEO and the government.
It was hard to ensure that people were as ready as they could be, but together, when we joined forces, Tourism B.C.'s people and the ministry people — and they all became ministry people — did a wonderful job. And they're all welcome to take a lot of credit for that, because they deserve it.
It's true that the world is still in recession — a dramatic recession, the worst since the Great Depression — and we have to compete and compete hard for the tourism market. We're doing it successfully.
We've had tough issues ourselves with government revenues. Every time the price of natural gas drops a dollar, we lose $300 million a year in revenue, as I understand it. That's pretty hard to make up for. Tourism is a big part of how we will continue to succeed with our jobs plan.
The best way to make sure that tourism in B.C. achieves its potential is if government and industry work toward goals together. So with this legislation, we've come through on another key promise made in the jobs plan and our tourism strategy. The Premier promised in her leadership campaign that we would move back in this direction. Indeed, when I was Minister of Tourism, I committed to the industry that we would work back toward what I called a hybrid model, and I'll explain later why this is that.
But it is still an industry-driven model that we're moving to, the model that will work in concert with the tourism industry to create a new provincial destination marketing organization. The realization of the vision we share with industry is Destination B.C.
Destination B.C. is an improvement on the old Crown corporation in three main ways. First, it offers greater industry engagement. A new tourism marketing committee comprised of regional marketing experts means increased accountability to the industry. They will agree on marketing plans. They will agree on performance indicators.
Secondly, Destination B.C. will allow for leveraged private funding. Destination B.C. will use provincial funds to lever contributions from the private sector for marketing activities, allowing for increased buy-in and partnering with tourism stakeholders.
Thirdly, we will have a transparent contractual approach with other sector partners. Performance expectations will be set out in formal contracts between Destination B.C. and regional tourism marketing entities. Contracts will be published to ensure accountability and transparency.
This new Crown corporation will help government and the tourism industry to better work together and compete on a global scale. After extensive consultation with our tourism stakeholders, we have jointly created this model, which is industry driven and formula funded. I'm confident that this new tourism marketing Crown corporation will help our tourism industry grow and create jobs.
During the past decade, tourism in B.C., as the minister said, has grown more rapidly than our economy as a whole. Even though our economy is doing better than pretty much any other economy in the world, except possibly Alberta — although they are deeply into deficit presently — establishing Destination B.C. as a statutory Crown corporation shows this government's continuing commitment to foster growth in this important industry.
The number of new jobs in the tourism and hospitality sector is projected to increase by over 100,000 by 2020 and account for 10 percent of all job openings expected in the province by that year. The government is building a workforce that is prepared to harness this economic opportunity through the B.C. jobs plan, collaborating with the industry-led organization known as go2HR — go2 human resources. This organization is mandated to lead the implementation of the B.C. tourism human resource development task force action plan.
The B.C. jobs plan is helping to create tourism jobs in communities right across the province with businesses of all sizes. Seventy-five percent of all tourism and hospitality operators in B.C. are small businesses. Presently I co-chair the Small Business Roundtable with the minister.
There are 400,000 small businesses in B.C., and they provide paycheques to over 1.05 million British Columbians. Forty-three percent of those tourism businesses are outside of the GVRD. In 2003 the province established go2 HR as an industry-led organization. It works closely with both provincial and federal governments to ensure that the priorities and the strategies of industry and government work together.
[ Page 12868 ]
The 2012 tourism labour market strategy consulted 1,000 tourism and hospitality industry representatives, who shared their sector and regional perspectives. As part of the B.C. jobs plan, the government is using this stakeholder input to help train British Columbians to fill the over 14,000 new skilled jobs in the food service sector that will be needed to support a successful tourism industry over the next decade.
The B.C. government has worked with industry and post-secondary institutions to expand training for jobs in the tourism and hospitality sector over the past eight years. Nearly 300 post-secondary programs were being offered in 2011, compared to approximately 200 in 2003.
Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops is a leader in training young people in the tourism industry, including people from other countries, who are often beseeched by employers in our area and throughout our province to stay in Canada and work with them.
The federal government has been very cooperative. I remember Al Raine pleading with me, when I was minister, to see if we couldn't improve the process by which graduates of Thompson Rivers University in tourism-related jobs would be able to stay. The two governments have worked that out together.
The legislation requires that the board of Destination B.C. will establish a tourism marketing committee comprised of members nominated by regional tourism interests. The committee will provide advice to the board and CEO on matters relating to marketing strategies, annual and three-year marketing priorities and outcomes, and tourism performance.
The critic seemed to object to the minister having commented that the legislation does provide government with the final say over who is appointed to the board and that government will be able to rescind appointments to the board, but everybody, I'm sure, hopes that won't be necessary. It's a very gentle version of the hybrid that we talked about when I was minister.
I was pleased that the critic is aware of Klahowya Village. That was something that we helped fund as part of the Olympic effort, and it has been tremendously successful. The organization known as Aboriginal Tourism B.C., AtBC — CEO Keith Henry and his board — has done an incredibly good job.
We've known for years that people who come to be tourists in B.C. are more interested in cultural tourism than any other kind, and they're more interested in aboriginal tourism than any other kind of tourism. Those things go hand in hand, of course, with First Nations. I congratulate AtBC, the minister and the ministry for how successfully they've worked together.
I'm going to wrap up with a couple of quotes from people whose opinions are significant to the industry in B.C.
The first one is from Lana Denoni — the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. media release just this January 31. Lana said:
"We are extremely pleased with the calibre of the business people who have indicated their willingness to serve on this first board…because it is these individuals who will be accountable to the tourism industry and taxpayers for the success of this new provincial marketing corporation…. These new directors bring a wealth of critical skills and experience, both from within and outside tourism, to this new organization, and we look forward to working with board chair Andrea Shaw and her colleagues as they begin the essential transition work to the new structure."
Dave Butler, who I believe both the critic and the minister mentioned, and who is someone I have really enjoyed working with, says:
"Our nine-person industry task force has been working directly with the minister for the last 15 months to find the optimum model, and we're all very pleased to see this come to fruition…. With the creation of Destination B.C. today, we're now able to take tourism marketing in this province to a whole new level. It's an exciting day for all of us in tourism."
Mr. Butler is the chair of TIABC's provincial destination marketing organization task force, and he made those comments late last year.
I want to congratulate the minister for this legislation and the creation of Destination B.C. and thank the opposition for their support. We'll look forward to seeing the tourism industry richly prosper in the coming years.
C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to follow the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, another member who is leaving this Legislature. I know that he used to be the Minister for Tourism when Tourism B.C. was first axed and brought back into the government, and so he speaks with knowledge — unfortunately, I think a little understated, not much passion, because he was reading a speech clearly prepared for him by somebody who is promoting the jobs plan. That's one of those issues that…. You know, there are lots of facts that people want to get out there. Unfortunately, we heard quite a lot of spin.
I've got to say that we're talking about tourism jobs and part of it as the jobs plan. I know that the current minister, who I'm very sorry also…. I add my sadness to see him go. It's very sad if you're going to retire and you can't plan it. You are actually having to retire. I wish the minister well.
I know he has come up to Campbell River many, many times. In fact, one of the last times, on the jobs plan tour, he came and sat down with tourism operators in my constituency. Tourism operators — small business people, some young people, some older, people who run ecotourism kayak operations.
They knew that the government was encouraging jobs and hoped that they would be able to ensure that some of their places that they operate would be protected with the help of the minister, and they could grow their business. Unfortunately, they were very, very disappointed in the minister's lack of action on the jobs plan, as far as tourism went, for their concerns.
I'd just like to talk focused more on the bill, Bill 3, the Destination BC Corp. Act. The reason we have this is not, [ Page 12869 ]
as the minister says, because he has a commitment to the growth in the industry. I think that we all would like to see tourism grow in this province. There are huge opportunities for the tourism sector in this province. There is no question.
I represent a region that is in transition. We've still got a lot of natural resource jobs. We've got very busy with logging — no manufacturing jobs, unfortunately, because all the logs are exported, another wonderful part of the B.C. jobs plan. We just see the potential jobs leave the communities and leave the province.
But there is growing tourism. There is both the ecotourism and there's family tourism. People come up with their RVs. They go fishing. They go camping. It's across the range, right up to, as the minister mentioned, Sonora Resort. One of the board members is from Sonora Resort, which is quite a gorgeous high-end resort on the east side of Sonora Island. We have a whole range of tourism in my constituency that could grow and could be nurtured.
The minister says it's a commitment to growth in the industry that we're bringing in this bill, but I think he's got to be a little more honest. I think the former minister, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, should be a bit more honest that it's not actually a commitment to making the industry grow but an acknowledgment of the complete failure of B.C. Liberal policy.
We had a very good Crown corporation. It existed for a number of years — set up in the 1990s, a great success, admired around the world. It was a good, strong Crown corporation. It was led by the industry. It had stable funding. In its arrogance, this government decided that it could do it better. "Okay, well, we'll just axe Tourism B.C. We don't need it. We're going to bring it into a ministry." It has flipped from various ministries. Finally, they realized that a government isn't the place to be doing this, that we do need to have an independent body.
I think that what we have to acknowledge, and what the government should acknowledge, is that while they are taking credit for this wonderful idea, it is a sign that they have failed miserably at, again, a cost to the people of B.C., a cost to the taxpayers of B.C. When you start playing around with getting rid of one model and building another and then deciding all of a sudden that that model doesn't work so we've got to go back to a hybrid model, which I'll get into in a moment, it will cost money.
Not only does it damage the industry, not only does it create instability, not only do we see problems with the numbers of tourists coming and how we're going to build up that tourism sector, but it does cost government money. We are talking about taking it into a government ministry and then throwing it out from a government ministry. I think the government should actually acknowledge that we had a good system. We had a good operation under Tourism B.C.
They made a mess of it. What a surprise. The B.C. Liberal government, in its great competency, made yet another mess. We were in question period talking about the $100 million wasted in various badly implemented technology projects. Well, this is a business project that they got completely wrong. What we're going to get then…. I've got to say we have support for the concept of a Crown corporation. We had a good Crown corporation. Now we're going to get this Destination B.C. corporation, which is going to be industry-led, we hear, and is going to have some sort of security for revenue, although we're not quite sure.
What troubles me quite greatly is that both the minister and the former minister start talking about a hybrid model. It's not quite a Crown corporation because you still have strong government oversight and you don't have the independence of funding. It is a hybrid. The minister talked about it, and the former minister, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.
The other hybrid that keeps coming to mind every time I hear the minister and the former minister talk is B.C. Ferries. I think we've got to admit that that is a huge failure as a hybrid. No longer a Crown corporation — doesn't have the independence, making huge amounts of money off the people who are using it as a highway.
Nobody really knows who is responsible for it. Every time you ask…. You ask the Minister of Transportation. The minister puts you to the head of B.C. Ferries. He puts you in touch with the B.C. ferries commissioner, who puts you in touch with the Minister of Transportation, and we go around and around in circles. We never get an answer about what's happening.
The people who live in ferry-dependent communities are being exploited massively, as we see fares go up and up and up. We see a system that shouldn't be a hybrid. It should be either a Crown corporation or part of the Ministry of Transportation, but we have a hybrid. So this one, this new model, Destinations B.C., is also going to be a hybrid, which means it's going to have no real independence. Nobody's really going to know who's in charge. Is it the minister?
This is extremely troubling. We have a body that is being set up to nurture and help grow our tourism sector, something we all approve of. But this board that is established here has to follow the written directives of the minister and the Minister of Finance. So you have a board who is responsible for tourism, and yet they have to obey what the minister says all the time and what the Minister of Finance says.
If this is supposed to be, as the government promotes, industry-led, you wouldn't need that oversight. You wouldn't have a minister saying all the time: "You've got to do this; you've got to do that."
The industry…. I talked to tourism operators, both the small and the mom-and-pop operations that we've got in my constituency. The people who run the campgrounds,
[ Page 12870 ]
the people who run the fishing charters and the people who run the high-end resorts know what they need.
They do need a strong tourism body. They need a body that is industry-led. They need to know that it's going to have fixed funding, that it is a body that isn't just marketing B.C. and promoting B.C. as a place to stay but is looking more broadly and helping people bring up the standards, making sure that we're not just selling ourselves but that we have a great product.
We know, in theory, that we have a great product. But is that product properly…? Are there some — not accreditation — certain levels, certain standards for that product that are met, and it's not just a marketing tool? It is a body that will really work with the tourism sector to build up the tourism sector so that we have something we can be proud of.
I think that while we welcome the fact that there is going to be a body that is no longer part of the ministry and that is going to be looking after our tourism, I think there are serious concerns about the independence of this. There are serious concerns about the confusion that this hybrid model will generate — about who does what, who is responsible for what and who gets the final say.
There are serious concerns, I've got to say, about this government's commitment to tourism as part of the growth of jobs in B.C. As I say, my constituency is a constituency which relies on tourism. It's a largely seasonal industry. It relies on many other sectors, and the government can't seem to get its head around the fact that we've got to find balances between different sectors to ensure that tourism can grow properly.
I've got to say that this is a failing that's in the jobs plan. It's a failing that came when the minister came and talked to people in my constituency. It's a failing that I hear time and again from both people who run resorts and who run small businesses.
I think we had a great tourism Crown corporation, Tourism B.C. This government got rid of it. Now it says, "Oops," as the former Minister of Finance used to say regularly in this House. It's trying to come in and gain the credit for creating something that needs more clarity, needs more independence and could be, once again, a solid body for the tourism sector.
With that, Madam Speaker, I'll end my remarks. I thank you for giving me the time to address the House.
M. Mungall: Well, I rise to also express my support, with a few reservations, as previous speakers before me did, for this bill. The reason why I am supportive has also been mentioned, and that's that this is an answer to a problem that didn't need to even exist.
What was the problem? It was the destruction of Tourism B.C. All of the stakeholders in the sector of tourism saw the value of Tourism B.C., which was created in the 1990s under an NDP government. They saw the value in having a coordinated approach that was done at arm's length from government to promote British Columbia, to show the world what we have to offer.
When people want to come on vacation or perhaps on a business trip — whatever it was that was going to cause them to leave home and travel elsewhere — we wanted to show them that British Columbia should be their destination of choice. And we were successful. We did a tremendous job.
We did a tremendous job, and the industry supported it. They led it, and they had the resources to do that tremendous job. Then all of a sudden, for some reason…. They gave many, many stories backing up their rationale for why they, the Liberal government, decided to destroy, to get rid of, Tourism B.C.
I think the member for Vancouver–West End elaborated on those stories, those rationales, very well. I will leave that in his bailiwick, because he has done a tremendous job ever since then in advocating to bring back Tourism B.C. — because it did such a good job, because it did what it was supposed to do.
It was not broken. It didn't need to be fixed, and it did not need to be destroyed. So here we are today solving a problem that didn't need to exist. I'm very glad that we're doing that, though.
I'm very glad to see that here we are looking at Destination B.C., which is in many ways bringing forward that Tourism B.C., bringing it back. It's responding to the stakeholders around the province who have been saying for years, ever since they lost it, that we need to be doing this again, that this was a best practice, that this did what it needed to do, and that was to share British Columbia with the world.
So here we are. We're doing that, but there are a few changes, and this is why I said earlier that I have some reservations.
One of those changes, of course, is the requirement for the board to follow written directives from the minister. So the minister is no longer at arm's length. Rather, the minister — he or she, whoever that may be in the future — can tap in and say: "I want you to do this, and you have to do it. It is a must. It's in the legislation."
That's a concern because, at the end of the day, marketing British Columbia and marketing who we are to the world and what we can offer shouldn't be a political tool. What it should be about is economic development. Keeping it at arm's length by keeping it industry-led — that's what it was. It's an economic development tool. That's what it was, and that's what it ought to be.
This opens up too much opportunity to play politics, and that concerns me. I think we've already seen why we need to address that. We have over $16 million going to partisan ads. Taxpayers are paying that bill. We've seen how politics can be played here in promoting British Columbia and promoting certain policies. We want to ensure that that doesn't happen.
[ Page 12871 ]
That's why I have some reservation. I think that there's an opportunity, in moving forward, that perhaps we can address this and strengthen it so that it is indeed an arm's-length organization.
Another reservation that I have is around the funding formula — that it lacks a certain definition for greater stability. We see here in the funding formula that it's going to be reliant on the provincial tax sales revenue.
I think it's good that the source of funding has been defined, but the formula of the actual percentage of what will be going to Destination B.C. — and what will, therefore, be resourced in our ability to market our province — has not been clearly defined in the legislation. It looks like it's going to be leaving that to regulation. I would prefer a little bit more public accountability to that funding formula, and I'd prefer to see that in the legislation.
I'm sure we'll be able to deal with some of those questions in committee stage, and I have no doubt our critic for Tourism, the member for Vancouver–West End, will do a fantastic job in addressing that in the committee stage.
One of the good things, though, that is in this bill specifically is regional representation on the tourism marketing committee. I'm a bit concerned, being from a rural area, that our rural representation might not get all the way onto the full board of Destination B.C. I'm sure it will, though.
I'm sure that whoever is appointing members to that board will keep in mind that much of rural B.C. does a tremendous job on tourism.
Madam Speaker, you know I'm going to start getting to my riding soon. But before I do, I just do want to say that the regional representation is a good thing. It ensures that those of us outside of the Lower Mainland will have our voices heard at that table. Here's why we need to have our voices at that table.
It's places like in Nelson-Creston, where tourism is indeed a major part of our local economy. We have Whitewater Ski Resort. We have Shambhala Music Festival that attracts 15,000 people to the little town of Salmo — which barely ekes over 1,000 residents — every summer.
We have the Hume Hotel in downtown Nelson, the historic hotel that was founded and built by one of our founders and has seen miners and loggers and tourists all come through there over the last 100 years. Kokanee Springs golf course on the Crawford Bay. Now, you can't get a better view while you're golfing than at Kokanee Springs golf course in Crawford Bay.
Kaslo Hotel has done an amazing job at honouring some of its dark past as the home for interned Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. It has reclaimed that negativity and turned it into a positive for Japanese-Canadian descendants today, including — and I should mention in that vein — Aya Higashi. She has done such a wonderful job in bringing that story to light in our region.
Baldface Lodge — best back-country skiing you're going to get in B.C., if you ask me.
Then heading over to Creston Valley, of course, the Creston Valley Chamber of Commerce has noted that moving to this type of marketing for tourism, Destination B.C., is great. It's going to benefit places like the Real Food Café or the Skimmerhorn and Baillie-Grohman wineries or the Alpine Cheese Company, which is now moving into a full agritourism package. When you go to the Creston Valley, you need to dip into some of the cheese and the dairy products that they have there.
The list goes on and on, Madam Speaker. I think you've had the benefit of Sutcliffe Farms, which is part of our agritourism, with their wonderful asparagus in the Creston Valley. The point is that all of these places in my region will be benefiting from a coordinated approach to tourism. And that's what this is — Destination B.C.
I'm very glad that we're bringing this back, that this government has answered the advocacy done by my colleague from Vancouver–West End, done by all of us here on the opposition benches and done by people within the tourism industry all throughout British Columbia. It's very much needed, it's about time, and I'm glad that we're moving forward with it.
J. McIntyre: Given the importance of this bill, I just couldn't resist very briefly adding my big voice of support. It is very important. I represent a riding that, as many know, is very, very tourism-dependent. We had the great privilege of being one of the major partners in hosting the 2010 games. We had all the snow venues. Certainly, Squamish, also in the heart of my riding, positions itself as the Outdoor Recreation Capital of Canada.
Like the member before me, we're very much a tourism-driven and -related area of the province. So I also am very much in support of this bill that will enable Destination B.C. to do its good work.
I thought that I should really…. I would like to say into the record, acknowledge the role of the resort municipality of Whistler in a lot of this, because a number of years ago when I was first an MLA, they had a very pivotal role in what was known as the resort collaborative initiative, which involved about 13 resorts in the province, most of them at some of the earlier levels of development, Whistler being probably the most mature at that time.
They worked very closely with government to get what were called financial tools, which really was a way in which some of these local communities could provide some extra tax revenue from tourists and from their tourism efforts to be able to spend extra money in those communities on tourism initiatives.
You take an example of Whistler. There are 10,000 people that live there, but they can actually support a
[ Page 12872 ]
base of 50,000 tourists at peak times. Those kinds of communities need extra support from government for tourism efforts.
Whistler had, as I say, a very strong role spearheading under people like Jim Godfrey, who worked very hard and diligently. At the time government did allow a number of these resorts, obviously, to have a percentage of the hotel tax. Whistler, being the most mature resort, actually was given four points on sales tax in addition to the two-point hotel tax. That meant revenue of about $6 million or $7 million to a resort like Whistler, which was very, very important to develop capacity and to prolong capacity for tourism. That collaboration was very successful.
When we moved to HST and stopped collecting PST, of course, that all changed. I won't go into all the technical and financial details, but the government, I think, came up with a very wise thing called the RMI funding, the resort municipality initiative, and that exists today under the ministry that's responsible for tourism. Again, Whistler still gets a commitment of something like $6 million or $7 million to help them with their tourism initiatives — that kind of funding.
The people at Whistler, who have had long experience working with government, were also involved in working with the minister and the ministry to figure out what a new destination marketing board would look like, how it would be funded and all those kinds of things.
I want to acknowledge the roles of people like Dave Brownlie, who is the CEO of Whistler-Blackcomb, Barrett Fisher at Tourism Whistler, Laird Miller at London Drugs, who has been on that advisory board over the years, and Stuart McLaughlin, who, of course, has been a huge leader in tourism resort development in British Columbia through his resorts at Grouse Mountain and at Kicking Horse.
These people have worked very, very hard, in partnership with the ministry and with the minister, to work with the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. that did strike the task force to see what this would look like. The fact that this model that's being used to form Destination B.C. is really the result of those recommendations is a very positive thing, and I just really want to acknowledge the role of all of those people.
Now, I understand, this legislation will set out the framework. It's going to provide greater responsiveness to our tourism industry and increase the accountability to taxpayers. As the member before me from the opposite side of the House mentioned, the whole fact that there will still be a large advisory board that will involve regional representation is a good thing for the whole province. I'm delighted to say that the new entity will be receiving almost $50 million to start off, and then they'll be working together through regulation to work on a formula of how the funding will go forward.
In closing, I just wanted to add my congratulations to all those who worked so hard to make this a reality — and also to, I believe, Susan Doi from Whistler-Blackcomb, who will be on the board, and Chief Gibby Jacob. I'm very confident that this Crown corporation will be in very good hands and will do very, very good work for the province of British Columbia and continue to have us a leader in tourism.
D. Donaldson: I am very happy to take my place today in second reading on Bill 3, the Destination BC Corp. Act. The previous member from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky mentioned creating greater responsiveness. We had an organization called Tourism B.C. It was very responsive to the needs of the tourism sector in B.C., and it was world-recognized.
The reason we have Bill 3 before us today is that this government decided to destroy Tourism B.C. in 2009. It was a fine example of ideology over practicality. They blew it up in 2009, and this is why we have Bill 3 in front of us today. They did not believe in Tourism B.C. and in government involvement in Tourism B.C.
Now they're trying to recreate this mechanism by recreating Destination B.C., when we had something that worked very well. It was world recognized.
Can you imagine now — it's four years on now from when Tourism B.C. was taken apart by this government — the wasted dollars and the time that has been spent in correcting their mistake in destroying Tourism B.C. in the first place over the last four years? That, as one person said, is cutting your nose off to spite your face — ideologically driven, not driven by practicality. We've seen these kinds of mistakes before with this government in other areas of the ministries as well.
Bill 3, the Destination BC Corp. Act, is being introduced, and we're talking about it in second reading today. I served as Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee for three years, and we toured the province after many of the cuts this government made in 2009. We had many presenters on the topic of Tourism B.C. in 2009.
In relation to what we see today, Bill 3, the Destination BC Corp. Act, having a consequence, an outcome of those presentations…. What they said was Tourism B.C. was industry-led. It was independent. It was funded at arm's length, and it was focused on marketing. They wanted it not to be cut — the tourism sector around the province. These were communities around the province that we visited as the Finance Committee.
Well, the government didn't see fit to listen then, and now it sees the mistake of its ways and has introduced Bill 3, the Destination BC Corp. Act, to correct the mistakes made. But again, it's been three or four years, and we haven't had that kind of organization — that independent, industry-led organization, an award-winning organization back in 2009 that was destroyed by this government.
What's happened the last three years in the absence of
[ Page 12873 ]
Bill 3 and the absence of a Destination B.C. type of organization? Well, we didn't see the boost in the tourism numbers, especially in the northwest, that was anticipated by this government from the Olympics. What we needed was an organization such as Tourism B.C. to take advantage of the boost that the Olympics gave worldwide in order to try to boost tourism in the northwest. Because we didn't have an organization such as Destination B.C., such as Tourism B.C., that competitive advantage that we could have had was not achieved.
In the last three years we didn't see this kind of organization in place, even though the tourism sector wanted it, despite the fact that Tourism B.C. had been such a world-class organization, resulting in that today we see Bill 3, Destination B.C., to create that kind of corporation.
What happened over the last three years? Well, I can tell you in Stikine and in the northwest we have some fine competitive advantage for tourism destinations, sport fishing being one of them. The steelhead industry is world-class. People come from all over the world for it. It could have used the help of a Tourism B.C. or a Destination B.C., but no such thing was in place over the last three to four years because this government destroyed it.
We have some very competitive advantage in guide-outfitting — hunting as well as ecotourism in the guide-outfitting sector. That has suffered in the last three years, suffered because of this government cutting Tourism B.C. Then we have some skiing advantages — heli-skiing, back-country skiing and those kinds of activities.
Again, in the last three years the three areas I mentioned — sport fishing; heli-skiing and back-country skiing; guide-outfitting — all could have benefitted from a Tourism B.C. model. They didn't, and the businesses have suffered. Those people that own those businesses have said they weren't as fully booked as they wanted to be and couldn't turn to a Tourism B.C. kind of organization to help them in marketing their product worldwide.
It's a world-class destination in those three areas I mentioned especially. So Bill 3, Destination BC Corp. Act, attempts to address those concerns. What I say is that it's about four years too late. We had an organization that actually did that four years ago, and this government decided to cut the nose off to spite the face because it didn't like Tourism B.C., I guess, or didn't like it for ideological reasons.
To wrap up, we had businesses suffer over the last three to four years in the northwest from a tourism perspective. They could have been more fully booked. They didn't have an organization to turn to. The government is now introducing Bill 3 to re-create an organization now called Destination B.C., and that's a good thing. We're going to have to look at it clause by clause in the committee stage to see that it actually fulfils the concerns of industry — being industry-led, being independent, being arm's length and being focused on marketing.
Recently — and then very recently, in the throne speech — tourism wasn't mentioned. We see over $16 million being wasted on ads. That's the kind of money that could have been put into tourism, and so I'm glad to see this government is finally getting around to seeing the error of their ways and creating an organization that once again will help businesses in Stikine and in the northwest fulfil their tourism destiny.
C. James: It wouldn't be right if the member from Victoria, the capital city of our province and a city that has a great deal of tourism in our fine city, didn't rise to speak to Bill 3. So thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm looking forward to talking just a little bit about the importance of tourism in greater Victoria and on Vancouver Island and a little bit of where this bill should have gone and the direction that it should have taken.
As I said, tourism is a critical part of the economy of greater Victoria and certainly of Vancouver Island itself. We're very fortunate in Victoria to have a couple of very unique features for our city. One of those, of course, is the Inner Harbour itself.
It is rare for a city to be able to bring tourists right into the centre of the city. We're very fortunate in Victoria to be able to have the Clipper and the Coho, the Black Ball ferry, who have had a long history in Victoria, who actually bring visitors right into the heart of greater Victoria, right into our heritage city, our heritage downtown, and bring them, certainly, to be able to spend their resources in our communities — whether it's the Royal B.C. Museum, whether it's other destinations throughout greater Victoria.
Those are jewels. They're jewels and a critical part of tourism when it comes to greater Victoria, and something that I think some of us who have lived here most of our lives take for granted, but something that we have to recognize is important to protect, because tourism is a very competitive business.
There are lots of opportunities for visitors to be able to choose anywhere in the world to be able to spend their dollars and spend their resources, so we need to make sure that we're protecting and we're supporting the kinds of extraordinary things that we have right here in greater Victoria. As I said, certainly for me, the Coho and the Clipper, the Black Ball ferry and the Clipper, are two of those that we have to remember.
We also have to remember the huge amount of revenue that tourism brings to the area. It's not simply the dollars that people bring and the travel that they come for, but it's the spinoff dollars. Just as an example, in greater Victoria in 2009 over $1 billion was tourism revenue, direct tourism revenue, right here in our city. So those are jobs. Those are dollars. Those are businesses, small businesses, that benefit. That's important for us to remember. But it's not simply coming into a city to shop. There are
[ Page 12874 ]
also many activities.
My colleague from the north talked about some of the outdoor activities. We here in greater Victoria also have an opportunity for people to be able to use greater Victoria as the gateway to the rest of Vancouver Island for camping, for fishing, for an opportunity to do those hikes, those outdoor activities.
First Nations tourism is a huge, growing area in British Columbia, and we're going to see that right here on Vancouver Island as well. We have an Aboriginal Tourism Association. That, again, is something that really is taking off, and visitors are looking now in tourism for more of an experience.
They don't simply want to travel, stay in a hotel, spend their dollars and go home. People are looking for an experience as part of their vacation, so this is another example where we have a huge opportunity and a huge advantage in British Columbia and on Vancouver Island to be looking at aboriginal tourism, to be looking at expanding those opportunities.
We also have destinations. I don't think there is anyone who thinks of Victoria and greater Victoria without thinking of Butchart Gardens, again, one of the jewels of our area, one of the most important destinations and often one of those places that people want to check off when they come to travel to Vancouver Island and travel to greater Victoria.
Then, of course, we can't forget things like arts and culture, sports. Those are, again, opportunities. People may not think of them in the tourism phrase, but often arts and culture and sports are the reasons that people come to cities and then come back, travel back again to visit. So that is another area where it's critically important that we support and encourage the life of a community, which brings tourists to it.
What happens with Bill 3? What is the result of Bill 3? I think it's important to recognize that this bill does go some way to fix a problem that the Liberals created. It goes partway there. I'm certainly pleased to see industry back at the table. That was something that was a huge strength of Tourism B.C. It was a real strength that the tourism operators and businesses have really said has been missing the last number of years. So I'm glad to see that come back.
One of the things that is critical in the tourism industry is to be able to be nimble, to be able to respond immediately to changes in the market. Tourism is a fickle business, as many people say, because you do have so many choices and so many opportunities that if you're not able to be nimble, if you're not able to move quickly and to react, you face that huge competition and you'll start falling behind.
Looking for new markets — not simply relying on the existing markets that we've had but actually to look at new markets — is critical as well. That was the real strength of Tourism B.C. It was arm's-length. It was industry-led. It was independent. It was an organization that was able to meet the quick needs.
I certainly hope that we'll see this with this direction. But I'm concerned, because there's still an ability — and I know we'll talk about this more at committee stage — for government to interfere, for government to be able to control where those resources are spent. We don't need to look any further than the government advertising to know where dollars can be scooped for tourism. They can be scooped for government's own partisan purposes.
I think all of us who live in communities that benefit from the dollars that come in around tourism know that those are scarce dollars and that they should be spent encouraging and promoting tourism of all kinds, all across our province. Those are the kinds of things that should be occurring, so I worry. I worry about the ability for government to still interfere.
Then I think the other thing that is important to say, as I wrap up, is the fact that we had a perfectly good organization in place, and the government took it apart. Now they're coming back and saying: "Okay. Well, we think this is a good idea." Well, it was a good idea a number of years ago, as well, when it was in place. I have to say I think that's a terrible way to govern.
When I think of the waste of resources; when I think of the waste of time; when I think of the experts who were around that table and we now lost their expertise, who were there; when I think of all of the human resource energy that went into taking apart an organization, creating something back inside government again, and now we're going to go back to an organization again — all of that could have been used around promoting tourism. All of that could have been used to promote economic growth and economic development in the tourism area.
So while I'm glad to support the bill and the direction we are heading, which is to sort of put back what was there, I do so with disappointment. I do so with disappointment, because I feel that this is something that was in place, that was working well, that industry supported and that the tourism industry supported.
In fact, we’ve lost those years, and we are now playing catch-up in a very difficult economic time, in a very difficult tourism-competitive market, when we could have used those years to be able to build on the Olympics, to be able to build on the opportunities that were there and to be able to encourage that kind of economic growth.
I will be, as I said, supporting this bill. I wish we hadn't had to bring it forward. I wish we were still looking at Tourism B.C. that was in place so that we could have had those many years of good tourism economic activity in British Columbia and in my community.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.
[ Page 12875 ]
Hon. P. Bell: Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that.
I have listened carefully to members from the opposite side of the House and members from this side of the House during the debate. While there's much that I agree with, I think there are some important points that we need to talk about just for a minute.
One is that, certainly, I heard conflicting reports about Tourism B.C. In fact, in parts of the province and in many of the rural parts of the province, people didn't feel that it accurately represented their interests or delivered on the promise of tourism. What we are seeing, I think, actually is a pretty positive turnaround in all parts of British Columbia.
That's why I'm particularly excited about the new tourism marketing committee, because it does provide for equal representation from all parts of the province. We have three representatives from each of the six tourism regions in the province, and that is unique. It's unique to British Columbia. I think it's a very good model.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
It's one that allows for representation regardless of whether you're from Burns Lake or from Victoria. Actually, when the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill stood up, I for some reason was thinking she was from Burns Lake. I don't know why, except….
Interjection.
Hon. P. Bell: Yeah, second home for her, I guess.
But I think that's important that we manage that. Tourism B.C. tended to be a bit focused on what was often referred to as the golden triangle — Vancouver, Victoria, Whistler. I think the fact that we have this new model is a good one. It has taken some time to get there.
I was musing…. It would be unfair of me to get through an entire second reading speech without commenting on the opposition critic's age at some point in time or another. I was thinking that I know it has taken us two years to develop this new model. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable point in time until I realized that that represents about 7 percent of the member opposite's age, so he aged significantly during that period of time. What can I say? I'm a math guy, I guess.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think that there has been some good debate. I'm looking forward to the committee phase of the bill, and with that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 3 be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 3, Destination BC Corp. 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: Mr. Speaker, I call now second reading of Bill 5, intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013.
BILL 5 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2013
Hon. T. Lake: I move that this bill be read a second time.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Hon. T. Lake: This bill continues the work of this government to fulfil agreements reached through multi-stakeholder and public land use planning processes and government-to-government discussions with First Nations. In addition, the bill supports economic development.
[D. Black in the chair.]
These amendments are critical in balancing the economic needs of communities with our environmental stewardship responsibilities.
The majority of the new lands that are being added to the parks and protected areas system are a result of extensive government-to-government agreements with First Nations and multi-stakeholder and public land use planning processes.
This bill will implement the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, goal 2, which is the special feature process. It will lead to the establishment of 17 new class A parks and additions to five existing class A parks in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region, adding over 18,000 hectares to the provincial area's protected system.
These amendments also implement the outcomes of two other land use planning processes and government-to-government agreements with First Nations. First, the establishment of the Ne’ah conservancy will implement recommendations from the Dease-Liard sustainable resource management plan and the Kaska strategic land use plan. Second, the establishment of the Hanna-Tintina conservancy will implement recommendations from the Nass South sustainable resource management plan and the Gitanyow Huwilp recognition and reconciliation agreement.
Over 257,000 hectares will be added to the provincial protected areas system as a result of the establishment of these two new conservancies.
Bill 5 also contains amendments to establish two new class A parks — Denman Island Park and Gerald Island Park — as a result of private land acquisitions.
[ Page 12876 ]
You may recall that the Ministry of Environment and partners were awarded the Premier's Award for promoting innovation and excellence for the Denman Island acquisition in the spring of 2011. The amendments will also add lands to one existing ecological reserve as a result of a private land acquisition and to one existing class A park. That's Boyle Point on Denman Island.
These areas contribute to the protection of the coastal Douglas fir ecosystem, which is rare in B.C.'s protected areas system.
This bill also supports economic development initiatives being led by the government. First, the amendments modify the boundary of Elk Falls Park to enable B.C. Hydro to proceed with the replacement of the John Hart generating station project near Campbell River.
If these amendments are passed, the Ministry of Environment intends to seek approval to establish the lands proposed to be removed from the park as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act. This will allow the project to proceed while still enabling B.C. Parks to continue to manage recreational use and environmental protection on these lands. At the end of the project it is expected that some of these lands that are not needed for the ongoing operation of the generation station, as well as additional lands provided by B.C. Hydro, will be added to the park.
Second, in support of the construction of the proposed correctional facility near Oliver, the amendments modify the boundary of Inkaneep Park, removing 0.24 of a hectare to provide for a secondary access road to the facility. Approximately 0.9 of a hectare of high-value habitat on Crown land to the north of the park is proposed to be added to the park as a mitigation measure for the boundary modification.
This bill also corrects an overlap with an existing woodlot licence by removing 7.3 hectares from Mara Meadows Park and 0.88 of a hectare from Upper Violet Creek Park to enable the restoration of an existing breakwater. Also, less than 0.1 hectare of foreshore area will be removed from Wakes Cove Park.
Finally, the amendments cancel one existing class A park. Truman Dagnus Locheed Park will be cancelled and the land subsequently transferred to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, which will negotiate a long-term lease with the regional district of North Okanagan for park purposes.
This is a very comprehensive addition to our parks and protected areas for a number of reasons, for protection as well as economic development, and I hope that the members opposite will join us in supporting the bill.
R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for his introductory remarks to this stage of debate on the bill. He concluded by wondering aloud how it will be received by the opposition. I can tell him that the opposition will be supporting this bill, but I think there are some opportunities to make comments about the context under which this bill was developed and tabled in the here and now in 2013 — about, specifically, the state of B.C. Parks.
I know that a number of members on this side of the House also wish to speak to specific elements of this amendment act that touch upon their constituencies or, indeed, the lives of constituents that they represent in the case of the Pacific Northwest and other parts of this province. So we'll have some comments to say.
I appreciate the minister's comments about the importance of parks on other occasions and protected areas, and I agree. And legislation like this today builds upon many, many decades of efforts in every region of the province of British Columbia to preserve things that are unique, that are areas of specific beauty or biological diversity or ecological importance in general.
Of course, we have a very specific responsibility in British Columbia, because this corner of the continent of North America is in fact, by a long measure, an area that is ecologically more rich than any other part of this continent also within Canada. In terms of the numbers of species at risk, both flora and fauna, British Columbia faces the greatest challenge.
I hope that we will see further legislation on species at risk from the province of British Columbia, because it's been 12 years where we have seen none. Indeed, we are one of only two provinces that does not have such stand-alone legislation at this point in time.
I also think it's important for us to be talking about parks and protected areas and their importance to human health and the health of communities.
We face a crisis — and I think that's the appropriate word — of young people participating in outdoor activities as we have not seen ever before in modern times. The precipitous drop of young people who on a weekly, monthly basis participate and use the outdoors…. Here, but in affluent societies and countries like Canada and places like British Columbia, that has been in free fall.
There are big repercussions, I think, some of which we haven't even conceived of in terms of people's relationships with their natural environment and alienation from them if they do not understand and utilize them, but also, I think, in terms that we would well understand, with regards to childhood obesity and diabetes and other strains in modern society that have financial implications and that parks present a way to address.
This bill adds hectares to the B.C. Parks system in a number of different areas. There is the Mount Maxwell Ecological Reserve, which I think represents a unique partnership with private philanthropists and conservation groups that is welcome, that completes work that was undertaken by governments previously. Those are things that we support in this bill.
The Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, which has long
[ Page 12877 ]
advanced a number of goals for and identification of potential park areas. This bill will bring that to fruition. Those are conversations that go back a long time in that region — planning exercises.
Of course, the conservancies in the northwest of British Columbia that are established here are very critically important. Congratulations should be offered to the First Nations that were involved in those discussions. The interest in conservation and sustainability that First Nations leadership offered to British Columbia then became included in the legislation we're discussing today.
I will look forward to the comments of my colleague from the region specifically about some of the individuals who were involved with the creation of the Hanna-Tintina conservancy, from the Gitanyow and the Kaska strategic land use plan, that has been set down in this legislation.
Then there are other, I would say, housekeeping elements to this bill that, as a matter of course, have to be considered by the Legislature. Where there are deletions of parks, the minister has given some reasons as to the specific need for doing that, and the securities that have been gained to return lands once there have been deletions made for service roads and those kinds of things. At committee stage I suspect we will have a number of other questions about exactly how that will work.
I have canvassed a number of stakeholder organizations, who I think perform a very critical service for British Columbia around land use policy, about Bill 5. It was unfortunate — it was reported back to me — that a number of organizations that contacted the Ministry of Environment in regards to this bill were unable to be responded to in advance of this debate.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
There are other organizations that have been working with third parties who represent some of the work that has gone into this legislation, who very clearly have announced their support of it. The Nature Trust is one. I think the Canadian boreal initiative represents a very long and strategic accomplishment with the Kaska First Nation that really deserves credit and recognition and thanks, which I wish to offer at this opportunity in the debate.
That all aside, we are talking about B.C.'s park systems this afternoon. We are talking about adding hectares to a system that has for years been known to this government to be under considerable strain as a result of actions that they have taken during their time of office.
Much of the information that we know about the poor state of B.C. Parks today is because organizations have had to seek the information using the freedom-of-information process that we have, using the media to examine firsthand the poor state of many of the parks in different regions around British Columbia.
There was a very significant package of documents obtained by freedom of information in 2011 that I think, because it wasn't so long ago, deserves to be discussed here this afternoon. The Wilderness Committee needs to be specifically thanked for obtaining some of the documentation so that British Columbians have a better understanding about the current baseline of how well parks are managed in British Columbia, because we're about to, should this legislation become law, add more to the park inventory in British Columbia.
"How are we doing today?" is the question that I think is relevant to this debate. The situation is not exactly pretty. What we know is that basic services — things like ranger patrols, trail maintenance — have been cut to the point where vandalism has increased and the potential for human injury and environmental damage has risen.
These are not the opinions of park user groups, although those are valid opinions. These are from freedom-of-information-obtained documents of e-mails between staff who work for Ministry of Environment and who work for the park service of British Columbia. That is the synopsis given from inside the ministry about what the situation is today.
In the freedom-of-information request of these documents…. I want to go on because the Province newspaper, to their credit, did a very good exposé. The findings reported are that in many parts of British Columbia — specifically, we're talking about some class A parks here — there are parks now where ranger patrol is not even a feature during some of the busiest times of the camping season. There are conditions where trails have become overgrown and environmental damage has increased.
Budgetary constraints are so severe in the park system, and we're being asked to stretch those dollars even further. That's one of the implications of this bill that we're discussing this afternoon. Currently budgets are so constrained that even small projects cannot be approved. One of the projects that was exposed in the Garibaldi Park area was a safety project that was unable to be completed. This is the situation throughout British Columbia, but this is a specific example. Bumper rails on bridges could not be replaced because there was no money for the materials and the labour to replace this kind of parks infrastructure.
Another e-mail between staff talked about how replacing a bridge's rotten planks could not be accomplished because, again, there is so little money available in the B.C. Parks system. I mean, this is a shocking depiction that many members of the public have only been made aware of recently — about how steady this deterioration of the situation is today in B.C.'s park system. We just celebrated the 100th anniversary of B.C.'s parks, and all of this was going on simultaneously. This was the situation in the park system that we built up for the better part of a century.
[ Page 12878 ]
I mentioned safety concerns earlier. We've even heard in that batch of e-mails concerns from rangers and members of the public about bear safety — that problem bears couldn't be controlled because, again, sometimes that requires the approval of overtime or something that has even the slightest budgetary implication.
This must be a very frustrating workplace to work in. I mean, these are the voices of actual staff working in the ministry, working in the park system, that were unearthed during this information request. I think it paints a very sad picture. But I would also note that during all of this time that the contents of these documents and correspondence and conversations were going on, there were decisions being made by government around B.C. Parks.
I must say that — you'll understand this, Madam Speaker — the B.C. Liberals are never ones to miss a taxpayer-funded opportunity for advertising. At the same time that all of this parks infrastructure was going unrepaired, we had B.C. Parks advertising during the Canucks playoff run, during the 100th anniversary — so wall-to-wall coverage on the most expensive slots to promote how great the government is. "And oh, by the way, don't you love your parks?" Meanwhile, the situation in the parks had gotten to the stage that I've described through the voices of people that work in that very park system.
I want to quote somebody who I think is very wise on the situation that we are describing here this afternoon. I think her comments were misplaced some 12 years ago, but the arguments today are certainly not. That was when the member for Point Grey, the Premier of British Columbia, was upset that B.C. would become the first jurisdiction to honour the United Nations goal to set aside 12 percent of its land base in protected areas. She was upset about that at the time because she didn't feel that there were enough resources being added to the protected area strategy of government.
Well, I'll get into the numbers of what the budget was at that time, but if I can read her quote, because I think it's accurate here…. It comes from Hansard. The Premier today, the member for Point Grey, said: "If government is indeed serious about creating parks in British Columbia, they should devote some money to it. Unless there is a financial commitment to build these parks and to manage these parks and to enforce the rules on these parks, it doesn't mean very much."
Well, that's a very appropriate comment today, because we have seen what has happened to funding levels under this government for the better part of a decade, and we have seen the implications of the failure to appreciate and properly resource B.C.'s park system. If the Premier's comments back then, when she was an opposition member…. If she felt she was justified in saying them, how does she feel today that we're debating Bill 5? Would she agree with what she said back then, when the funding situation was much better per hectare and overall in government? Would she feel that much more strongly about it today, now that she leads the government that has failed to do anything about the situation today? I wonder.
I wonder, because the numbers do speak for themselves. Funding for B.C. Parks in real dollar terms has fallen by $10.7 million since this government came to power. In 2001, B.C. Parks funding stood at $40.6 million. Today it's down to $29 million annually — less than the budget for government communications, I might add. We spend more on spinning the message of this government through what was once called the public affairs bureau and is now called the GCPE — more money there than on 14 million hectares of land around British Columbia. Unbelievable, but true.
We have seen year-round ranger positions drop 60 percent since 2001. I mentioned some of the anecdotes about what that means in terms of compromise of park users' safety.
This has not gone unnoticed, as I mentioned earlier. One of the reports that I think has been useful in terms of establishing a baseline…. Clearly, the members across the way are not going to accept some of the statements I'm making this afternoon. They don't like to hear it. The independent Auditor General did do an examination of B.C.'s parks and protected areas in 2010. That's not very long ago. The findings, I think, were astounding to those who read the report.
I want to just summarize very quickly what some of the key findings were, because again, it's relevant to the debate around Bill 5 — the new additions because of this legislation. These new amendments will put into the land base inventory that is protected. They will fall into the same poorly managed planning scheme that exists today for the other areas of the province.
Here's what the Auditor General found. "Program plans are incomplete and lack adequate performance measures. Conservation policies are not being consistently upheld. The parks and protected area system has not been designed to ensure ecological integrity. Management plans are dated and incomplete. Little action has been taken to ensure the conservation of ecological integrity."
Those are pretty shocking findings. It suggests that the planning process and how well managed B.C.'s protected areas are have a vast amount of room for improvement. To date, in the year since that report was produced, we haven't seen the kind of response to those recommendations that I think are deserving.
I've talked about the situation in B.C.'s parks. I've mentioned and quoted from documents that were obtained by freedom of information. I think the other numbers that speak for themselves are the ones that the government reports themselves, and those are really around parks usage.
[ Page 12879 ]
If the situation is so bad — and I've suggested that through a variety of independent sources, including the sources from within government, that the situation is indeed bad — then I would suggest that what support what I'm saying and what I've made in my remarks today are the numbers from B.C. Parks itself.
There has been a 13 percent decline in B.C.'s parks use since 2001. Day use of park users in particular is down 16 percent. People have voted with their feet. They abandoned B.C.'s park system by the millions of annual visits per year in year after year of this government's performance.
Now, the Auditor General said that this government lacks good performance measures for the parks and protected areas of British Columbia. Well, they have a couple of performance measures that they do report on. One of them is parks usage. It was in free fall for year after year during the tenure of this government. I think that is quite indicative of the actual situation in parks. British Columbians deserve much, much better.
We've had a B.C. parks system that has been destaffed. We have a maintenance crisis that has grown over many, many years, and that's a problem. Now we're considering legislation to add more parks in areas of the province that deserve protected status, but they will be coming into an inventory that is managed in this manner.
So while we support the legislation, while we support this bill, we also realize that there is an incredible amount of work to do to make B.C.'s park system the pride that it used to represent for British Columbians around every region of this province, in every corner of B.C., to make the B.C. parks experience soar, competitive with our neighbouring jurisdictions.
We had a debate earlier about tourism. B.C. parks are incredibly important to the tourism economy of British Columbia, and we need to be mindful of that. People need to come to British Columbia and have a first-class experience in our parks system. Otherwise, they will simply take their dollars and go elsewhere.
We have fallen behind under 12 years of this government. The situation has become intolerable. That's not just the view of the opposition. That's the view of employees who work in the ministry. That's the view of alpine clubs and park user organizations around British Columbia who have lost volunteers, who cannot get funding to maintain the parks that they dearly love.
That's the situation that has to change, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment this afternoon.
J. Rustad: I'm rising today to speak to this bill, because all of us have experienced parks in B.C. All of us that grew up in B.C. have spent some time out camping, out hiking around and just enjoying the beauty and the scenic values that parks and protected areas in British Columbia provide to all of the people, not just from here but people around the world that come to see our parks.
Our park system is a fabulous system. It has many aspects to it, from the ecological side to, of course, much broader strokes, in terms of what creates, really, British Columbia and identifies us as a society.
I'm actually rising today to speak against this bill — not because I'm opposed to adding areas to the park, not because I think that these particular areas wouldn't be a good addition to that fabric, to that network that we have in the province. I'm opposed because I'm trying to understand where B.C. will be 50 years, 100 years, 200 years from now.
At what point do we have enough parks in our system? The United Nations has suggested that developed countries should have a 12 percent target in their park system. In British Columbia in the 1990s I think we were around 6 percent. Today we're around 14½ percent in terms of parks and protected area. We're over and above what the target is for the United Nations.
That's not a bad thing, as I said. Our park network is a great asset for the people of British Columbia. But the challenge is that we have other interests in the province of British Columbia as well.
I'll just give you an example. This bill adds more than 257,000 hectares into our park system. Now, that's a lot of land, and those pieces that are being added are good pieces. They're part of agreements. They're part of discussions and negotiations. But if we were to, say, take a similar amount — say 257,000 hectares — for forestry, if it was forested up in the Interior, we're talking about 65 million cubic metres of wood. If it was forested on the coast, we're talking 125 million cubic metres of wood.
Now, these particular pieces don't have those types of wood values, and I understand that. But when you consider that size of area and what that could potentially mean for other activities in the forest — our economy; in particular our forest economy — that's pretty significant. That is an awful lot of value.
From my perspective what I'd like to see is: where is our target? We've got around 14½ percent. Is that our target? Is 15 percent? Is 20 percent? There are some groups out there that would like to see 50 percent.
Where is our target, and what is it that we're going to do in terms of managing to get to that target and to be able to manage that target when we have the negotiations with First Nations, when we have other specific values? What are we going to do? Are we going to start talking about taking some out because we'd like to add some in, or are we in a pattern where we will just be continually adding parkland into the province of British Columbia, to the detriment of our industrial base?
Parks are a huge asset. They're things that we all enjoy. They are things that we all want to see, whether it's for fishing, hiking, taking pictures, seeing wildlife — there's such a tremendous amount — protecting biodiversity,
[ Page 12880 ]
protecting species at risk. But at some point we have to grapple, as a province, with what we want to see in the province and what other types of activities we want also to be able to promote and to see prosper over the years.
To that end, there are important components of this bill that I hope to see go forward. I'm not opposed to the idea of adding the parks, but I am opposed because of the principle — that I would like to see us set a target as to what we will be managing in the province of British Columbia for our future and for our future generations.
D. Donaldson: I'm very happy to take my place for second reading of Bill 5 today, but things just keep getting more and more interesting in this Legislature, last week and this week. Here we have a member of the government, the member for Nechako Lakes, standing up just prior to myself here, saying he's opposed to the government's own bill, Bill 5.
This bill has many good aspects, and I note that the member for Nechako Lakes is very concerned about the future and the economy of B.C. Yet Bill 5, which we're discussing in second reading, has important consequences from the Gitanyow recognition and reconciliation agreement, from the Kaska land use plan.
Here we have a member of the government side standing up in opposition to the bill and, therefore, to those two agreements. One can only wonder what kind of chaos this kind of opposition would create for future economic opportunities and future opportunities for the people of B.C. As I said, things just get more and more interesting in this Legislature, and it seems more and more chaotic on the government side.
I would like to make some comments about Bill 5, and I want to congratulate the different organizations and First Nations, and the government, in achieving the considerations in this bill. I also want to talk a little bit about what could have been done better.
Specifically, I'm rising today to talk about two of the conservancy areas that will be part of this bill that are in Stikine, the Hanna-Tintina conservancy area and the Ne'ah conservancy area.
The Hanna-Tintina is on Gitanyow traditional territory, hon. Speaker. It's part of Bill 5, section 6. It starts on the shores of Meziadin Lake and goes north on Highway 37, straddling both sides of the highway. I've camped on the shores of Meziadin Lake in Meziadin Lake Provincial Park. Tintina Creek drains into Meziadin Lake. A little further north is Hanna Creek.
This is a very important fisheries area. It's 23,702 hectares that are outlined in this act — very important. The Hanna-Tintina watershed provides about 95 percent of the Gitanyow subsistence sockeye and supports about 80 percent of the Nass River sockeye population. That's because of the Hanna and Tintina creeks that eventually drain into Meziadin Lake. Meziadin Lake drains into Meziadin River. Just downstream it joins the Nass River. So a very beautiful part of the province, and very important ecologically.
The Ne'ah conservancy area is east of Boya Lake, further north on Highway 37 — in fact, not too far south of the Yukon border. Boya Lake, again, is a provincial park. I've camped there — very warm, if some people can believe that. It's so close to the Yukon border, but the lake is very warm.
The Ne'ah conservancy in this Bill 5 is 230,304 hectares. Again, it's east of Boya Lake, south of the Yukon border. It drains into the Dease and the Liard rivers, and it's part of the Arctic watershed. The Kaska of Lower Post and the Kaska of Good Hope Lake use this area traditionally, and, as I said, the Horseranch Range and Deadwood River were part of the Kaska land use plan that created this conservancy. Again, the government should be congratulated on that aspect.
There are some causes for concern around the Hanna-Tintina under Bill 5, and I'll give an example of that. We took a long time getting to the Hanna-Tintina conservancy. Some of that is due to lack of attention by the government, and it has resulted in delays associated with the northern transmission line. The Hanna-Tintina was part of Gitanyow's concerns around the original route of the northern transmission line. They actually filed a document in 2007, so six years ago now, hon. Speaker. Finally, Bill 5, which we're discussing today, addresses those concerns.
Again, there have been already two delays in the completion of the northern transmission line. If the current government had actually paid attention in 2007, six years ago, when the Gitanyow had meetings with the B.C. Transmission Corporation, with B.C. Hydro, with ministries involved, with Golder Associates, the government consultant…. When they had those meetings in 2007 around the original route of the northern transmission line, they laid out their concerns about that route going through the Hanna-Tintina. When the northern transmission line was resurrected in 2009, B.C. Transmission Corporation had no record of that meeting in 2007. They had no documentation that the Gitanyow had presented to this government in 2007.
I think that's a major concern, because we do need certain types of developments in the north. If the government isn't listening and isn't paying attention to concerns of First Nations from six years ago — and, again, from 2009, which was four years ago — then it leads to delays. As a result, we've seen this agreement taking longer than it should have and causing delays. Again, the northern transmission line has been delayed twice in its completion.
Although I congratulate the government and the Gitanyow and the Kaska on the creation of these conservancies, when you look back on the history, especially
[ Page 12881 ]
around the Hanna-Tintina and how we finally got here, then it is cause for concern.
What we need to do in this Legislature, and what the government needs to do, is to learn from those kinds of lessons. In relation to Bill 5, the lesson that needs to be learned is to not ignore First Nations concerns. Then we will see fewer delays in projects that are responsible development that are supported by First Nations and other northern communities.
What we're faced with right now…. The Gitanyow, again, are faced with another situation like this around a proposed opening of a winter road by a proponent concerned with Avanti Mining. There are many benefits from that potential mine, but the Gitanyow have written to the minister, just February 15, about their concerns. They're participating in seven environmental assessment office processes, and they wanted to get a little more time to consider the documentation by a proponent to reopen this road — very many concerns around moose habitat, for instance, and moose populations. They're anxious to hear back from the minister in relation to that.
If the government can get on to this, then we won't see the situations like in Bill 5, where we've had longer-than-necessary discussions because the documents weren't taken seriously back in 2007, and then again having to go through the process in 2009. That could have been avoided.
I'd like to wrap up my discussion in second reading of Bill 5 to say that I congratulate the First Nations in Stikine who have negotiated successfully with the government on the Hanna-Tintina conservancy — the Gitanyow — and with the Kaska under their land use plan on the Ne'ah conservancy.
I hope that we can deal in committee stage with exactly what conservancy means in regards to what kinds of activities are still permitted in these two conservancy areas. This is an example of finally getting to some agreements with First Nations that will help reduce delays. It could have happened a little more quickly in the case of the Gitanyow. We have the opportunity for that to happen again, with their request for the meeting with the minister on another matter, around Avanti Mining.
I totally disagree with the member for Nechako Lakes, who is opposing this bill put forward by the Minister of Environment and his own government, in that these recognition and reconciliation agreements and the Kaska LUP that are part of this document are the way forward, are the way to ensure a more certain future and ensure that we can share the land base and have development that's responsible development and still have areas where wild salmon have pristine areas to spawn, because that's also an important part of the future.
Thank you very much for this time, and I look forward to the committee stage.
C. Trevena: I stand up to speak on Bill 5, actually with great pleasure. When I saw the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, I opened it with great anticipation, because the people of Quadra Island have been working for many years, a core group of people over many years — most recently this number has grown — to try and link two provincial parks between Wyatt Bay and Small Inlet. There's one area there that they've been working diligently to get into the park system.
The community, which is a small community, is very much a hard-working community without that much money. It managed to raise on its own $200,000 to help purchase the park, which I think should be congratulated no end — to the people of the island.
There are some other land deals going on to actually obtain this. I had hoped that when I opened this bill it would be the final sign that we had that piece of land committed. Unfortunately, I think it's something we're going to still have to work on for a little bit of time to make sure we can get it.
I would hope that in the next protected areas amendment act, unlike the member for Nechako Lakes, we actually see another expansion of a park and see the values that we have in parks, not just for the tourism but the values of protection that we have in parks, the certain areas enhanced.
Parks have a lot of…. They're not just for tourists. In that area it is to protect some of the trees, protect some of the diversity that's there. I think that there are a lot of good things there that can happen. So let's hope that next time round we have that piece in, in a similar bill.
The reason I'm standing up to talk about this bill in particular…. Unlike the member for Nechako Lakes, I actually think that there's a lot of value in protecting land in bills such as this and in recognizing that we have a very diverse province, that it is not all there just as a resource.
There are very valuable resources. I represent logging and forestry communities, and it's very good to have that resource, but there has to be the give-and-take. So I think it's good that we are seeing an extension of parks and an extension of protected areas.
My colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake, the opposition critic for Environment, the shadow to the minister, was very eloquent on the problems that have occurred in the parks system for at least the last decade in the retraction of money — the problems that we see daily.
If you go to the parks, really, you can see a deterioration there. For people who go for holidays, and it's their only holiday year on year, that might be the only time they actually get to a provincial park. They can see the deterioration.
I'm very lucky that in my constituency I have a number of provincial parks, and they are largely very well kept. But you can see certain things, like: how often do we see toilets cleaned and so on? We see the problems that we have in a broader sphere.
[ Page 12882 ]
It's not just the parks. It's the whole conservation and environmental commitment, I'd say. We've also lost our conservation officers for the north Island. I mentioned that in my response to the throne speech. We see a lack of stewardship. We see a lack of oversight. And it all compounds.
So while we have this bill that is looking at increasing protected areas, looking at certain parks and enhancing certain parks, the real failing for it is the fact that we aren't getting the resources in that. As my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake mentioned, that lack of resource has been noticed not just by people who live here and people who use the parks but by the staff themselves.
The irony of my speech here is that I'm standing up to support this bill because it's taking out a section from a park. I love parks, but I'm very pleased to see that this bill has come before the House so early in our very brief session. I know we're only here for a few weeks, but it was important that this came early so that B.C. Hydro can move on with its planned project to replace the John Hart generating station.
To do that, it needed to have two things in this period. It needed BCUC to give its final support, and that happened last week. Now it needed this paragraph that is in Bill 5 that removes part of Elk Falls Provincial Park from the park and will allow B.C. Hydro to get on with construction of the John Hart generating station.
I'm not sure how many people have actually been to Elk Falls Provincial Park. It's only three hours up the highway. It's a beautiful park. It really is. Lovely camping there right on the Quinsam River, and there are some trails there, so great for fishing. There are other trails on the Campbell River — also wonderful fishing and wonderful for that.
The Campbell River is also where the John Hart dam is. It's part of the connection of the heritage dams that classically provide our hydro on the Island through the Upper Campbell Lake and the John Hart dam. So it is connected. You've got the wonderful natural beauty all around, the fabulous river, and then the industry of the hydro dam.
What Hydro needed is the access to start its work. The removal of this land and the adjustment to the boundary allows it to start some of the early preparation work.
The John Hart dam is a major project. It's a huge capital project. It is something that, as I say, we were very much anticipating to come forward, because we are looking for this project to be able to start moving to the next stages.
It's a $1.2 billion project, which is going to replace the generating station which is 65 years old. It's also going to be replacing 1.8 kilometres of old pipeline. You can go up and see it if you want to. You get this great view of wooden pipes coming out. You're on top of the dam and seeing these wooden pipes come out. It's really, really fun.
So it's constructing a new generating station, building a new water intake and a water bypass facility. The other thing is that the area also provides the water for the city of Campbell River. So it really is vital for the integrity of the dam — 65 years old — for the integrity of the generating station and for the water supply of the city that this moves on. As I say, we got BCUC approval last week, so this is the last stage in the puzzle.
B.C. Hydro has about 100 hectares around the John Hart area. To put that in perspective, Elk Falls Provincial Park is 1,100 hectares, so this is a comparatively small footprint just on the edge of the park. It's approximately six hectares that are going to be removed for the time being.
I've got to say, something that B.C. Hydro has been very good about is its consultation when we have major capital projects in a community — to consult widely, to keep people very much in the loop. I have to commend B.C. Hydro for its very regular, very broad stakeholder meetings.
We have other capital projects happening in the community — the construction of a new hospital — and unfortunately, with the health authority we haven't seen the equal amount of consultation — definitely not public consultation.
So it's really good to see the fact that we've got such wide consultation. People know what's happening. They've been taken along every step of the way. The community really…. It's not looking at it just for the jobs aspect, that this is going to be very important for jobs for the community. It feels very much a part of the community and very much a sense of ownership of the rebuild.
What's going to happen once the project is complete…. It's going to be about four or five years until the project is complete, and there are, obviously, several hundred jobs every year. They talk about how many person-years of jobs. It's well up into the thousands. But when it is complete, the area that isn't still needed for the operating of the facility — which is going to be about less than half a hectare — is going to go back into park status. So while this is being taken out, and there is always the caution, it will be returned. It will come back into the park.
B.C. Hydro has been very, very good at ensuring that the trails along the river are maintained, that there will be diversions so that you can still do that wonderful hiking trail along the Campbell River there even when the construction is taking place. They've been very, very cognizant of the fact that this is such an integral part of the community. It is only a couple of kilometres from downtown. You just cross over the highway, and you're there right on the edge of the park.
It is a very well used area. Many hikers, many joggers, many dog walkers go up there. So it really is important both that the project is embraced within the community so people don't feel discomforted by it but that Hydro recognizes that and is working so cau-
[ Page 12883 ]
tiously on its plan.
By moving ahead with this, it will allow some of the early preparation work before the construction starts — access roads, parking lots, realigning some of the access roads to the powerhouse at Highway 28 and ensuring that the trail system will be able to be constructed so people can carry on using the trail system in that way as the construction continues.
As I say, I'm not usually one to stand up and talk about how positive it is to remove any parkland, once we've got it established as parkland. I think it's something that we have to protect and invest in to make sure that we can enjoy the parks as individuals and that we can have the diversity of wildlife, of animals, of everything that we expect when we go to a park — that it's all there. We don't necessarily see it, but we know it's there because it is protected.
It is a park that has easy access and, because it is industrial, sometimes can feel like it is going to be just ignored. But because it has the easy access, I think that's one of the reasons why it's important to have both the consultation and the awareness that when we're taking something out, it will go back in.
I think that B.C. Hydro has worked on this very, very cautiously and hasn't taken off, basically, any more than is needed. Among those organizations that are very clearly supportive of this bill, not surprisingly — as you always look for supporters of a bill…. We have the list. We've got the Western Canada Wilderness. We've got this; we've got that. Of course, B.C. Hydro is a very strong proponent, as is the Campbell River and District Chamber of Commerce, as is, obviously, the city.
There are a lot of people who will be extremely supportive, seeing this piece of legislation passed, because it is a matter, then, of being able to move on and get the generating station project underway, get the bids out and get the work started. We are very excited.
It's one of those things…. We have the heritage of parks. We've had the Campbell River. It's obviously such an important river for the community and, traditionally, has been such. The parks have become such a part of the community.
But B.C. Hydro is also part of the community. It's what helped build Campbell River. The construction of the heritage dams in the '50s really did help build Campbell River. So to have this opportunity of the generating station being replaced, of having major investment from B.C. Hydro, is extraordinarily important for the community.
It's almost…. We have a big city there now. This was not going to create a new city, but it will help revitalize. There is no question that it's going to help revitalize the community, and it will bring more people in who can use the parks and can enjoy the parks, can enjoy the fishing and can make sure that there is a future there.
So it's a piece of legislation that we are very pleased with in the community. We hope that it will mean that things can move on comparatively smoothly, that there won't be too many things that delay it, that we can actually start seeing this and that it will, at the same time, help bring more tourists to our area, because there will actually be the visibility of the construction.
One of the other aspects that's going to happen when it's being rebuilt is that the Rotary in Campbell River is going to be raising money to construct a suspension bridge across the canyon, up by the dam. It is going to be the highest suspension bridge in Canada, I believe. It's definitely higher than the Capilano Suspension Bridge. I'm very cognizant of this fact, as a person with vertigo. I know that many, many people will enjoy that suspension bridge. I will not be one of them. I will be on the ground, looking up and admiring it from a safe and level area.
It's all part of, really, the revitalization of the area. It's going to be very, very important for the community. While I think we want to protect land — we want to ensure that we have parks in our province that are protected — we want the protected areas to be not just in name only but that there be investment there. I think that for my own constituency, this is a good move. I'd still hoped to have seen the Quadra park there. Hopefully, it will come soon.
With that, I'll take my place, thank the minister for bringing this in and hope that it will mean that we get those many thousands of person-hours working on the reconstruction pretty quickly.
M. Sather: In the brief time remaining, I want to add a few comments regarding the bill, which I certainly welcome wholeheartedly. I thank the minister and staff for doing the work that they've done to bring what look like valuable — and I'm sure they are — acquisitions to the park.
I did have an opportunity to look at the maps, but one can't tell all that much about elevation and so on from the map. I hope at committee stage to have a chance to ask the minister some more specific questions.
I can't help but comment on the comments by the member for Nechako Lakes in saying that…. First of all, it's peculiar, given that there's all this angst about the budget vote tomorrow, that he stands in the House to oppose his government. Also, I might add, there are at least three supporters of his opposition to this bill.
The point that he makes is that we could be going on with parks forever, although he said that it's his understanding — and it's probably better than mine, I expect — that the amount of forestry values in these parks is not that considerable. My colleague from Stikine was mentioning that the large area that he spoke of does not have high forestry values.
[ Page 12884 ]
Nonetheless, the point to be made is that I don't think we should look at a number like 12 percent, which was given long, long ago, and assume that that is static, that we have to stay with the given number. That was what the member seemed to be indicating.
We all know, I think, that there are so many challenges and stresses on our land base now — with climate change, with drought, with the beetle kills that we've experienced — that the whole dynamic of these ecosystems is shifting before our eyes. We have to be alive to those realities and those possibilities and respond accordingly.
I think the problem, as the member for Victoria–Swan Lake brought up, is the issue of funding. Of course, we've spoken to the government about this at length over the years.
I just noticed one note here from an FOI release that kind of drives it home. In talking about the use of vehicles, it says: "When the vehicles run out of gas, park the vehicle in the yard — can't cover towing; please be aware." I'm not exactly sure how you do that. You drive around doing your duties with one eye on the gas tank, making sure that when you run out of fuel, you're in the yard. I mean, it's ludicrous, of course, but it just speaks volumes to how difficult it is for the ministry staff, who've been decimated so badly by this government, to function.
The words of the Premier that were brought up in this House previously are very appropriate. You know, it's great to have parks. I support this bill of these parks. But unless we have people out there that can maintain the parks…. I know at Golden Ears we've had tons of complaints. I've seen the stuff, the deterioration, that's happened there. Yes, it costs money, but I think it's not only great for recreation to keep our parks in shape, but it's good for the economy and it's good for tourism. I mean, we brag, rightfully so, about the great outdoor opportunities there are in British Columbia.
I think and I'm hopeful that in the coming months and in the years ahead we will see an improvement in that situation, whoever ends up being the government, because I think we can't continue to go down the road we've been going.
With those comments, I'll take my place.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.
Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to all members who took the time to enter into the debate on this bill to add to the protected areas of British Columbia. I would just like to take the opportunity to respond to some of the comments that we've heard here this afternoon.
First of all, to hear the members opposite, one would think that the B.C. Parks system is, instead of being one of the premiere park systems in all of the world…. To listen to the members opposite, as a British Columbian, one would be surprised, I guess, to find that we have an 82 percent satisfaction rating in our parks in B.C.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
In fact, the attendance in 2004-2005 was 18 million visitors. In this past season, 2011-12, the attendance was 19.3 million, an increase of 7 percent. The attendance in our parks is increasing. The satisfaction rate is going up. In fact, the capital budget for parks has increased — a 27 percent increase in capital in the last fiscal year, including $600,000 to Rathtrevor Beach, $700,000 to the Liard Hot Springs, $150,000 to Wells Gray in my own riding of Kamloops–North Thompson, $150,000 to Goldstream for a multi-year project to refurbish campgrounds and $420,000 for Cultus Lake for a campground expansion and new accessible picnic tables and renovations to toilet and shower facilities.
We are, in fact, investing in our parks in British Columbia. The members opposite mentioned the Office of the Auditor General and the report they did on biodiversity. They didn't mention this, but of the seven recommendations in that Auditor General's report…. B.C. Parks has responded, and commitments as outlined in the ministry's response have been fully or almost substantially completed on those seven recommendations.
Now, the government side has a very big tent, as we've seen today. We represent a broad view, broad views of British Columbians. But in fact, when the member for Nechako Lakes expressed some concern about the amount of land that was being added to the parks and protected areas — we are well over the United Nations recommendation of 12 percent — he expresses some concern because of his experience during the 1990s when land use planning under the then NDP government was highly politicized.
In 1993 the NDP government unilaterally established the Tatshenshini-Alsek Park after a mining company had already invested $50 million. Now, what happened with that? Because of poor planning and politicized land use planning, that cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $100 million. Then when they wanted to create new protected areas, MacMillan Bloedel's timber rights were infringed upon. How much did that cost taxpayers? Some $200 million.
We won't take lessons from the NDP on how to do land use planning in British Columbia. These protected areas were agreed to with negotiations with First Nations and with consensus-based decision-making with communities, and we intend to acknowledge and to fulfil these commitments that we have made to those communities. In the case of the member for Nechako Lakes, as he had mentioned, the forestry values in these conservancies are not high value.
First Nations understand that we derive our economic
[ Page 12885 ]
base here in British Columbia from our resources, and it's the responsible development of those resources that provides the economic opportunity for all the people in the Lower Mainland, all of the people in the capital regional district.
Sometimes people who live in cities do not make that connection between responsible development of our sustainable resources here in British Columbia and the wealth that flows into cities.
I'm very happy that the members opposite are going to be supporting this bill. With that, I move second reading.
Second reading of Bill 5 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Hon. T. Lake: I move we move the bill to the committee stage at the next sitting of the House — the next opportunity after today.
Bill 5, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013, 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 moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada